I assume that this is the entire project of culture, to symbolically memorialize individual experiences such that they can be re-ingested by subsequent generations, creating a kind of continuity of experience. The only way to actually parameterize individual experience is through intersubjectively evolved concepts. There is no truly singular meaning.

I am just trying to understand if I can possibly record what goes through within us at every moment. For instance, even when the culture is being passed on to subsequent generations through whatever medium, there's a unique individual recipient, who will understand, digest, and internalize whatever has been conveyed (meaning might be singular this way). In the culture project, we are recording the input of what has already happened in the larger society. I am trying to go a little deeper and broader, and understand if we can parameterize any input whatsoever (essentially, the lifetime) that a conscious being receives.

Do you think it's possible to record the individual human experience?

By that I mean, what each of us go through every second of our lives? The inputs to our senses, the thoughts that pass by, the emotions we feel? — Ayush Jain

If you had stopped at "inputs to our senses" you'd have something somewhat technologically feasible (if not very practical). However, with thoughts and emotions you would be talking about highly invasive measurement of a huge amount of activity occurring in people's brains. It's not at all technologically feasible to measure and record the data that would be needed.

I am just trying to understand if I can possibly record what goes through within us at every moment. — Ayush Jain

Not sure I understand your ideas here. Memory doesn't represent what happened to us or how we felt. The self is like mercury. What we think we experienced changes which each recollection and evolves, often imperceptibly. The idea of a correct recollection of an event seems wrong. There is how you felt in the moment, which is specific to everything that came immediately before and after. It continually evolves: seconds, minutes, days, weeks, years later. I can't see how your idea would be useful. Rather than nailing down a single meaning and reproducing it over time in an attempt at a kind of synthesis, it might be better to celebrate the multiple interpretations of any event and realize that all we can do is try to make sense of our environment.

there's a unique individual recipient, who will understand, digest, and internalize whatever has been conveyed — Ayush Jain

But how did that individual's version of whatever "meaning" arise? He didn't create it ex nihilo. It was constructed out of framing elements which evolved through social practices - words with already practically evolved meanings. Individuation and community are the poles of a spectrum, neither of which makes sense without the other, like materiality and ideality.

Do you think this is possible? — Ayush Jain

No, because experience is inextricably linked with a subject or a being, and recordings are always third-person.

There was a fabulous early 1980s sci fi movie on this theme, Natalie Woods' last film before her premature and tragic death, which occurred during the final stages of filming.

Where, in 3B neuroconnections/mm3 in the human brain, would the recording equipment probe be inserted, for recording the experience of reeling in a trophy fish, or, the memory of already having done such a thing?

At what measure of mass density, does the recording device effect that which the device is suppose to record, synonymous with the quantum “observer problem”?

The average human can’t explain his own experiences, so how would he be able to design equipment, to record what he doesn’t know how to find?

Nahhhhh…..a gigantic, cast iron, capital letter “not possible” from me.

The average human can’t explain his own experiences, so how would he be able to design equipment, to record what he doesn’t know how to find? — Mww

Nice!

Essentially, you will be able to step-in your past, re-experience those moments. — Ayush Jain

Hypnosis needs to be a lot more precise and controllable. External recording not possible, unless (?until) compatible hardware is perfected and individuals are fitted with a recording device wired into their brain.

For a brief moment, this is what a photographer saw:



But the recording is not the recorded.

I think experience need to be differentiate from emotion. And yes, with the technology, I say that even the emotion, can be save. But I doubt it's something common: something for the wealthy maybe.

At what measure of mass density, does the recording device effect that which the device is suppose to record, synonymous with the quantum “observer problem”? — Mww

:up:

At what point in 'sensoring up' a human, have you created something that is no longer a human.

Exactly like one of Zeno’s Paradoxes.….cover half the distance with each step. Sooner or later, you’re gonna get to a point where the distance is measured in terms of outer shell electrons of different things, both of which have, of course, disappeared.

Yes.

Essentially, you will be able to step-in your past, re-experience those moments. — Ayush Jain

Consider:

X.

IN A LIBRARY.

A precious, mouldering pleasure 't is
To meet an antique book,
In just the dress his century wore;
A privilege, I think,

His venerable hand to take,
And warming in our own,
A passage back, or two, to make
To times when he was young.

