Are we each alone?

@A Lyn Fei,

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I am not confused. Actually this is quite making my point stronger. You don't know what I'm talking about and it is because we are quite literally speaking a different language. My experiences have shaped my words a certain way and it's the same for you. This means that we are separated by many degrees of understanding and that separation begins solely because my consciousness cannot exist outside of my own mind.

If what you say were true, there would never be understanding between people. But there is understanding between people, so what you say is false.

We are speaking the same language, by the way.

1 Reply

Does it really matter if we are each alone or if are capable of being connected?

Let me explain. It is true that we interpret the social world individually, no matter what. Frames and their intensity will differ, but in the end, it is in our individual minds where the reality comes to be formed. Thus, even a relationship with a close being is an individual experience. And my sense of togetherness may be very different than the other person's sense of togetherness. Everything is constructed, blah blah blah. So, from a rational perspective, we are truly alone from cradle to grave.

On the other hand, our reality is constructed not only of reason, but of perceptions and feelings. And we perceive them as equally real and often with more intensity and more instinctively than facts and reason (constructivists would barf). So if we feel connectedness, I say screw reason, go with the feeling. After all, we have one life to live and might as well enjoy it, too.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

But what I'm saying is that there is not understanding between people. This conversation is proof of that. Our ideas are always different from one another's. And yes, we are both speaking English. But my brain has a different interpretation for every single word than yours does. I say "fact" and there is a series of electric impulses in my brain which trigger different memories that put "fact" into a specific context for me. Very few of us have read the dictionary and use every word to its specifications. And even if we had, it would make no difference because every word in the dictionary is defined by words. If I say "sky" I see the view from my window in my mind. You see something else. And this is my point- we are alone in our minds because we have our own language.

1 Reply

@dagmaraka,

You see what I'm saying; I see what you are saying. I agree with you. Perhaps this poem will be nice for you to read, as well.

http://www.davidwhyte.com/english_everything.html

There is one thing I'd like to point out in your last paragraph. You say "screw reason, go with feeling" but it is reason that tells you to do such a thing. Otherwise, I actually agree with you and live life in such a way! Smile

A Lyn

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

ha. true that.

Love the poem, it speaks to my heart, it does.

0 Replies

@A Lyn Fei,

A Lyn Fei wrote:

But what I'm saying is that there is not understanding between people. This conversation is proof of that.

This conversation isn't proof of that. It is proof that there is understanding between people:

How do you explain me understanding your claim that there is no understanding between people, if there is in fact no understanding between people?

0 Replies

The connections people have are real and valuable, as is much of the understanding we do enjoy. I don't think that's the point here.

Physically, we're alone. We are in side our own heads; I can't read your mind nor you mine. We communicate as best we can, stumbling through murky words and iffy expressions. And while this can provide some sense of connection, you're still not "connected" - the way I take this discussion is a contrast between the "What if we could read each other's minds" as opposed to what we have now, given the state of human communication.

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

The connections people have are real and valuable, as is much of the understanding we do enjoy. I don't think that's the point here.

Physically, we're alone. We are in side our own heads; I can't read your mind nor you mine. We communicate as best we can, stumbling through murky words and iffy expressions. And while this can provide some sense of connection, you're still not "connected" - the way I take this discussion is a contrast between the "What if we could read each other's minds" as opposed to what we have now, given the state of human communication.

Well, although we are not connected in the sense that we share the same mind, we can still understand eachother. And the OP is explicitly stating that we cannot understand eachother. And that's false.

1 Reply

isolation and loneliness are real problems in today's world. I saw a very sad segment on the news the other night about people with no relatives who have died alone, in Japan. The Government provides a fund for their service, and staff at the crematorium provide a service for them. Very sad story.

I think the only way to overcome isolation is through compassion. It enables you to empathise with others and see things through their eyes. It is true we can't get inside another's head but through empathy, we share in another's life to some degree.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Khethil wrote:
The connections people have are real and valuable, as is much of the understanding we do enjoy. I don't think that's the point here.

Physically, we're alone. We are in side our own heads; I can't read your mind nor you mine. We communicate as best we can, stumbling through murky words and iffy expressions. And while this can provide some sense of connection, you're still not "connected" - the way I take this discussion is a contrast between the "What if we could read each other's minds" as opposed to what we have now, given the state of human communication.

Well, although we are not connected in the sense that we share the same mind, we can still understand eachother. And the OP is explicitly stating that we cannot understand eachother. And that's false.

Hmm,

It would be false to say we can't understand each other at all, but would it also be incorrect to say we fully understand each other?

