4 ms·

And humans are not just a series of numbers?

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers. There's an assumption that consciousness is just a series of numbers, and some more or less credible philosophical arguments for/against this point of view. But believing there's more than that is faith-based, not empirical.
- naasking 7y ago
  > No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers. The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number. So unless you're going to suggest that the Bekenstein Bound has no empirical support, which would be a pretty wild claim, then yes, there is indeed empirical evidence that consciousness is just a number.
  - WoodenChair 7y ago
    > The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number. That would be "many numbers" not "a number." So many numbers that it's possible no digital machine can simulate it.
    - Tenoke 7y ago
      If human reasoning can fit in say a 2m^3 object, you can (in theory) always build a machine that encodes the information in 2m^3 or less.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - WoodenChair 7y ago
        But probably not a digital machine using today's form of digital technology.
    - naasking 7y ago
      > That would be "many numbers" not "a number." A distinction without a difference, honestly. Your computer conceptually has "many numbers", but its addressable storage is finite, and so is really just one big number. > So many numbers that it's possible no digital machine can simulate it. The very fact that the brain exists is proof that a machine of this size fully mimicking the brain's capabilities is feasible. Encoding information digitally is at best a constant factor difference from other numerical bases. And this is assuming a quantum-level reproduction, which very likely isn't necessary.
    - jandrewrogers 7y ago
      No, a set of "many numbers" trivially maps 1:1 to a single number with the same information content. Constructs like space-filling curves are a manifestations of this relationship. The property is occasionally exploited in algorithm designs in order to modify the number of elements in a set.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    We can't in principal encode it as a numeric copy; it's not measurable. Position or momentum. The mind isnt a closed system unless it's drawn as lightcurves.

No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers. There's an assumption that consciousness is just a series of numbers, and some more or less credible philosophical arguments for/against this point of view. But believing there's more than that is faith-based, not empirical.

naasking 7y ago
> No. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that consciousness is just a series of numbers. The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number. So unless you're going to suggest that the Bekenstein Bound has no empirical support, which would be a pretty wild claim, then yes, there is indeed empirical evidence that consciousness is just a number.
- WoodenChair 7y ago
  > The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number. That would be "many numbers" not "a number." So many numbers that it's possible no digital machine can simulate it.
  - Tenoke 7y ago
    If human reasoning can fit in say a 2m^3 object, you can (in theory) always build a machine that encodes the information in 2m^3 or less.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - WoodenChair 7y ago
      But probably not a digital machine using today's form of digital technology.
  - naasking 7y ago
    > That would be "many numbers" not "a number." A distinction without a difference, honestly. Your computer conceptually has "many numbers", but its addressable storage is finite, and so is really just one big number. > So many numbers that it's possible no digital machine can simulate it. The very fact that the brain exists is proof that a machine of this size fully mimicking the brain's capabilities is feasible. Encoding information digitally is at best a constant factor difference from other numerical bases. And this is assuming a quantum-level reproduction, which very likely isn't necessary.
  - jandrewrogers 7y ago
    No, a set of "many numbers" trivially maps 1:1 to a single number with the same information content. Constructs like space-filling curves are a manifestations of this relationship. The property is occasionally exploited in algorithm designs in order to modify the number of elements in a set.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  We can't in principal encode it as a numeric copy; it's not measurable. Position or momentum. The mind isnt a closed system unless it's drawn as lightcurves.