Printable View
Assume for a moment that the thinking mind and the percieving consciousness are separate entities, and that the consciousness percieves the thoughts of the mind, rather than being part of the mind exercising the thoughts.
Given this, would the meaning of words derive from an interpretation of the mind, or an innate sense of meaning in the consciousness itself?
My conception of what you're describing is what I believe and what Jung and many others describe as our representative plate of concioussness, the ego.
I have known times in my meditation and my drug use when my brain transcends words and reaches pure perception and reaction, thus eliminating the ego for a brief period. We all accumulate those symbols over time and we emerge buried by them. Sucks. I could personally do without it.
Have any of us really testified to experiencing non-interpreted perception? Meaning, I feel, is from the mind itself. Consciousness is readily applicable to any meaning, I guess. I've meditated on this stuff tons, probably because I had little else to do...I wish we could communicate without words. They are so limited. There would be no conflict if words weren't used.
We can't rid ego. But we can experience and realize what it is like to have none. Ego is natural, it has a purpose in our lives. It's not bad in and of itself. Without ego, we're all just "being"....which probably sounds glorious from a metaphysical point of view, but we choose to have our active lives of duality ...thanks to those damn egos.
body takes infromation
sends it to the mind
which sends it to the consciousness
great question...
if we look at this from a quantum level, i.e., looking at one unit of consciousness, it might make the answer a little easier to come by. Now since quantum consciousness is probably not a very widely studied and maybe not accepted methodology, you may not agree with the method I put forward from my studies, so please I encourage you to study your consciousness and devise a system that makes sense to you. (note that most of this comes out my buddhist studies, where units of consciousness have been analyzed in great detail over the many years).
I think of consciousness as being awareness.. awareness of vision (eye consciousness), awareness of thought (mind or thought consciousness), etc for each of the 6 sensory organs... in other words, each has a perception and a corresponding awareness of that perception (i.e, consciousness).
Now thought might be a little tricker at first, so let me try to explain with visual perception by describing a unit of visual consciousness.
First something comes in contact with our eye, inducing an image in the brain...
Now, this image in our brain causes a differentiation of energy to visual consciousness (yes consciousness is energy). When this visual consciousness manifests, along with it a self manifests that will perceive the image.
Now, the consciousness and self being born, the image is received from the brain.
The self in the visual consciousness then scans through the memory in the brain and identifies the object. (identifies the perception).
According to this identification, a feeling can be perceived by the self in the visual consciousness.
Depending on the feeling, volition might be experienced by this self. Here is might gather more energy and divert energy to act.
The self then registers the event to the memory in the brain.
After this, the visual consciousness and self in it, leave the body and exists in association as a "thought force." Accumulation of these "thought forces" are what form our subconscious.
This is the end of the cycle... the body undergoes changes too during the cycle (movement of blood, energy, respiration etc), and at the end is replenished and ready for the next cycle.
We can maybe think of these cycles as units of life, because really thinking about it, life is an uninterrupted flow of these cycles.
We can repeat and map out a unit for any of the other sensory perceptions, including thought... So if we go back to the question, "would the meaning of words derive from an interpretation of the mind, or an innate sense of meaning in the consciousness itself?"
The meaning of the words come from the memory of the brain, which scanned by the self in the consciousness. The interpretation really comes from memory, which then causes feelings and actions in the self before the cycle ends.
On a larger scale, this stream of consciousness containing selves gives us the illusion of a permanent unchanging Self that resides in this body. This is further perpetuated because when one cycle ends and another begins, the image of the previous self is still present in memory, which the memory interprets and projects as an unchanging Self. (the reason it is still present might be because the nerve impulse lasts longer than the cycle does) And this is what we become, ourselves, an unchanging Self, but this Self we become is actually a memory projection.
If we break the illusion of our Self, and look at the flow of these units, we can conclude that we have no Self, and there is no-one in this body to perceive. There is only perception. And there is no thinker; only the thinking exists.
I'm not sure I really approached the question.
This is interesting, because from my view, there cannot be perception or reaction without a self. First comes contact, which brings awareness, which creates a self, which perceives, then identifies the perception, feels and then acts (or reacts), registers to memory, and then dies out and the next cycle begins.Quote:
Originally posted by Berserk_Exodus
I have known times in my meditation and my drug use when my brain transcends words and reaches pure perception and reaction, thus eliminating the ego for a brief period.
Now I find this interesting because many who meditate describe a feeling of a loss of self, meaning Self, or loss of ego. Loosing the illusion of Self, and gaining awareness of the self. i.e, not being the thinker created by the Self illusion, just being aware of the thinking that exists, or the perception that exists, etc...
I don't mean to sound confusing... Maybe I should have mentioned it earlier, but when I say Self with a capital S, I refer to what we think of as a permanent unchanging Self. And with self, I refer to the self that manifests and ceases manifestation with each conscious unit.
