Something I posted 

If I understand the idea correctly – that is, if there is enough of the 
idea which is not private to Ludwig Wittgenstein that it can be understood 
by anyone in general or myself in particular, then I think that he may have 
mistake the concrete nature of experienced privacy for an abstract concept 
of *isolation*. From Philosophical Investigations:

The words of this language are to refer to what can be known only to the 
speaker; to his immediate, private, sensations. So another cannot 
understand the language. 

To begin with, craniopagus (brain conjoined) 
do actually share sensations that we would consider private.

The results of the test did not surprise the family, who had long suspected 
that even when one girl’s vision was angled away from the television, she 
was laughing at the images flashing in front of her sister’s eyes. The 
sensory exchange, they believe, extends to the girls’ taste buds: Krista 
likes ketchup, and Tatiana does not, something the family discovered when 
Tatiana tried to scrape the condiment off her own tongue, even when she was 
not eating it.

There should be no reason that it would not be technologically feasible to 
eventually export the connectivity which craniopagus twins experience 
through some kind of neural implant or neuroelectric multiplier. There are 
 can be controlled directly through the brain.

Brain-computer interfaces that monitor brainwaves through EEG have already 
made their way to the market. NeuroSky’s headset uses EEG readings as well 
as electromyography to pick up signals about a person’s level of 
concentration to control toys and games (see “Next-Generation Toys Read 
Brain Waves, May Help Kids 
Emotiv Systems sells a headset that reads EEG and facial expression to 
enhance the experience of gaming (see “Mind-Reading Game 

All that would be required in principle would be to reverse the technology 
to make them run in the receiving direction (computer-brain) and then 
imitate the kinds of neural connections which brain conjoined twins have 
that allow them to share sensations. The neural connections themselves 
would not be aware of anything on a human level, so it would not need to be 
public in the sense that sensations would be available without the benefit 
of a living human brain, only that the awareness could, to some extent, 
could incite a version of itself in an experientially merged environment.

Because of the success and precision of science has extended our knowledge 
so far beyond our native instruments, sometimes contradicting them 
successfully, we tend to believe that the view that diagnostic technology 
provides is superior to, or serves as a replacement for our own awareness. 
While it is true that our own experience cannot reveal the same kinds of 
things that an fMRI or EEG can, I see that as a small detail compared to 
the wealth of value that our own awareness provides about the brain, the 
body, and the worlds we live in. Natural awareness is the ultimate 
diagnostic technology. Even though we can certainly benefit from a view 
outside of our own, there’s really no good reason to assume that what we 
feel, think, and experience isn’t a deeper level of insight into the nature 
of biochemical physics than we could possibly gain otherwise. We *are*evidence 
that physics does something besides collide particles in a void. 
Our experience is richer, smarter, and more empirically factual than what 
an instrument outside of our body can generate on its own. The problem is 
that our experience is so rich and so convoluted with private, proprietary 
knots, that we can’t share very much of it. We, and the universe, are made 
of private language. It is the public reduction of privacy which is 
temporary and localized…it’s just localized as a lowest common denominator.

While It is true that at this stage in our technical development, 
subjective experience can only be reported in a way which is limited by 
their local social skills, there is no need to invoke a permanent ban on 
the future of communication and trans-private experience. Instead of trying 
to report on a subjective experience, it could be possible to share that 
experience through a neurological interface – or at least to exchange some 
empathic connection that would go farther than public communication.

If I had some psychedelic experience which allowed me to see a new primary 
color, I can’t communicate that publicly. If I can just put on a device 
that allows our brains to connect, then someone else might be able to share 
the memory of what that looked like.

It seems to me that Wittgenstein’s private language 
argument<>(sacrosanct as it 
seems to be among the philosophically inclined) assumes 
*privacy as identical to isolation*, rather than the* primordial identity 
pansensitivty* <> which I think it 
could be. If privacy is accomplished by the spatiotemporal masking of 
eternity, than any experience that can be had is not a nonsense language to 
be ‘passed over in silence’, but rather a personally articulated fragment 
of the Totality. Language is only communication – intellectual measurement 
for sharing public-facing expressions. What we share privately is 
transmeasurable <> and inherently 
permeable beneath the threshold of intellect.

Said another way, everything that we can experience is already shared by 
billions of neurons. Adding someone else’s neurons to that group should 
indeed be only a matter of building a synchronization technology. If, for 
instance, brain conjoined twins have some experience that nobody else has 
(like being the first brain conjoined twins to survive to age 40 or 
something), then they already share that experience, so it would no longer 
be a ‘private language’. The true future of AI may not be in simulating 
awareness as information, but in using information to share awareness. 
Certainly the success of social networking and MMPGs has shown us that what 
we really want out of computers is not for them to be us, but for us to be 
with each other in worlds we create.

I propose that rather than beginning from the position of awareness being a 
simulation to represent a reality that is senseless and unconscious, we 
should try assuming that awareness itself is the undoubtable absolute. I 
would guess that each kind of awareness already understands itself far 
better than we understand math or physics, it is only the vastness of human 
experience which prevents that understanding to be shared on all levels of 
itself, all of the time.

The way to understand consciousness would not be to reduce it to a public 
language of physics and math, since our understanding of our public 
experience is itself robotic and approximated by multiple filters of 
measurement. To get at the nature of qualia and quanta requires stripping 
down the whole of nature to Absolute fundamentals – beyond language and 
beyond measurement. We must question sense itself, and we must rehabilitate 
our worldview so that we ourselves can live inside of it. We should seek 
the transmeasurable nature of ourselves, not just the cells of our brain or 
the behavioral games that we have evolved as one particular species in the 
world. The toy model of consciousness provided by logical positivism and 
structural realism is, in my opinion, a good start, but in the wrong 
direction – a necessary detour which is uniquely (privately?) appropriate 
to a particular phase of modernism. To progress beyond that I think 
requires the greatest 180 since Galileo. Einstein had it right, but he did 
not generalize relativity far enough. His view was so advanced in the 
spatialization of time and light that he reduced awareness to a one 
dimensional vector. What I think he missed, is that if we begin with 
sensitivity, then light becomes a capacity with which to modulate 
insensitivity – which is exactly what we see when we share light across 
more than one slit – a modulation of masked sensitivity shared by matter 
independently of spacetime.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to