His quaint opinions to inspect,
His knowledge to unfold
On what concerns our mutual mind,
The literature of old;

What interested scholars most,
What competitions ran
When Plato was a certainty.
And Sophocles a man;

When Sappho was a living girl,
And Beatrice wore
The gown that Dante deified.
Facts, centuries before,

He traverses familiar,
As one should come to town
And tell you all your dreams were true;
He lived where dreams were sown.

His presence is enchantment,
You beg him not to go;
Old volumes shake their vellum heads
And tantalize, just so. — Emily Dickenson

Which demonstrates that the record of human experience is deeper than re-experiencing my own experiences -- with the old volumes we can even conjure up the experiences of those before us.

:rofl: Not enough chess jokes in the world.

Beautiful. I was so taken by the Dickenson poem below I printed it nicely and framed it for my study. This one really speaks to me.

This World is not Conclusion
By Emily Dickinson

This World is not Conclusion.
A Species stands beyond
Invisible, as Music
But positive, as Sound
It beckons, and it baffles
Philosophy, don't know
And through a Riddle, at the last
Sagacity, must go
To guess it, puzzles scholars
To gain it, Men have borne
Contempt of Generations
And Crucifixion, shown
Faith slips - and laughs, and rallies
Blushes, if any see
Plucks at a twig of Evidence
And asks a Vane, the way
Much Gesture, from the Pulpit
Strong Hallelujahs roll
Narcotics cannot still the Tooth
That nibbles at the soul

Amazing. That's the best joke I've heard this month!

When Sappho was a living girl,
And Beatrice wore
The gown that Dante deified.
Facts, centuries before,

He traverses familiar,
As one should come to town
And tell you all your dreams were true;
He lived where dreams were sown.

His presence is enchantment,
You beg him not to go;
Old volumes shake their vellum heads
And tantalize, just so. — Emily Dickenson

What a beautiful thing to say.

Since we're sharing poetry, this one speaks volumes to me:

These parties have not died nor will they ever die; because they represent two legitimate tendencies, two necessary manifestations of the life of our country: the federal party, the spirit of locality concerned and still blind; the unitarian party, centralism, national unity. Should the influential men of these parties disappear, others will come representing the same tendencies, who will work to make them predominate as before and will convulse the country to reach both the results they have obtained. The logic of our history, then, is calling for the existence of a new party, whose mission is to adopt what is legitimate in both parties, and dedicate itself to finding a peaceful solution to all our social problems with the key of a higher, more rational synthesis, and more complete than theirs, which, satisfying all legitimate needs, embraces them and melts them in its unity. — Esteban Echeverría

This is the original Spanish version:

Esos partidos no han muerto ni morirán jamás; porque representan dos tendencias legítimas, dos manifestaciones necesarias de la vida de nuestro país: el partido federal, el espíritu de localidad preocupado y ciego todavía; el partido unitario, el centralismo, la unidad nacional. Dado caso que desapareciesen los hombres influyentes de esos partidos, vendrán otros representando las mismas tendencias, que trabajarán por hacerlas predominar como anteriormente y convulsionarán al país para llegar uno y otro al resultado que han obtenido. La lógica de nuestra historia, pues, está pidiendo la existencia de un partido nuevo, cuya misión es adoptar lo que haya de legítimo en uno y otro partido, y consagrarse a encontrar la solución pacífica de todos nuestros problemas sociales con la clave de una síntesis alta, más racional y más completa que la suya, que satisfaciendo todas las necesidades legítimas, las abrace y las funda en su unidad. — Esteban Echeverría

:)

She's great.



Nice. :)

Would you agree that this poetic expression records human experience?

Would you agree that this poetic expression records human experience? — Moliere

Yes, I would. 100%.

Would you also agree with

...the recording is not the recorded. — jorndoe

?

That's what I'm thinking, anyways. I write poems as a record of feeling, and when I go back to them I can re-experience those moments -- but surely I recognize the difference between the real event and my re-experience for all that.

And if that's so then it seems we can record human experience, even if it wasn't in the way the people who want our brains to be programmable like a computer would like.

Would you also agree with

...the recording is not the recorded. — jorndoe


? — Moliere

I think that I lack the knowledge to answer that question, honestly. I don't know anything about "map-territory relations", that sounds so abstract to me. I would have to study it for years just to be able to give a somewhat coherent opinion.

