Path to enlightenment?

Hi Hemingway - please excuse the roundabout way to answer your question...

People get caught up in language a lot, and it's interlinked means. If you are familiar with how neurons interconnect to create associations / habits / motorskills / hearing-refinement etc, then you will understand that neurons also make these connections to form language. Our language is literally attached to 'something' in our brain.

That interconnections that turn word associations/connections into language forms a a structure (hence language does create structures in our brain). so you have for a word the following attachment :

object - connection - word

To form a sentence you need the following connection :

concept - attached structures & words - sentence. Concept can be seen to exist first because there are multiple ways to explain anything, and the 'best' structure must be chosen.

In other words, there is a level beneath language that we function at.

One of the things I suggest to people when they are studying language, is to study handwriting analysis - there are lots of books out there, and they are very enlightenning. People think that writing is conscious - it is very far from it, and that it what handwriting analysis looks at - the very significant porportion that is the subconscious aspects of handwriting.

If handwriting has such, then it stands to reason that spoken language too has such.

NLP also goes into great depth about how our brain forms associations, and uses those to enable people to repgrogram their mind. NLP also was the first to notice the correlation between eye movements and the part of their brain they are accessing. I go further and say you can see the part of the brain people are accessing in their head tilt, smile tilt, body guestures etc.

Body language speaks heaps - most pyschologists put it at somewhere between 60-90% of the true message, and yet people think it is the minor spoken language that we use to define us? And that the minor language is why 'self' exists?

I have other posts on how our language reflects what locations in our mind we are accessing. Basically there is a reason we describe things as
- the heights of passion, blew up in anger, on top of the world, the dizzy heights of fame
- the lowest of lows, the depths of despair, the bottomless well of love
- he sidestepped that question well, politicians being described as left or right wing, that came out of right/left field, you're right, you left that behind

These descriptions relate to the area of our mind we access when we are doing/experiencing these things.

Given these word associations and the reason for them, given the structures necessary for language - it is obvious that you should find words and structures that should give rise to many questions...and it would be easy to think that self is just a construct...but to me, that only arises if you remove language from from the connection/association with the 'thing' to which language, and the structure of language is attached. That thing isn't an object per se, but a memory/picture, or a concept, in your mind. Perhaps feelings come under the umbrella of concept, I haven't thought of that. But what I am saying is that people who think self is language, haven't looked at the associative concept - self is not language - it is a concept. It's accuracy is irrelevant in terms of the association (that accuracy only has meaning when you try to use it) - it is purely a concept (in my explanation) of the being and it's associated instincts / memories / feelings / constructs / receptiveness / awareness / consciousness.

From that point of view, self easily exists...in whatever shape or form you wish it to. It's definition is not particularly relevant, until you also want to assign/attach meaning to it.

And 'self' exists on deeper levels than language - all humans experience the fight/flight/freeze reaction to danger, and many have different reactions to the same event (same with animals). Even linguists must admit that we have an instinctual side to us - and that instinctual side, while bearing many similarities, is not identical in all humans.

half way through Vik...objects still are language even when they rebuild language like is the case of neurons and axons...language is just reprocessing and rearrangement of info...its an infinite chain...language which are objects which are more language which amount to more small bits as objects which again are themselves constituted by another language or arrangement of info...eventually if you are lucky to get a circular pattern you finally get to have one holistic "object"...

May I rephrase your thinking by saying words represent objects? Or even more accurately, words trigger representations of objects in our minds?

The object itself exists (if you are referring directly to an object, rather than a generalisations about a non specific group of objects eg apples, rather than 'that apple'). What forms in our brains thereafter likely differs, even if we think it accurate...but that's not the point of having a word associated to an object.

