I don't think the distinction between infinity and "really really big" is fatal to dan's point
-
-
I don't have a definitive answer. I think digging into the problem requires a heavy lift to cut away the language framing and not just being playing talking-monkey word games while circling the drain as our meaning flushes away.
-
I can see how that might come across as pessimistic w.r.t the knowability of truth about human cognition. I do think we can know things about that though but that we will not be able to justify our beliefs if we just shuffle the words around.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
the imaging studies are so primitive still :( and even if we had higher resolution we still don't have a good working model for neuronal activity and the contents of consciousness (let alone unconscious processes) my past life as a philosophy/cog-sci dual major still haunts me
-
Tweet unavailable
-
my second degree (the one I actually finished) is Computer Science, though by profession I'm just a webshit JSON pusher. the contrast between dry silicon computation and wet meat cognition is endlessly fascinating
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.