Why you don't know what you're talking about

[UM-Bot]

Ken Korczak: So, you think you know what you’re talking about? I’ve got news for you -- you don’t know what you’re talking about. The problem is that you’re using words, phrases and sentences which have only their own meaning; that is, the words you use to describe a reality which is not the “real” reality. All reality is suspended in language. But human language is not reality. Language is an artifical invention. At best, language is only an approximation of reality. Human beings using language have essentially mistaken the road map for the road.So if you’re not talking about reality when you speak, what are you talking about? The fact is, there can only be one answer: Nothing. You’re talking about nothing. You are enjoying your own self-invented game impregnated with it’s own artifical meanings -- meanings which inevitably circle and fold back on themselves, attached to nothing but themselves, and describing only themselves.The great physcist Neils Bohr realized this and found it deeply troubling. What led him to question the very nature of langauge itself were his attempts to describe the underlying nature of quantum reality. Bohr realized that quantum theory does not allow for the existence of independent elements of reality. Einstein objected deeply to this notion, saying: “I refuse to believe that the moon does not exist when we don’t observe it.”

But Einstein argument could not stand upon the discovery and verification of Bell’s Theorem. Bell's Theorem states: “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.”But, of course, many will argue that language breaks down and becomes meaningless on the quantum level, but in the “ordinary world” -- the macro world regulated by classical Newtonian physics, language serves us just fine and helps us to not only model our reality, but actually represent reality. But what happens is, just as physics divides the world into objects in interaction so too the mind partitions experience into concepts that are bounded in thought. Our language “grabs” things and represents them as nouns or “objects” in our brains. But the model that forms in our brain is not that which is out there -- if there is anything “out there” at all. More on that in a minute.Think of a baby lying in a crib. The baby has yet to form language in its brain. A bird flies through the the window of the baby’s room. The baby goes wild with delight at the incredible miracle it is witnessing! It has no verbal definition for what is what this thing is! It’s wonderful beyond imagining! But sooner or later, the baby’s mother will tell him: “That’s a bird! A bird!” At that point, the word “bird” become the dominant association with the former flying miracle, and it becomes something dull and “known.” But the word bird cannot possible describe the entire reality of what a bird really is, if at all.

From the that point on, the child becomes ensnared in a lesser, more artifical reality. When he or she thinks of a bird or says “bird” the child has a greater association with the definition and the word than with the reality. We believe that naming something makes it what it is. It does not. In fact, the definition is so far removed from reality as to become meaningless.But it gets even worse when we come to more abstract concepts -- internal words and thoughts that have no solid match in the exterior world. Think about the word “the” or “spirituality” or “about.” They’re utter abstractions and have meaning only we invent for them. When we speak, we use all of our baseless, abstract words to tie together words that supposedly make acccurate representation of physical reality, which they don’t. The result is -- meaningless babble -- about nothing. This is what the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was getting at when he concluded: "My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless".In his book, “The Day the Universe Changed,” James Burke writing about scientific knowlege, says: “Knowledge acquired through the use of any structure is selective. There are no standards or beliefs guiding the search for knowledge which are not dependent on structure. Scientific knowledge, in sum, is not necessarily the clearest representation of what reality is ... Discovery in invention. Knowledge is man-made.” And we are always working with a structure that is suspended in artifical language.So you might say: “Okay, oaky, so our words amd meanings are not reflecting reality. Well, at least we have some meaning -- the meaning we invent for ourselves.” But there is a huge problem with that to. This is an assumption based on Rene Descartes famous statement: “I think; therefore, I am.” The problem is that Descartes was wrong.

He made a whopping, unsupportable and false assumption. He assumed there was an “I”. But an “I” cannot be proven to exist. An “I” cannot be proven to not exist. And finally, an “I” cannot be proven to exist and not exist at the same time. So relying on Descartes is hopeless.In a previous column here at Unexplained Mysteries, I argued that all existence is an illusion, and that, in fact, nothing exists, and there simply is no reality. Part of the reason we have the persistent and extremely tricky illusion that something does exist is our suspension in the unreality of language. If we could somehow de-tangle ourselves from the trap of modeling everything we know through the use of language, we would find ourselves experiencing a much richer and greater reality. It would be like some kind of psychedelic, magical realm of infinite meaning. It would be marvelous! But yet, there is someplace further to go. And if we could go beyond that vast, magical realm of language-free reality -- we would ultimately experience what is beyond that -- the nonexperience of Nothing -- which is the ultimate experience.

