If the brain was a philosophical aviary then that argument would hold for any number of birds. But the brain is a biological organ with cells that die and are replaced by new cells each day. Analogously, as if new birds were placed in the aviary each day. It's a miracle we remember anything.

There are only a finite number of birds possible.

I don't know whether there are an infinite number of thoughts. I don't know where to begin thinking about an infinite number of thoughts.

The brain contains about 100 billion neurons. Connective tissue doesn't count. If a thought requires combinations of neurons, then there are more combinations possible among one's neurons than there are atoms in the universe. So I have heard, anyway. Since many of the thoughts that people have now and have had in the past are and were unexpressed or expressed and lost to time, it would appear that you have an excellent chance of producing and/or coming across thoughts which you have never encountered before. Ditto for everybody else.

Enjoy.

But the brain is a biological organ with cells that die and are replaced by new cells each day. — magritte

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but dead brain cells are generally not replaced. So, Magritte, if you drink yourself into oblivion tonight, you may lose a few thousand neurons to alcohol poisoning, They won't be back.

It's a miracle we remember anything — magritte

Well, our days are full of slop that isn't worth remembering anyway, so there's that. The upside of that is that since our brain neurons last a lifetime, the vast majority of them are on the job for life.

That said, there is also the fact of neuroplasticity. The operation of the brain changes over time from before birth to the grave. Learning requires physical changes in connections between neurons. If one part of the brain is destroyed by accident or disease, other parts of the brain MIGHT be able to pick up that function; not overnight, but in time. For instance, if you lose vision in both eyes, the visual cortex can acquire the task of interpreting Braille from your fingers. People have lost an entire hemisphere, and eventually the remaining hemisphere adapted.

There are pieces of the brain that must be intact for us to function, even live. Tiny areas in the brain stem control critical, essential functions like respiration, heart beat, and so on.

Henry Gustav Molaison is one of the most important and studied human research subjects of all time. He revolutionized what we know about memory today because of the amnesia he developed after a lobotomy in 1953 to treat the severe epilepsy he developed after a head injury sustained earlier in life.

Molaison lost the ability to transfer new short-term memories to long-term memory. New memories ceased after the surgery, but the pre-surgical memories remained intact. He couldn't live independently, but his personality and cognitive functions were pretty much intact. He worked with one researcher for 50 years, but each day she had to introduce herself to him as a new person.

He could hold instructions in short-term memory and carry out learning tasks, but none of that endured longer than a couple of hours or so.

I don't know whether there are an infinite number of thoughts.

There are infinitely many possible thoughts, since there are infinitely many numbers, and each number can be thought of (or is that true? Are there some numbers we can't imagine?)

I don't know where to begin thinking about an infinite number of thoughts.

My argument doesn't require that. It just requires there to be an infinite number of possible thoughts, because, if materialism is true, there are only a finite number of possible thoughts.

if materialism is true, there are only a finite number of possible thoughts — RogueAI

I'm OK with there being a finite number of possible thoughts, given that the finite number of possible thoughts is really very hugely huge. Unless you can actually count all the grains of sand in the world (a very hugely huge finite number) or all the variations possible for snow flakes (no two are alike, supposedly) then the world is not impoverished by a finite number of sand grains or snow flakes. Or possible thoughts.

And it isn't enriched by an infinite number of possible thoughts, sand grains, or snow flakes. Just one of my extremely finite opinions, of course.

Well, our days are full of slop that isn't worth remembering anyway, so there's that. The upside of that is that since our brain neurons last a lifetime, the vast majority of them are on the job for life. — Bitter Crank

Since you seem to agree with the aviary model for long-term memory with very old birds sitting on their perches, you will need a positive explanation not only for the loose haystack memories but also for forgetting over time, and for the methods of associative recall. Not that I have any of these, but it becomes an issue eventually when we want organized or creative thought.

If there is awareness outside the body, without any concomitant brain activity - and it is increasingly difficult to deny that it exists - and if, on the other hand, there are innumerable states of consciousness that are inconceivable without body and brain, then it is necessary to conclude that the brain does not create the possibility of consciousness but limits, frames and determines its exercise within the conditions of terrestrial space-time. Having a body is a modality of consciousness.

I'm OK with there being a finite number of possible thoughts, given that the finite number of possible thoughts is really very hugely huge. Unless you can actually count all the grains of sand in the world (a very hugely huge finite number) or all the variations possible for snow flakes (no two are alike, supposedly) then the world is not impoverished by a finite number of sand grains or snow flakes. Or possible thoughts.

And it isn't enriched by an infinite number of possible thoughts, sand grains, or snow flakes. Just one of my extremely finite opinions, of course.