Congratulations to all on a good quality thread !

i think you are refering to a priori knowledge, which is the concept that you identify. it is never the 'same' because it is the generic of the object in question, that allows us to distinguish between two of the same type of object e.g if you think about a car, you build u all the possible characteristics that a car has, that you have experienced, and lumps them into one. that is why you cannot 'visualise' a specific piece of knowledge because of all the incarnations it can take.

this is what they are trying to teach ASIMO, the honda robot, it can actually look at the properties of a chair and can distinguish the difference between a stool and a chair, but realise's that they do the same job.

would love to write more, but im late for work

"Objects" are nothing but "language" or assembled code if you want...all is language...the "objects" you have in the real world are no different from the "objects" you can find in a video game, they are code...that was what was meant Vik...

That is a perspective/structure/concept, used to explain the mind - it is not a 'reality'. Yes, in terms of individual understanding of their surrounds and language, the 'object' is encoded...that doesn't remove the object from existance.

A object that we call a rock will still exist without a name. Let's again take an animal that can't indulge in linguistics and put a 'rock' in it's path - it moves out of the path of the 'rock'. The species with linguistic abilities will also move around a big enough rock, though they may name it 'boulder' or 'mountain'. People get wrapped up in the name 'being' the object - it's not - it's just a name. And the same object has thousands of different names in the thousands of different languages on this planet - so the name is not the object.

Of course even the concept of 'object' is linguistically based - but in this case it's a necessary medium to communicate the idea of a 'thing' and it's associated name.

common Vik...of course the name is not the object...language reports to a number of functions in interaction as much in a sentence as in the world, thats code in interaction...have you actually heard several physicists posit the fair possibility that we are living in a simulated universe ? Do you know and fully understand how lines of code establish functions in a video game or how objects are designed to operate in there ?
I have the impression that your concept of language is not yet fully developed...
things like being "solid" can actually be programmed in a video game...for instance establishing that an Avatar Y cannot cross grid X which is a wall in the game...the same can be done reporting to all 5 senses that humans have...matter does n´t have to be "material"..can you understand why ? Material is itself a function of a set of rules inter relating, and that´s language...(the same could be said or imagined upon the 4 forces that rule our Universe)(mind that I am not positing a programmer, only the program as a whole in itself, the program evolves itself over time, no creator is needed)

Hi Fil - that's fine...I was wondering if you were going down the Matrix path, but just had to be sure (so I answered as if you had not).

Of course if we are in the matrix, we can never leave it (just like an avatar in an MMORPG can never leave that game). What then would be the point of wondering if we are in the matrix? It could never be proven or disproven...though I daresay the programming for such is rather impossible.

Perhaps we're all just figments of God's imagination...but then who made God, and what does he consist of? Maybe he's just a figment of some larger beings imagination? And that Being is just a figment of an even large beings imagination...and so on...

Hi Vik !
We don´t need God for this...it is just an infinite loop of layers of code...information that builds language through patterns and rules who then builds/results in "objects"/systems of functions, who again in a higher level bring up more "language" interaction in those objects interactions to build yet bigger conceptual layers of software and "language", and in it yet more layers of say "meta objects"...

It all is/comes down to a pattern Machine unfolding forever...the purpose is not to evade it...there is no outside of it...the purpose is only to envision what words as "language" and "function" actually point to...enlightenment !

Unless of course the whole premise of language and function leading to enlightenment ends up being wrong, or only partly right

As it turned out the laws of physics weren't as all encompassing as everyone thought (ie. the discovery of Quantum Physics)

Btw, the point of mentioning God in that way was 'we could be encoded in God's brain...who is encoded in a bigger God's brain...who is actually encoded in an even bigger God's brain...and so on.

Thought you might have picked up on that :>

It may well be the case but to my standing point I honestly can´t imagine or see where such simplicity can be wrong...it is the smoother of possible imaginable systems one can think of...everything drops out...it all comes to just be software and rules in relation...you are only left with interactions functions patterns and forms of language, (languages)...in such view concepts like "matter" and the like become poor descriptions of what is actually going on...

