Do you find yourself interpreting ideas?

Do you find yourself listening to and interpreting ideas?

I feel like I dont a,ways articulate out ideas properly. They come out wrong when I write them out. But I notice I'm kind of like... Creating an interpretation for something that it feels like I'm almost listening to.

Does anyone else have this experience?

a reply to: onequestion

Do you mean "interpretation" as translating an idea that has come to you in one set of symbols into another set (English)?

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: onequestion

Do you mean "interpretation" as translating an idea that has come to you in one set of symbols into another set (English)?

Yea that sounds about right.

a reply to: onequestion

I have what I tend to call "thought packets"- which come to me as w hole, complete thought or concept. I guess it is like a Zip file. It sometimes is an entire book. Then work has to be done to sort of pull it out into linear form, and put it into language.

Hard to describe, as experience.

a reply to: Bluesma

Ok, forgive me if this isn't cohereint.

What's the axiom of that thought?

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are talking about, but often when thinking on a subject I'll get a "feeling of a concept" in the best way I can describe it. Like what Bluesma mentioned with the "packets"

I know feeling of a concept sounds kinda vague, but it sounds similar to what is being described by others here. A new idea or concept is in your head, but it takes some time and work to actively sort it out and put into words in one's own head.

Kind of like understanding something but not being able to explain it to someone, except in this case the person that you have to explain it to is yourself.

My guess is that it's the left brain- right brain thing. You can form an idea, but until your logical mind breaks it down into terms that are more concrete and applies it to the world around you it isn't fully "set" into your mind.

Maybe the "feeling ideas" instead of having a linear logical path on things is where the good stuff is, and our logical minds were only meant for mundane things.

ETA:

I also thought of the Bicameral Mind theory, if you haven't heard of it you should check it out. I know what you mean by you are listening almost to your own mind, not in a hearing voices way, but still as if there are two separate perspectives in your own mind.

I feel language whether it be written or spoken is totally inadequate to relate the things our brains are capable of conjuring. That's why metaphor is so important, as you can induce a similar feeling or idea into someone without having to relate the specifics of the event in question, as long as both people have some sort of similar back experience to draw on as comparison.

a reply to: James1982

I need to sit on that for a minute.

I will tell you I'm more inclined to believe that there's more to it then that.

I'm observing the idea and decoding it. So who's the I and where's the code coming from?

a reply to: onequestion

This happens to me a lot.
And as we are on the subject, have you ever wondered why Richard Dawkins has some trouble with articulating his thoughts across, yet he can flow them perfectly in a book? He has or had the same problem.

I will think of an idea, of a concept or I will read, see, hear something and find it fascinating and try to explain it to someone else, but it'll come out no-where nearly as interesting as say something neil degrasse tyson can get across.
I think it's sort of an acquired skill to get words across. In all my working life I have been in pretty interpersonal jobs, a cook and a welder, both involve talking to people but very minimal.
And to be honest, I would never be able to say what I have just spewed out through my finger tips here in face to face conversation, I would really need to pause after every statement and think about it..

Yes.

If i feel it might be important i get it proof read, not just for grammar and spelling but for 'making sense' and that its understandable.

I dont always do this and i explanations that i dont think need it, get through and then i confuse people

originally posted by: Biigs
Yes.

If i feel it might be important i get it proof read, not just for grammar and spelling but for 'making sense' and that its understandable.

I dont always do this and i explanations that i dont think need it, get through and then i confuse people

I have one for ya.

What's the axiom of thought?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: James1982

I need to sit on that for a minute.

I will tell you I'm more inclined to believe that there's more to it then that.

I'm observing the idea and decoding it. So who's the I and where's the code coming from?

Honestly I think there is a lot more to it as well, but as I have no idea what that is I figured I should be a bit conservative with my post

Great thread BTW!

a reply to: James1982

Thanks, and I'd like to hear more thoughts on this.

Expect the unexpected.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Bluesma

Ok, forgive me if this isn't cohereint.

What's the axiom of that thought?

I have none to offer you.
Only a description (to the best of my ability) of an experience.
I have no explanation.
Ideas arrive sometimes, but they are "whole" as if....multidimensional? They do not arrive in a linear form, with a beginning going towards an end.
How do you describe to someone, in words, a sphere? Much less a sphere with multiple levels?

You can start at any point on that sphere, and travel your focus around it, and come back to the point you started. But that point is just one you chose to focus on, there is nothing about that particular point that is more important than any other. You can delve down beneath that point, or rise above it, it is just the same point, which resonates on micro or macro levels.
I'm not doing this very well.



An idea packet feels like this, except those lines are simply my consciousness examining it.
When I get this sort of "thought packet" I have to sort of make these lines and then stretch them out into linear thoughts- with cause, effect, before, during, after... separation of self and other, object and subject, all that happens with language. As soon as it is translated into language, it is no longer accurate really, because it has been "unravelled", in order to communicate.

The only hope is that it can stimulate the consciousness of another, so they touch that same multidimensional concept- as if it exists outside of our self, perhaps in the noosphere (collective consciousness) or something (I don't know).
I can point at it this way, but it is they who must find what I am pointing at. It is not a thing I created or possess- no more than my pointing out a star in the sky, or describing what it looks like, makes it "mine" to give to another.

From this experience, I developed the idea that my intellect is somewhat of a tool or instrument, which I spend part of my life simply developing in order that can interpret or translate. I learn language, and communication tools, so that it can be an effective receiver-broadcaster.

