That was an example of condescension, btw, since you obviously can’t tell the difference between a personal attack & recognizing biological limitations.
-
-
Replying to @gifts_of_fire @kymberlylouise_ and
I apologize that I didn't recognize your biological limitations.pic.twitter.com/VUBvbboy0U
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tangerine_gl @kymberlylouise_ and
Meanwhile I’m sorry you switched to the wrong answer, due to a bandwagon
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gifts_of_fire @kymberlylouise_ and
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision." Bertrand Russell
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @tangerine_gl @kymberlylouise_ and
Is that what you think of yourself? Heh. How about this for certainty and logic: There’s only a finite time that we’re alive and able to think. Even if every thought was different (since you’re never in the same state), you’d still only be able to think of a finite # of thoughts
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @djnavarro @gifts_of_fire and
It's what I was thinking. It might be finite only if we consider time. If we discard this limitation - be it the lifespan, or the time needed to think a thought I would say infinite. If we assume there is an infinite number of "things to think" - numbers, sequences etc. /1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tangerine_gl @djnavarro and
Then one could argue that there are numbers that are uncountable, or sequences impossible to compute considering the structure of the brain. However since the set is infinite, I understand that the subsets of unthinkable and thinkable things are also infinite./2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tangerine_gl @djnavarro and
DrTangerine 🌈 🌈 🌈 Retweeted 𝔹𝕠𝕓 ℂ𝕠𝕩
So imo - depending on parameters/assumptions it will be either finite (time), infinite, or so close to infinity that we cannot distinguish it. I really like the subthread below as well. https://twitter.com/AFNIman/status/1065587655252029440?s=19 … /3end
DrTangerine 🌈 🌈 🌈 added,
𝔹𝕠𝕓 ℂ𝕠𝕩 @AFNImanReplying to @IrisVanRooijMathematician here. Brain has finite number of atoms. In the finite lifetime of the universe can only be rearranged into finitely many sequences of states. So only a finite number of thoughts. But a very very very large finite number. (We’re picky about “infinite”.)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh, dear. He doesn't believe in levels of analysis if he's mentioning atoms. 
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @djnavarro and
It's nonetheless interesting to see how people from other, non-neuroscientific background, approach the question :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tangerine_gl @djnavarro and
I think that was Iris' son's point, for sure.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.