Assuming when you say mind you are talking about the brain and the physical processes.
Basically consiousness is the driving seat behind it all. And That is spirit.
All your physical brain or mind is doing is translating. Like when you speak into a phone.
The phone is not what is talking to you.It is not what speaks or thinks. It is the meduim.
You can have a shit phone line, or a good phone reception. Depending on genetics and vibration and quality of spirit that is present.
I like your description of it dream-scape, the only problem I find with it is that in this very moment I am experiencing multiple sensations at the same time(sight, thought, hearing, etc...) in the moment. You might try to explain that away as a later collection by the Self(capital S), but I have a trouble believing it when I am experiencing multiple sensations simultaneously. Also, if you divide it up based upon the particular sense, why not other distinctions like color, brightness, pitch, volume, heat, cold, etc...
This is a very interesting proposition nonetheless, you should start your own thread detailing it and it's implications(for an afterlife, etc...)
To clarify what I wrote before. The physical body is more like a complex computer or piece of technology that allows you to interface (?) With the rest of the physical world. Containing billions of atoms, and cells ect. With their own life. It is a universe in itself.
There are all these different levels of consiousness infused into people depending on what stage in the process they are at.
When consiousness evolves and gathers together in more complex arrangements, it goes through the different stages, like the mineral, plant, animal, and human kingdoms. Different physical forms are required to acomidate (sp) the different stages of that consiousness.
Yet the self overall is everything. Like dreamscape was saying. If one has not evolved to realize the consiousness of the self. One continues to have the other self (atleast in the human) as it's 'base' of perception until it grows to realize the real self. Then one becomes fully consious of itself and can enter into the god kingdom. And go from there again. And continue to evolve. That is another fukcing story that I am not explaining.
I doubt that Belisarius or others desire to discuss it further. The answer to this goes pretty deep. Now I've written that I can give you my shorter comment/ answer.
Are you talking about interpreting reality? Reality is not interpreted it is made. Nothing interprets anything. It's just consiousness evolving. If you are talking about your senses and perception. Your body and brain allows you to interpret in the way that it allows you to interact in the physical world. Consiousness is what allows you to exist. It does not depend on form. Form depends on consiousness. They are merged and work together so you can experience and exist. All form and energy is consiousness.
I have no idea what consiousness actually is at the deepest level. Whatever it is, it is that which is the base for everything.
The origional question was about the interpretation of language and the meaning of words, especially in thought.
Well on a relative level, a unit of consciousness is very very small... It has been speculated that the range is from 1 billionth of a second to 1/20th of a second. If the theory that our memory projects a Self because the self from the previous unit is still present, then a unit has to be shorter than a neuron impulse, which I think we know to be around 50 milliseconds.Quote:
Originally posted by Belisarius
I like your description of it dream-scape, the only problem I find with it is that in this very moment I am experiencing multiple sensations at the same time(sight, thought, hearing, etc...) in the moment. *You might try to explain that away as a later collection by the Self(capital S), but I have a trouble believing it when I am experiencing multiple sensations simultaneously.
Whatever the actual number is, certainly far more than one occurs every second. Seemingly we do experience multiple sensations simultaneously. However I am speaking on a quantum level, that is difficult to directly experience as individual units (though some advanced meditators claim that at times they experience a "flickering" sensation and can sometimes distinguish conscious units).
Also, each unit is not independent of each other. The occurrences during one unit will affect and shape the next unit. Also, the entire record of all previous units are available to all new units, because each unit makes a record which is stored within the memory and subconscious, held in the brain, not the consciousness. Each consciousness has access to the memory and can scan, read, and write to it, which directly answers your question: language is interpreted by the self in the consciousness according to what is located in your brain's memory. The self scans to identify and interpret the perceived object, in this case a word perceived by thought.
Well when you talk about color and brightness, that is an interpretation of an object the eye perceives... pitch and volume are interpretations of an object the ear perceives... heat and cold are interpretations of an object perceived by touch. They are not actually sensations, but are interpretations of objects perceived by a sensory organ, of which there are 6 basic sensory types.Quote:
Originally posted by Belisarius
Also, if you divide it up based upon the particular sense, why not other distinctions like color, brightness, pitch, volume, heat, cold, etc...
ok my bad, if it was not on topic i take it all back
I still don't buy it.
There is something far too real and direct about consciousness for me to divide it up into individual units based on the individual sense. I can understand the division based on time, but I, as a conscious entity at this very moment, percieve multiple sensations simultaneously. Maybe you are a machine combining all of these "quantum consciousnesses" into a less definite self, but I can certainly tell you by my current state that I am experiencing all of the senses simultaneously.
I think another flaw in your theory is that if each conscious unit is a separate entity based only on a particular sense, it can recall memory, including that of other senses. I consider memory as a separate sense that is closely related to thought, and even if it itself isn't a separate sense, memory by one type of consciousness of another type is very similar to experience by one type of another.