You know how I feel about absolutist rhetoric; its pointless, having no applicability (especially) to the communication world. But I'd posit there's no thought, no idea I can hold in my head that can be communicated in its fullest essence via words and expressions; the connotations, subtle variations in relevance or personal import would require a nauseating amount of speech (or yards of paper top type) to come close. Yea, this is probably picking nits if we were to talk about "What color is your apple?" or "What's 1+1?". Even so, for much of what matters in communication (particularly emotionally loaded topics), the full message in the mind of the "sender" almost never gets transferred.

Yea, this is probably getting a bit deep into the weeds. I think the point is valid even though its relevance may be spurious (or even futile).

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

This is what I was saying: we cannot fully understand each other. If I stated that we could not understand each other at all, which I don't believe I did, then that was false. Every word we say is shaped by our experience, and no one understands that word in the same way as each other. I will concede that people who spend their lives together probably share many of the same memories and have a much better ability to communicate with one another than two people who have just met. People with similar backgrounds also are better at understanding one another. However, understanding does not yield connectivity. In the end, no matter how close one feels to another person, there is no guarantee that the person is who you think they are.
Perhaps you are right, Khethil, that the point may be futile, but I am inclined to disagree. I believe that individually understanding this isolation allows a great deal of comfort. As a child, I always lived as though someone were watching me, as though all of my actions mattered, but they simply don't. I can be alone and in my solace, I can be at peace. That is quite important to me, and one extremely good thing that comes from inescapable solitude.

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Perhaps you are right, Khethil, that the point may be futile, but I am inclined to disagree. I believe that individually understanding this isolation allows a great deal of comfort. As a child, I always lived as though someone were watching me, as though all of my actions mattered, but they simply don't. I can be alone and in my solace, I can be at peace. That is quite important to me, and one extremely good thing that comes from inescapable solitude.

Quite right; and yes, that solitude enabled by our "compartmentalized" is one up-side to this equation.

Its not futile to understand; to recognize, respect or account for this aloneness - fully concur. Nor is it without merit to reach out even moreso in respect to this realization.

Good points - thank you

0 Replies

Khethil wrote:

It would be false to say we can't understand each other at all, but would it also be incorrect to say we fully understand each other?

It would be incorrect sometimes. Sometimes we understand people fully, sometimes we do not. But we definitely have the capacity to understand each other fully.

Quote:

But I'd posit there's no thought, no idea I can hold in my head that can be communicated in its fullest essence via words and expressions

Well, I beg to differ. I think it's simpler than you think sometimes. If I say to a friend "Have a seat", and my friend sits down in the seat, I am quite sure that he understood me fully. I "communicated in its fullest essence via words" that my friend should have a seat.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Khethil wrote:

Quote:
But I'd posit there's no thought, no idea I can hold in my head that can be communicated in its fullest essence via words and expressions

Well, I beg to differ. I think it's simpler than you think sometimes. If I say to a friend "Have a seat", and my friend sits down in the seat, I am quite sure that he understood me fully. I "communicated in its fullest essence via words" that my friend should have a seat.

Good example.

Yes you did communicate it, but not the fullest essence of what was in your mind that prompted that communique.

You said, "Have a seat". You might have said "Sit down", yet they both would have taken a distinctly different tone. Even so, "Have a seat" might be loaded for him; are you sure he hasn't heard that phrase in another context that might trigger a slightly different intonation? Did you want him to sit there or are you just being polite? It goes on and on and on...

Yes, I'd concede that the basic message you intended (e.g., 'won't you sit down') was successfully communicated. But when I speak about the fullest essence of the thought in my head, it carries with it so many varied shades that without a brain-to-brain connection, such can't be fully transferred. This all drawn from the intent of this thread; talking about the inescapable non-connectedness that is a physical reality of our existence.

Hope this makes sense. Thanks Zeth

0 Replies

Khethil wrote:

Even so, "Have a seat" might be loaded for him; are you sure he hasn't heard that phrase in another context that might trigger a slightly different intonation? Did you want him to sit there or are you just being polite?

Sure, he might not have known what I meant. Heck, "Have a seat" could have been a metaphor in some situation. But that doesn't mean that often when we tell another to "Have a seat", they don't fully understand what we mean. They often do.