That's not my point, though. My point is it seems like there are an infinite number of possible thoughts to we can think of, and that's not possible, given materialism. So either materialism is wrong, or there aren't an infinite number of things we can think of.

Maybe the same brain state can correspond to more than one thought.

For any brain-sized region of space, there are only a finite amount of configurations of matter possible. That means there is a finite amount of possible brain states, which would entail a finite amount of possible thoughts. However, math is infinite, and any number can be conceived, so there are an infinite number of possible thoughts. is this a problem for reductionism?

Though I do not think the mind is a brain, I do think “the infinite use of finite means” could provide a way to avoid your problem. Just as a finite number of letters could conceivably be used to create an infinite number of sentences, a finite number of “brain states” could produce an infinite number of thoughts.

Just as a finite number of letters could conceivably be used to create an infinite number of sentences — NOS4A2

But for the majority of cases the mind uses a different model more like pictograms, rather than letters and rules of grammar for the minority of rational thought.

My point is it seems like there are an infinite number of possible thoughts to we can think of, and that's not possible, given materialism. — RogueAI

How important to you is materialism's rightness or wrongness? How important the number of possible thoughts?

We "hold stock" in various theologies, philosophies, theories, experiences, etc. Our "portfolio" is how we interpret the world.

Settle on what works best for you. From my own experience, "settling" can be a very fraught problem, loaded with conflicts, especially when there may not be a "final answer" possible.

Though I do not think the mind is a brain, I do think “the infinite use of finite means” could provide a way to avoid your problem. Just as a finite number of letters could conceivably be used to create an infinite number of sentences, a finite number of “brain states” could produce an infinite number of thoughts.

No, because the brain is finite in size. It can only be configured X many unique ways. If you had a brain that was thinking different thoughts for an infinite amount of time, you would have an infinite amount of thoughts. It would seem that a working brain at any point in time has an infinite number of possible thoughts it can think of, but that contradicts materialism, which says there's only a finite amount of possible thoughts that can be thought of.

Are some numbers unthinkable?

Just as a finite number of letters could conceivably be used to create an infinite number of sentences — NOS4A2

Are we sure about that? It seems like a finite set of letters could only produce a finite set of rearrangements (words, sentences). The number might be astronomically large, but still finite.

My understanding is quite finite, so...

The words and sentences get longer and longer. But you don't need to be able to think of an infinitely long number for this to be a problem for materialism. You just need the existence of X+1 amount of possible thoughts, where X is the number of brain states possible at any given time.

The possible numbers are infinite, however, no mind could actually think of numbers that are so complicated (a specific google long number rather than 10 to the google, say) it would take longer than a lifetime think out. But the primary problem with your argument is that unless there are infinite numbers of brains then you will have a finite number of thoughts of numbers. Yes, perhaps they COULD think of one of an infinite set of numbers, but they won't get passed a finite number.

That means there is a finite amount of possible brain states, which would entail a finite amount of possible thoughts. However, math is infinite, and any number can be conceived, so there are an infinite number of possible thoughts — RogueAI

Every possible thought must be thought at some point in time (otherwise would not be a possible one). This would require that things that think and that are able to count exist forever and ever (since there are an infinite number of possible thoughts). I don't think that things that think and can count will exist forever nor do I think that a thing that thinks and counts will be able to conceive an infinitely large number.

Note: I just read Coben's comment and it says basically the same. Anyways... that numbers are infinite does not mean that every number can be thought, I think.

any number can be conceived — RogueAI

Can it?

delete

That means there is a finite amount of possible brain states, which would entail a finite amount of possible thoughts. However, math is infinite, and any number can be conceived, so there are an infinite number of possible thoughts. is this a problem for reductionism? — RogueAI

Reductionism meaning.. if a thing can be simplified, it should? In a way with there being only 10 true digits repeated or otherwise in an 'infinite' number of configurations, I would say it's not quite the same as 'an infinite number of thoughts' simply more of a pattern/holding place that again is really never more complicated than each of the 10 true digits it's made out of.

Firstly, relevant here is the notion of a completed infinity. The infinite possible thoughts must all at once be held in consciousness i.e. we've to be aware of all of them at the same time. Only then would there be a difficulty with finite physical systems like brains - these presumably being incapable of managing such a feat. Thinking one or a couple of thoughts at a time isn't going to undermine physicalism even if there are infinite thoughts.

The second, more important (in my opinion), issue is that even in a immaterial setting, infinity is still problematic. By definition, infinity can't be completed and this property stands intact even if the mind is non-physical or immaterial. Infinite thoughts - to hold them all at once in our conscsiousness - isn't possible even if the mind were immaterial.

Don't know about you but I have a hard time conceiving of 4569083745096837450968346098734506938450986735096830976324560987245069274648734650837464893715039487569837456928374659283745602378465928374569823746598317456289374659837456928374659283745692837456983745620938476. I could learn to recite this from long term memory, but not think of it as a whole the same way I think of two.

