Consciousness as a function of mental word use

[lemit]

Larv,

It sounds like you might be close to an acceptance of the concept of evolution, that our brains may be animal rather than spontaneous productions of the hand of God.

Congratulations!

--lemit

[Larv]

Originally Posted by lemit

Larv,

It sounds like you might be close to an acceptance of the concept of evolution, that our brains may be animal rather than spontaneous productions of the hand of God.

Congratulations!

--lemit

Oh, and it gets even better. There is Biblical proof for what I claim; it's in John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, the Word was God." This proves, to me at least, that "the Word," or our symbolic language, was what made us human and gave us the need to invent a literal master. John 1:1 does not differentiate "the Word" from "God." They are one in the same, according one author of the Scriptures.

I submit this as Exhibit A that modern humans didn't show up until their predecessors evolved a symbolic language. Not only that, but it was a digital language: "the Word" is a byte and each letter is a bit. As such, God is digital, too, literally lording himself over his analog subjects.

If it were otherwise then why would John equate a byte of our digital symbolic language with the omnipotent Lord of the Sky?

[Jway]

Originally Posted by Larv

Two things here:

1. I'm not at all clear how one can be aware of a dream and be conscious at the same time. Isn't a dream a subconscious thing? As such, how can one be conscious of a dream?

Are you familiar with the concept of "lucid dreaming?"

Have you ever had experience of being in half dream state, half wake state (say upon first waking up) and continuing "plot" of dream in a conscious way?

How about day dreaming and fantasy? Are these not images and events that are not grounded in "this reality" while being directed by consciousness?

2. The apple on the table would also be "the same visual" for a fly or an ant. So, in that regard, how do you differentiate human consciousness from that of an ant?

(Just speaking to the general topic, not necessarily the specific quote above.)
> While the visual is (arguably) the same for all eyes in the room, it is the interpretation and meaning that matters. IMO, it literally matters.
> And I don't believe it can be overstated how much it matters that the same eyes look upon "own self" interpreting that within context.
> I think conceiving of a distinction in consciousness is subconscious processing. That these distinctions may surface to level of consciousness, and be held with conviction (that there are individual, separate consciousness around me), is I believe subtle example of consciously being aware while (day) dreaming.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by Larv

Oh, and it gets even better. There is Biblical proof for what I claim; it's in John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, the Word was God." This proves, to me at least, that "the Word," or our symbolic language, was what made us human and gave us the need to invent a literal master. John 1:1 does not differentiate "the Word" from "God." They are one in the same, according one author of the Scriptures.

I submit this as Exhibit A that modern humans didn't show up until their predecessors evolved a symbolic language. Not only that, but it was a digital language: "the Word" is a byte and each letter is a bit. As such, God is digital, too, literally lording himself over his analog subjects.

If it were otherwise then why would John equate a byte of our digital symbolic language with the omnipotent Lord of the Sky?

Interesting.

I interpret (Divine) Word as Voice. That can be understood in human constructs, though I think it plausible to understand Voice of God as with and without Sound. Hard to conceive of human voice without sound, yes?

I hardly believe that Divine Word within traditional theology refers to our (human) symbolic language. Though there is correlation. I can understand the connection being made. And I find interesting the hypothesis that the rise of symbolic language (verbal and textual) is what makes us human. Though it almost seems disadvantageous from an evolutionary perspective. As a tool for communication, advantageous. As a construct that pulls a veil (of interpretation) over physical reality, it seems not very well thought through. Introducing and allow for idea that the Word is "out there" rather than within, where the Voice is actually heard.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Jway

Are you familiar with the concept of "lucid dreaming?"

Have you ever had experience of being in half dream state, half wake state (say upon first waking up) and continuing "plot" of dream in a conscious way?

How about day dreaming and fantasy? Are these not images and events that are not grounded in "this reality" while being directed by consciousness?

I'm not sure how these dreams you speak of are any different than a dog's dream or any other dream state you might want to infer. These dream states are not what human consciousness is all about. Human consciousness has to do with one's ability to reflect symbolically on one's existence and experiences. It takes a symbolic language to do that. And dogs can't do that; only humans can.

(Just speaking to the general topic, not necessarily the specific quote above.)
> While the visual is (arguably) the same for all eyes in the room, it is the interpretation and meaning that matters. IMO, it literally matters.

