3 ms·

I entirely agree. I wasn't making a statement that "what we know is discrete". I was referring to a particular subset of cognition as "what [i.e. the things th

I entirely agree. I wasn't making a statement that "what we know is discrete". I was referring to a particular subset of cognition as "what [i.e. the things that] we know are discrete". There are aspects of cognition that are discrete: a language contains a finite set of phonemes and words, a human mind is capable of (painfully slowly) carrying out purely symbolic algorithms like those a computer performs, etc. My point was that these things are a small subset of cognition, and most of cognition we have no particular reason to think depends on discreteness, which I think is the same point you're making. Personally I strongly suspect that the "discrete" aspects of cognition are things that have evolved on top of / within a system that is fundamentally continuous (analogue) in nature.

hnfong 3y ago
> My point was that these things are a small subset of cognition, and most of cognition we have no particular reason to think depends on discreteness, which I think is the same point you're making. How do you convince yourself that you have thoughts that cannot be accurately written down no matter how many words you use? > Personally I strongly suspect that the "discrete" aspects of cognition are things that have evolved on top of / within a system that is fundamentally continuous (analogue) in nature. How do you tell whether things are really fundamentally continuous, or a really high definition pixel art?
- omnicognate 3y ago
  I can't. That's why said "I personally strongly suspect" rather than presenting my partially-informed intuitions as facts.