Quote:

Yes, I'd concede that the basic message you intended (e.g., 'won't you sit down') was successfully communicated. But when I speak about the fullest essence of the thought in my head, it carries with it so many varied shades that without a brain-to-brain connection, such can't be fully transferred

Most of the time when I say "Have a seat", I only mean it in that basic sense. People don't always have hidden implications when they say things. It is often the case that people are straightforward about what they mean. If a police officer tells you "Please step out of your vehicle", I don't think there's much room for interpretation, even though you could sit here and come up with wild scenarios. The fact of the matter is that sometimes what we mean is simple, and people fully understand what we mean.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

I think we're talking about two slightly different aspects of the same conversation. I'm not talking about your intended message only - nor anything hidden at all - but that collection of thoughts which prompted what you said, in its fullest expanse. It's very hard to put into words beyond what I've already said.

Good input - thanks

0 Replies

I think that Khethil is right here, from an absolute standpoint; no, one human thought can't exactly be fully communicated to another person, unless some type of psychokinesis is going on. Even my meaning behind something as straightforward and mundane as "take a seat" cannot be fully conveyed, though as Zetherin points out, for all practical purposes, the thing was basically communicated as it was intended to be.

This debate is kind of silly and is now reminding me of a similarly silly debate on that thread about time's existence.

But, I have pondered this issue before, and I think it is one of serious concern. The way I think about it is, we, each of us as individuals, are all on our own little "islands" of thought. Now, we are capable of sending very accurate signals to one another from our islands, and we are able to understand each other very well, but we can never actually visit somebody else's island. What exists there, to that individual, is solely for him/her and nobody else. This is the individual's mind, one unique perspective of thought, subject to the filter of language when put into words. And so the "hidden information" that lies behind our communications with others has to do with the setting/context of our own island and mind; this we can't communicate fully.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

I think that Khethil is right here, from an absolute standpoint; no, one human thought can't exactly be fully communicated to another person, unless some type of psychokinesis is going on. Even my meaning behind something as straightforward and mundane as "take a seat" cannot be fully conveyed, though as Zetherin points out, for all practical purposes, the thing was basically communicated as it was intended to be.

This debate is kind of silly and is now reminding me of a similarly silly debate on that thread about time's existence.

Yes, it's one of those "take a basic fact, reword it incorrectly so it sounds deep and amazing" threads...but the subject is interesting.

Quote:

But, I have pondered this issue before, and I think it is one of serious concern. The way I think about it is, we, each of us as individuals, are all on our own little "islands" of thought. Now, we are capable of sending very accurate signals to one another from our islands, and we are able to understand each other very well, but we can never actually visit somebody else's island. What exists there, to that individual, is solely for him/her and nobody else. This is the individual's mind, one unique perspective of thought, subject to the filter of language when put into words. And so the "hidden information" that lies behind our communications with others has to do with the setting/context of our own island and mind; this we can't communicate fully.

Why do you think you know more about what's going on in your own head than you do about what's going on in someone elses? That isn't always the case. People are often terrible at telling what is going on in their head. That it why we ask other people for advice. I know the basic sensations, and the words of my thoughts, which other people have to guess at. But I may not know exactly how I'm feeling or why I'm acting a certain way and someone observing me might.

I mean, there's a lot to say about the subject, but talking about how we are all alone and have no connectivity is wrong in a literal sense, and trivial in the way they are being used.

1 Reply

Pangloss wrote:

I think that Khethil is right here, from an absolute standpoint; no, one human thought can't exactly be fully communicated to another person, unless some type of psychokinesis is going on.

With all due respect, I think both of you are convoluting the matter. This "absolute sense" doesn't exist. It is part of a confusion I like to call the "absolute fallacy" - it is an error in reasoning when one believes that there is an absolute X, which, in some way, supersedes X, or makes X less real or true. We see this when people refer to things like "absolute knowledge" or "absolute morality". And, sometimes, we see "absolute" replaced by "really". Sometimes when people confuse themselves regarding perception, they say things like, "Well, since the brain has to transfer information to the mind, we don't really see things". Here we are seeing the error employed as such: "Well, we do understand each other on a certain level, but we do not absolutely, or really, understand each other".

It really is much simpler than you guys are making it out to be. Just as you can understand in the "fullest sense" the words you say, I too am able to understand in the "fullest sense" the words you say. You really ought to give yourselves more credit.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Wait, you are arguing that there is no absolute X, absolute standpoint, and yet you believe two people can absolutely understand one another?
In the "fullest sense" I don't even understand the words that I say. I understand a word until it is used in a different context which gives that word new meaning. Example: absolute. Every time I say something is absolutely X, I will think (or you should hope that I'll think) about what you have said about absolutes, even if it is on a subconscious level. Not that I agree with you about absolutes. In "reality" the way that I logically see it is that no meaning exists, no definitions or any of this nonsense. We create it, each in our own minds through our perception, and then we communicate it. There is plenty lost in translation.

1 Reply

Are we each alone?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know