Ken welcomes you to visit his Web page: www.starcopywriter.com

[__Kratos__]

That's a lot of words to say "Ignorance is bliss.".

If we didn't think or break down objects to words or meaning, how would we survive as a race? Why would it even matter then to pass on genes?

Should we all just lie down and die then because the illusion would be broken and the truth be revealed? Perhaps rather then being revealed the illusion reboots and we are therefore stuck in a loop of pattern which has a greater meaning then our common lifes? We are needed in some way but we don't need anything at all?

[chaoszerg]

That's a lot of words to say "Ignorance is bliss.".

If we didn't think or break down objects to words or meaning, how would we survive as a race? Why would it even matter then to pass on genes?

Should we all just lie down and die then because the illusion would be broken and the truth be revealed? Perhaps rather then being revealed the illusion reboots and we are therefore stuck in a loop of pattern which has a greater meaning then our common lifes? We are needed in some way but we don't need anything at all?

i agree with what you said. i would rarther be stuck in the illusion then just lay down and die.

[chaostrom]

Ken Korczak: So, you think you know what you’re talking about? I’ve got news for you -- you don’t know what you’re talking about.

So he thinks he knows what he's talking about? Well, I've got news for him -- he doesn't know what he's talking about. (For those without a sense of humour - I'm joking )

The problem is that you’re using words, phrases and sentences which have only their own meaning; that is, the words you use to describe a reality which is not the “real” reality. All reality is suspended in language. But human language is not reality. Language is an artifical invention. At best, language is only an approximation of reality. Human beings using language have essentially mistaken the road map for the road.So if you’re not talking about reality when you speak, what are you talking about? The fact is, there can only be one answer: Nothing. You’re talking about nothing. You are enjoying your own self-invented game impregnated with it’s own artifical meanings -- meanings which inevitably circle and fold back on themselves, attached to nothing but themselves, and describing only themselves.

It's hard to put into words. But basically I understand this totally!

Think of a baby lying in a crib. The baby has yet to form language in its brain. A bird flies through the the window of the baby’s room. The baby goes wild with delight at the incredible miracle it is witnessing! It has no verbal definition for what is what this thing is! It’s wonderful beyond imagining! But sooner or later, the baby’s mother will tell him: “That’s a bird! A bird!” At that point, the word “bird” become the dominant association with the former flying miracle, and it becomes something dull and “known.”

This passage is hilarious.

Think about the word “the” or “spirituality” or “about.” They’re utter abstractions and have meaning only we invent for them.

The same holds for many things taken for granted in modern civilisation.

This is an assumption based on Rene Descartes famous statement: “I think; therefore, I am.”

I don't know if this'll make a difference or not, but I thought I'd add this:

The famous slogan: "cogito ergo sum", or "I'm thinking, therefore I exist", ("I think, therefore I am") is a misleading expression of what Descartes actually wanted to say. He corrected it in the Meditations to "I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind"

-Quote from One Hundred Philosophers - A Guide to the World's Greatest Thinkers by Peter J. King

the nonexperience of Nothing -- which is the ultimate experience.

Huh, just what I always wanted to achieve.

That's a lot of words to say "Ignorance is bliss.".

Not really...

If we didn't think or break down objects to words or meaning, how would we survive as a race? Why would it even matter then to pass on genes?

Get an answer to those questions from animals.

Should we all just lie down and die then because the illusion would be broken and the truth be revealed? Perhaps rather then being revealed the illusion reboots and we are therefore stuck in a loop of pattern which has a greater meaning then our common lifes? We are needed in some way but we don't need anything at all?

Firstly, we die anyway, we're not immortal, so we may as well die knowing the truth, I don't know what you're saying in that second question, and saying "we are needed in some way but we don't need anything at all" doesn't make sense.