...yes I though in admitting "demi gods" like entity´s, huge, extremely large highly organized strings of code which are themselves conscious systems of systems, super systems... But true GOD, God all mighty, is just a very dead very abstract frivolous mathematical machine...better to drop the concept...
(its a damn "THING" not God as we candidly imagined it)

Ummm...well, it would remove the need for one to think...that's for sure

Please clarify!...maybe you just meant over complicate...

in answer to both of you, i have found that every possible answer is neither correct or incorrect, only cominations of more or to a lesser extent. however, then introduction of God into the equation i think is silly, considering we are part of 'god's' imagination is not really a valid point ' i think therefore i am' i think we have all heard that one before, and this is the ONLY piece of information that is 100% correct that has been discovered in our history( everything else can be doubted), even geometry has failed at that hurdle, however, neither school of geometry is wrong.

the term enlightenment is being taken too literally in this argument (i believe), no one answer is 'the' answer, the answer is encompassing of every conceivable thing, and i can see how language would have a part to play in the role of enlightenment, however, it is far from the complete answer. what else could be contained within the answer?

even to answer that, we would need a specific question, which is just as hard.

Hemmingway - I'm not sure you picked it up - but I introduced God into the equations as a silliness, to make a point (the use of a God wasn't a serious concept in itself)

Ummm...in a 'simulated universe' you need a creator to initiate the simulation. If you wish to view it as a self evolving simulation after that, fine, but a simulation is not 'reality' - simulations are by definition created to mimic reality. And if it's a simulation...what is it simulating, and how would you tell the difference between the actual subject and the simulated subject (in terms of actual awareness)?

If it's all just pre programmed rules (even if those rules are 'evolving' they would do so too slow to make any difference to our specific lives being 'preprogrammed'), leaving you with interactions functions patterns and forms of language...what need is there to contemplate? Your life is already preprogrammed, so you are incapable of doing other than your programming.

If it's simple...what need is there to contemplate?


So let's say you think it's an evolutionary code, but so complex (you did say it was simple) that we can never in a lifetime work it oute...wouldn't that make whether or not it's all just a code irrelevant? And being so complex that it could never be decoded would reduce to just theory and conjecture the fact of whether or not a rock is just code (ie. pointless).

Of course we do know that if a big enough piece of code (like a rock) falls on you - it ends your code.

As a personal perspective, I don't find this theory of any practical use or application. Even it's contemplation, apart from a small bit of mental stimulation, seems...pointless.

1 - Lets see if we can clarify some stuff in here...the "simulation" reports the point of view of some physicists upon what our reality can be about...the point actually being that "reality" is made of language and code and not "matter" as you perceive it which comes as an illusion "albeit a persistent one"...if it is the case of being a "simulation" of an outer reality or simply a game of code in itself that is behind the point being made here...As I see it actual Reality it is just information in relative reciprocate layer relation from where meaning and function are build in local system context...

2 - Enlightenment is not about an all is well kind of self serving Christian or Buddhist fantasy...enlightenment is about a new more clarified perception of understanding the world in which you actually live independently of the appeal and coolness that one believes it should have...what you think is practical or not on that regard is frankly behind the point and comes as an ultimately subjective judgement to where I stand...

Above in two occasions it should read beyond not behind...my apologies.

To further clarify once some words were missing the correct meant form was :

2 - Enlightenment is not about an all is well kind of self serving Christian or Buddhist fantasy...enlightenment is about a new more clarified perception on understanding the world in which you actually live independently of the appeal and coolness that one believes any theory should have...what you think is practical or not on that regard is frankly beyond the point and to where I stand comes as an ultimately subjective judgement...

I must ad that the mentioned simplicity concerns not how coded patterns unfold or diversify through evolution in which complexity it is obviously accumulated over aeons, it concerns instead the rules by which such process proceeds in information, being information a pure clean abstract form unlike matter and such like mundane definitions...I was expecting that you get that from the first time, but I can´t really blame you since aside my poor English spelling and writing now I am also "eating" words while on the process of explaining what I think...