I get thought packets that I do not have the appropriate intellectual knowledge to translate effectively, and that is very frustrating.
Well, like now. It is hard to describe something beyond time and space, in linear language.

The words we use are only one limited set of symbols to express concepts, but the concepts themselves which we hold in our mind are often much more complex. In some cases we can adequately use words to fully describe a concept, but in other cases our words may be inadequate. The real question is: what is a concept and how is it stored in our mind? Our memories are the foundation of the concepts we hold in our mind, and our memories are made up of moments in time, what we were experiencing at those moments. Our experiences are made up of sensory input, our vision, sight, touch, smell, taste, etc. We remember previous experiences and we learn from it, we build models of the world we live in.

I think the most accurate way to think of the human brain is as a self-learning machine which starts off knowing very little, but through experience it learns how the world works, it learns the rules of the world and how it can exploit those rules for personal benefit. My mind holds an extremely complex model of the world I live in, not only the laws of physics, but the laws of psychology. In order to interact with other people I must understand how other people think and what is considered to be socially acceptable. My brain holds extremely subtle and complicated concepts about how it thinks the world works.

I can update my ideas about how the world works when I learn new information which conflicts which previous ideas. As a child I believed in ghosts and Santa Claus, but over time, as I gained more knowledge about the way the world works, I updated those beliefs and changed my model of the world I live in. We each hold our own concepts and model of the world, your definition of liberty is likely to be quite different from mine and you will use different words in your definition. However it is also likely that there's a strong connection between liberty and freedom in your mind.

If I say "sand" there's a good chance you'll think of a beach. If I ask about where you live, you'll immediately start recalling memories related to where you live. I think concepts are simply connections or associations between different memories. We build up complex concepts by making a complex network of connections between related memories. But memories don't just have to consist of sensory input data from the real world as I said earlier, we also have a memory of our own thoughts. I can remember some of the things I was thinking about yesterday. I can even remember things I was thinking about a decade ago.

I know everything I have said so far seems kind of obvious and common sense, but when it comes to building intelligent machines this is how you need to approach the problem. You need to ask, how can a machine build a model of the world it lives in, and how can it form concepts. The answer is by allowing connections to form between memories (input data). The fact we can remember our own thoughts seems like an obvious thing, but I guarantee there is no A.I. system which can form associations between memories and have thoughts where it would reflect on such memories, and then remember those thoughts, and have thoughts about thoughts.

a reply to: onequestion

I think I might have the same problem. I think we either have a poor ability to memorize, or a poor ability to recollect, the physical forms [of spiritual concepts].

I am not sure which: bad memory of form or bad recollection of form, but either way, the bad memory, or recollection, causes us to struggle with formulating/articulating a concept back into a physical form. We have likely focused on (and memorized) the spiritual form, or essence, of the concept, rather than the physical form of the concept, thereby causing the bad memorization or recollection.

Maybe we are broken, or maybe we are exactly how we are supposed to be: spiritually minded.

If you want an axiom: reality is "good" concept (re)production. We're all looking at physical and spiritual forms and then reproducing the conceptualization of our ideal/idolized spiritual forms as physical forms. This is what this place is that we call physical reality - heaven, however, exists in the spiritual formulations.

- I'm open to others' interpretations, though.

Oh and I'm pretty sure all dialog starts off as inner dialog - only sometimes we speak or write so quickly that the inner dialog is not noticed. I guess we could say we have an inner mouth which speaks in thought? Our spirit definitely sees our soul and plays a role in what we want to see in the spirit. It probably all starts off as a feeling/spirit form which our souls then translate into the forms we want to see and from there we speak/pass our images of the mind/soul through the body and out as words/images/bodies that we can then reflect upon. Think about it... the light from outside the body is definitely not the same light that the mind sees - it has to be the spirit/feeling/essence form which is translated in the mind's eye.

I think I have had this thing you are talking about.

I was looking at a program about different ideas of the double slit experiment and was sure there was a correlation between intent->manifestation and the probability wave but could not find a way to describe the correlation/idea so that you can logically think about it and maybe someday test it.

a reply to: James1982

I agree that language might be a big limitation especially when it is ambiguous. Maybe we just need better languages that are more precise so we can be more precise in what we are meaning.

Enlightenment is a good example of a word that have very many interpretations that are ambiguous where more different descriptive words would better illustrate the meaning you are after than one single words that make you confused of what meaning they are describing. Maybe Tower of Babel can be seen as the lack of not creating a common definition of the words we are using having problem understanding each others idea.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

You mean like an ego translation where the concepts of the person and belief of what the person will find can make the idea a lesser thing than the real idea?

a reply to: LittleByLittle

I think the spirit and soul are so intertwine that, for all intents and purposes, the spirit might aswell be the ego - the spirit being the will and desires that the lesser known part of the soul self-identifies with - the part of you that manifests its feelings as formed desires, from which the soul interprets its body/images.

After all, the body is just the image of the soul - my words, the image of my awareness, and my awareness the desire of my spirit. How can you rightly divide the spirit from its desire to see, or the sights seen from the seer?

Do we know what we see or do we see what we know? I think the latter. I think that we formulate new images - new sights - new awareness - from the patterns of the spirit that we come to recognize.

So to answer your question: I think the ego sees what it wants to see; and sometimes what it sees is lesser than what is real, but sometimes what it sees is the truth.

Ask yourself what it is that all wings are the shape of? What is that principle of desire? Why do so many animals converge onto the same evolutionary form? What is it that the spirits, or will of life, is seeing? Is it some lesser thing or is it the truth of principle?

But yeah, confirmation bias happens.