[snuffypuffer]

I've never known what I'm talking about. I've known this for years. Nanners unto you, Ken Korczak!

[MrVelvet]

And if we could go beyond that vast, magical realm of language-free reality -- we would ultimately experience what is beyond that -- the nonexperience of Nothing -- which is the ultimate experience.

Does the words 'Jibbering Nonsense' mean anything??? Reading this (or at least trying to-it is like something Zap Branigan of Futurama would write), It reminded me of a 'story' that was posted on The Onion (www.theonion.com) a couple of weeks ago about how a grad students computer died just before this mindless thesis was just to be turned in for review, and how the computer was a hero...after reading this crap (see above quote), I wish this guys computer was the one that died, sparing us from this...

WTF is 'nonexperience of nothing'? There aught to be a law against this kind of stuff...

Edited June 18, 2006 by MrVelvet

[Master Sage]

. My brain hurts. Really, language shows about reality, and never wan ment to be it.

[IronGhost]

I've never known what I'm talking about. I've known this for years. Nanners unto you, Ken Korczak!

Nanners?

[Tiggs]

Once again, Ken - right principle, wrong details. Having said that, I think some encouragment is in order - at least your articles encourage lots of talking points and the topics are pretty interesting.

Keep 'em coming, Ken

Edited June 18, 2006 by Tiggs

[SAMURAI-X]

As my quote say's, "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing and that is I know nothing" socrates was a wise wise man

[snuffypuffer]

Indeed, Nanners. You must learn not to take me seriously, Iron Ghost. Then you will achieve understanding.

Nanners?

[IronGhost]

Indeed, Nanners. You must learn not to take me seriously, Iron Ghost. Then you will achieve understanding.

Snuffy, every word you utter is as a universe in itself to me. I am in rapt attention.

[snuffypuffer]

I don't know if that's a compliment or what, but I'll take it.

[Pelican_Eel]

nothing new was said in this article

[smallpackage]

nothing new was said in this article

Thanks for pointing that out Mr.One-Up

Ken really needs to lighten up on the typos. A lot of them.

[RamboIII]

Something you all don't understand, is that these theories of "words" have provoked a lot of important ideas from some of the wisest people in the world...

For example, Paul Coelho (author) states the true language of the world; the one that isn't artificial; the one that every being on our earth knows. And that is love.

Cheers to Ken, good and very important topic.

Edited June 18, 2006 by RamboIII

[Maelstrom5]

You are enjoying your own self-invented game impregnated with it’s own artifical meanings -- meanings which inevitably circle and fold back on themselves, attached to nothing but themselves, and describing only themselves.The great physcist Neils Bohr realized this and found it deeply troubling. What led him to question the very nature of langauge itself were his attempts to describe the underlying nature of quantum reality. Bohr realized that quantum theory does not allow for the existence of independent elements of reality. Einstein objected deeply to this notion, saying: “I refuse to believe that the moon does not exist when we don’t observe it.”

Well, this is a lot to wrap the ol' brain around. I think I just got a headache after reading this, but it's an interesting article nonetheless.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Maelstrom5

[Bigfoot_Is_Real]

Ah well Ill just live my nothing to the fullest

[mcc0037]

That's pretty intense... but to me, it is what it is... it's made, it's there, it's used, so therefore it exist. If you want to take that Crap-ola to heart, then feel free to chase your tail around in circles.

[WoDoByMe]

Well before i read everybodies posts I had better get my initial reaction out before I get caught up and forget what I was going to say. I belive what ken is talking about is the confines of language. I find language an extremely interesting topic to discuss. As Ken was illuding to, language forms our perceptions of our world. Much like the Matrix in the film you have all seen language forms our constructs of what is, and is not possible.

It infact permiates our thoughts, whereby our own mind is constrained to the structure, of language with no ability to think in multiple dimentions but only in the singular stanza that logically procedes one after another.