Yes, of course. Then we must agree that human consciousness is a language sort of thing,
literally.

> And I don't believe it can be overstated how much it matters that the same eyes look upon "own self" interpreting that within context.
> I think conceiving of a distinction in consciousness is subconscious processing. That these distinctions may surface to level of consciousness, and be held with conviction (that there are individual, separate consciousness around me), is I believe subtle example of consciously being aware while (day) dreaming.

Again, these dream states are not unique to humans. If we are to understand human consciousness we have to examine how syntax evolved on the backs of symbols (i.e., words). Just a personal guess on my part, but I could see how "God" or "gods" was the first abstraction that necessitated a symbolic language. Perhaps the basic fear of death, as evidenced anthropologically by "grave goods" left behind for the deceased, was the kicker that brought on symbolic expression.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Jway

Interesting.

I interpret (Divine) Word as Voice.

For any voice to have meaning there must be a symbolic language with syntax to communicate said meaning.

That can be understood in human constructs, though I think it plausible to understand Voice of God as with and without Sound. Hard to conceive of human voice without sound, yes?

If God ever spoke without words or sound how could we ever know what he said? Even if one hears voices that aren't there one needs to hear them via a symbolic language. Otherwise it would just be noise.

I hardly believe that Divine Word within traditional theology refers to our (human) symbolic language. Though there is correlation. I can understand the connection being made. And I find interesting the hypothesis that the rise of symbolic language (verbal and textual) is what makes us human. Though it almost seems disadvantageous from an evolutionary perspective. As a tool for communication, advantageous. As a construct that pulls a veil (of interpretation) over physical reality, it seems not very well thought through. Introducing and allow for idea that the Word is "out there" rather than within, where the Voice is actually heard.

It's my private theory, I''l admit, and I haven't seen too many others approach the definition of human consciousness this way. Julian Jaynes and Noam Chomski come closest to my way of thinking, and they both have been refuted by conservative thinkers on the subject. I am not a conservative thinker on the subject, and I don't believe human consciousness is matter of brain parts or nervous tubules. Human consciousness is not analog, but digital. We even have evidence of human consciousness being taught to apes when Koko learned how to communicate with her trainer using a symbolic language with syntax.

[riper]

Originally Posted by Miranda

I beg to differ. Of course we can think without creating 'words in our minds'. Words are not necessary for thought, but vice versa. Take riding a bike for example. Mental words are not required to know how to balance on a bike when riding one. I know it surely feels like we think in a sort of "mentalese", but thought is surely not dependent on words.

when i think i dont form words in my head. i rather imaging things. for example, when i am reading books for my examination ( what ever book it is, say physics ) i memorise what i read by forming images of what i am reading in my head. and then when writing the exam i reviw this images. is it normal ?

[Miranda]

Originally Posted by riper

is it normal ?

Yes, it is normal to think symbolically and metaphorically.

[lemit]

I think there's a problem.

Those of us who experience multilevel, multisymbol thinking can understand that some people don't think that way. I have a feeling, that has been reinforced here and in other places, that the people who don't think that way don't understand or don't accept (or both) the fact that we think the way we do. I'm not sure how to explain, but some of you should be able to guess what I'm talking about.

I don't know how to break that barrier and gain some acceptance for mental multitasking. I think we have a lot to offer.

Any suggestions?

--lemit

[Jway]

Originally Posted by Larv

For any voice to have meaning there must be a symbolic language with syntax to communicate said meaning.

I find this to be inaccurate. Voice could sing inaudible words with uncommon 'meaning' and still communicate.
Clicking languages don't rely on typical syntax in order to communicate.

If God ever spoke without words or sound how could we ever know what he said?

Via feelings. This actually precedes symbolic languages.
I would also say via Revelation, though would reckon some here may not understood this intellectually, even while I know you know. Revelation that is transcribed as textual doctrine, is after the fact, and is indirect. It is symbolic of the actual communication that occurred. Revelation is knowing without words. IMO, this happens often.

Even if one hears voices that aren't there one needs to hear them via a symbolic language. Otherwise it would just be noise.

Au contraire. Symbolic language when spoken aloud is literally noise. Divine communication is entirely silent, where no noise is heard (by human faculty or senses). Also 'noise' is subjective interpretation. Is human voice singing a song with inaudible words only "noise?"

Interesting dialogue. Thanks for sharing.