I think you need to more sharply define what you mean by "every number can be thought of"

For any brain-sized region of space, there are only a finite amount of configurations of matter possible. That means there is a finite amount of possible brain states, which would entail a finite amount of possible thoughts. However, math is infinite, and any number can be conceived, so there are an infinite number of possible thoughts. is this a problem for reductionism? — RogueAI

No, because we don't conceive of numbers in this way. We don't have a concept of 143,672ness. We can relate 143,672 to 143,671 by comparing six symbols each one of an ordered set (the decimal base) and noting that all are the same but the last, and that the last digit of the former is later in the set than that of the latter.

When we consider numbers like 9,479,284,479,946,424,742,057,043,748,258,831,164,859,380,423,470,964,125,667,852,865,110,732,989,169,568,826,863,358,101,582 we can't even do that. It's just "a very big number". We can break it down, but at no point are we considering 9,479,284,479,946,424,742,057,043,748,258,831,164,859,380,423,470,964,125,667,852,865,110,732,989,169,568,826,863,358,101,582ness.

No, because we don't conceive of numbers in this way. We don't have a concept of 143,672ness. We can relate 143,672 to 143,671 by comparing six symbols each one of an ordered set (the decimal base) and noting that all are the same but the last, and that the last digit of the former is later in the set than that of the latter.

When we consider numbers like 9,479,284,479,946,424,742,057,043,748,258,831,164,859,380,423,470,964,125,667,852,865,110,732,989,169,568,826,863,358,101,582 we can't even do that. It's just "a very big number". We can break it down, but at no point are we considering 9,479,284,479,946,424,742,057,043,748,258,831,164,859,380,423,470,964,125,667,852,865,110,732,989,169,568,826,863,358,101,582ness.

I'm going to push back on this. I agree that for any absurdly long number, it's hard to imagine how we can hold it in our minds, and yet, for any number, I can add 1 to it and figure out what the answer is. How am I able to do that if the number is so large I can't properly think of it?

I'm going to push back on this. I agree that for any absurdly long number, it's hard to imagine how we can hold it in our minds, and yet, for any number, I can add 1 to it and figure out what the answer is. How am I able to do that if the number is so large I can't properly think of it? — RogueAI

Because manipulating the final symbol according to a small set of rules learned in childhood is trivial and does not require comprehension of the entire number. As I already said:

We don't have a concept of 143,672ness. We can relate 143,672 to 143,671 by comparing six symbols each one of an ordered set (the decimal base) and noting that all are the same but the last, and that the last digit of the former is later in the set than that of the latter. — Kenosha Kid

"Because manipulating the final symbol according to a small set of rules learned in childhood is trivial and does not require comprehension of the entire number."

That's true. But your position entails that for any number over 143,672, when we do math we're not really understanding anything, we're just playing a rules game. That doesn't seem right. Do you believe that?

That's true. But your position entails that for any number over 143,672, when we do math we're not really understanding anything, we're just playing a rules game. That doesn't seem right. Do you believe that? — RogueAI

That's exactly right, bar the specificity of that limit. We don't have distinct ideas of large numbers. It is only through a comparison of their symbols we can discern that N+1 > N for large N.

That's a pretty cynical view, Kenosha. I'm not sure I buy it. I think I have a pretty good concept of, say, a million. Although, to your point, I have no conception of what 2 to the millionth power is, except it's really big. Even if you wrote it out, it's just "really big". So I grant you that some numbers are "unthinkable" (and what does the existence of unthinkable numbers entail?)

But if math is just a rules game, how did we come up with innovations like imaginary numbers, which have real-world applications? Doesn't that require understanding of math on a conceptual level, rather than something that's just rules-based?

That's a pretty cynical view, Kenosha. I'm not sure I buy it. I think I have a pretty good concept of, say, a million. — RogueAI

By any means demonstrate it. I'm not sure how you'd go about that. Can you conjure an image to mind of a million pencils that is, to you, distinct from an image of a million and one pencils?

So I grant you that some numbers are "unthinkable" (and what does the existence of unthinkable numbers entail?) — RogueAI

Essentially my point. Since we cannot have an idea of them, they pose no problem for finite brains.

But if math is just a rules game, how did we come up with innovations like imaginary numbers, which have real-world applications? Doesn't that require understanding of math on a conceptual level, rather than something that's just rules-based? — RogueAI

We don't really have an idea of i though. It's about as abstract a thing as anyone has ever conceived, but it obeys rules in the same way that unimaginably large numbers obey rules, so we can still use it. My concept of i is simply the number that, multiplied by itself, is -1, i.e. I know the rules.

Good discussion!