Therefore as our perception forms our reality our language confines our mind to only be able to perceive what it is able to formulate into logical stanza's and ignores what it cannot turn into logic and words. Such as when you observe a person's face, you receive a feeling possibly what that person is thinking, as well as what type of mood they are in but these words such as mood happy and sad do not really apply to the observed persons face, as they are a 3dimentional feeling and not a logical progression, so our observation is not translated and it is left to us to translate our selves into a cognative recognition, instead of a precognative ability of us to read each others thoughts.

This is why I find dreams so powerful, because in a dream you no longer think in words and sentances but instead you represent your world with objects and 3 dimentional pictures, that have audio and spacial and emotional components.

EDIT: And to the notion that we are individuals with a universe to ourselves, I SCOFF at, we are all connected it is only to our ignorance that we cannot perceve this.

Edited June 19, 2006 by WoDoByMe

[Azariah]

Or maybe if there was no language nothing would exist? All of this is existential bulls*** to me.

If we didn't have language, we couldn't even begin to understand the world around us to the degree that we do today, we would just react to situations without any comprehension as to that which doesn't apply to us... we would essentially be a receptor cell (input--->output). We NEED language in the first place, we couldn't have even survived to have these silly conversations without it.

Just because humans built an artificial framework for understanding the world around us doesn't make that understanding invalid, it only makes it imperfect. Likewise, just because something hasn't been defined doesn't make it nonexistent; nor is something unobserved nonexistent.

[Avius]

this simply means time to move on, quantum physics wins.

[Caana]

This guy is on to the real truth, it is based on factual things. all that is here does not really exist. It is a scenario that "loops" {repeats itself} now throw in an overall guiding intelligence that is mispercieved as a divine or spiritual entity that controls those loops.

What people call their creator or god or whatever they believe it to be.

Now picture even more loops of conceptual "reality's" within the same "space" for want of a better word{i'm tired} all of them began as the original "reality" of that particular loop.

Now imagine that each loop diverges into alternate loops of reality, sub scenarios or loops{alternate realitys} what is outside those loops is the question.

His perception that an entity{human} if it ever made it outside any of those loops, essentaily would cease to exist{non being} as our loops {illusions} don't exist in whatever the real reality is. It is nearer the truth i know, then most everything else i have read is.

The question being now, why do we exist at all. This can't be proven, so stretch your minds a little{hah} anyway, if our conception of reality was considered to be "lines of thought" the artificial reality built from language that he describes {which they are}. It would bring us closer to what i personaly believe to be real.

That reality is that the "universe" is a mind itself of infinite proportions, so also what people believe to be parralell universe's. all of that within the same mind. What must that mind be like in his own reality? is he human? or something else. Does he have a physical reality that is much what we believe reality to be? These are questions that i think would be fun to speculate about. Language and perceptions are of course, limiting facters{known facts}

So go ahead and chew me up and spit me out on this one people. Thanks

[Caana]

Or maybe if there was no language nothing would exist? All of this is existential bulls*** to me.

If we didn't have language, we couldn't even begin to understand the world around us to the degree that we do today, we would just react to situations without any comprehension as to that which doesn't apply to us... we would essentially be a receptor cell (input--->output). We NEED language in the first place, we couldn't have even survived to have these silly conversations without it.

Just because humans built an artificial framework for understanding the world around us doesn't make that understanding invalid, it only makes it imperfect. Likewise, just because something hasn't been defined doesn't make it nonexistent; nor is something unobserved nonexistent.

If you just had awareness without language, it does'nt nessasarily mean that you would'nt have understanding, indeed you perceptions then would better equate to the reality that is there. Even if you are not. As you pointed out.

Further, if you were without language then you would be operating from emotion. Which is what makes us human to begin with and if so, would'nt that emotion and the energy it generates be stronger? would'nt your minds energy have more power. That would by itself give you the reality perception we{humanity} do not currently have.{more understanding of whats really around us}

[Caana]

Something you all don't understand, is that these theories of "words" have provoked a lot of important ideas from some of the wisest people in the world...

For example, Paul Coelho (author) states the true language of the world; the one that isn't artificial; the one that every being on our earth knows. And that is love.

Cheers to Ken, good and very important topic.

I never thought i would agree with anything you've said, but in this instance, you are right.

Love is the most powerful emotion we have and also the one that charges our minds energys the most.

Love a skeptic.