Heh, probably not years. Kudos to you for saying you don't know.

The basic idea is that when you look at a paper map of an area you ought be able to distinguish between the map you're holding in your hand from the land you're trying to figure out.

I don't know if there even are map-territory relations. I think it's mostly just a basic idea that there's a difference between our representations and what they represent, however we end up parsing that.

So, to bring it back to the OP, there's certainly a difference between poems and human experience, and even poems which record human experience. "Record" being a vinyl scratching from sound, poems are an ink scratching from pressure to represent sound to represent experience.

The basic idea is that when you look at a paper map of an area you ought be able to distinguish between the map you're holding in your hand from the land you're trying to figure out. — Moliere

Yes, I agree. One should not confuse the semantics of a term with what that term represents. That was Alfred Korzybski's point, if I understood correctly. When one confuses them, one is "mistaking the map for the territory". And it is a logical fallacy. Indeed, I agree with all of that (I think?).

I don't know if there even are map-territory relations. — Moliere

Deleuzians and post-Deleuzians have some strange things to say about that. Not sure about Manuel DeLanda, though. He probably does.

I think it's mostly just a basic idea that there's a difference between our representations and what they represent, however we end up parsing that. — Moliere

Yes, I agree (I think?).

So, to bring it back to the OP, there's certainly a difference between poems and human experience — Moliere

Yes, there is.

and even poems which record human experience. "Record" being a vinyl scratching from sound, poems are an ink scratching from pressure to represent sound to represent experience. — Moliere

Here is where I got completely lost. Can you explain this last part if you have the time, please?

Here is where I got completely lost. Can you explain this last part if you have the time, please? — Arcane Sandwich

Sure!

I mean like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record

When growing up the vinyl discs were literally called "Records" and the disc-spinner a "Record player", which was distinguished between cassette tapes, and CD's.

I'm trying to point out that there's more than an analogy between the literal grooves in a vinyl record and the ink marks a writer makes with a pen on paper.

I'm trying to point out that there's more than an analogy between the literal grooves in a vinyl record and the ink marks a writer makes with a pen on paper. — Moliere

I see what you're saying there, and I've heard that idea somewhere before, I've heard people suggest it and argue for it. But it's kind of... well, weird, isn't it? For example, I don't know what to make of it myself. I don't know if it's true or not. I don't know if sounds entirely reasonable or not. It's a strange thing to point out, that idea, it seems. That there could be more than an analogy here.

Oh yes it's definitely weird. I don't know exactly what to make of the notion that there is more than analogy here.

The best I can come up with is that a person listening to a vinyl record and a person reading a poem are both experiencing the record of human experience.

So while I understand the OP to be asking after something like a sci-fi version where I could plug a USB into my neck and re-experience the world at some point before exactly as I did then -- I want to suggest we already have the means of accomplishing exactly that, only not in the fantastical way which might tempt us.

Rather, we only need read and think about books, and they transport us to other worlds.

And the scientistic idea of a record is the only reason we'd dismiss the whole of human literature as evidence of a record.

Oh yes it's definitely weird. I don't know exactly what to make of the notion that there is more than analogy here. — Moliere

I mean, there is a set or a series of possibilities here, however you wish to construe such a thing from a purely formal (i.e. mathematical) point of view. But that doesn't mean anything to me, math and logic (symbolic logic in general) have no meaning, they have no semantics whatsoever. They are purely syntactical languages. The problem is, human speech does not work like that. Ordinary speech does not work like that. The "map" (the semantics of a word) is connected to the "territory" (the thing that the word refers to), even though the map itself not connected to the territory itself. So, in some sense, there is a map-territory relation, since I can express that in first-order predicate logic like so:

∃x∃y(Rxy)

It should be parsed like so: there is an x, and there is a y, such that x is related to y by the relation R.

However, that tells us nothing about R itself, the relation here. Is it a symmetrical relation, yes or no? Is it a transitive relation, yes or no? Is it a reflexive relation, yes or no? Etc.

So, unless we can talk about the notion that there is more than an analogy here, using a language that has semantics (such as ordinary language), there is nothing meaningful we can say about it, because meaning occurs in the semantics of a language, not in its syntax (and, like I said, purely formal languages like logic and math are entirely syntactical, they have no semantics, though this last point is controversial, surprisingly, and many logicians argue against it).

The best I can come up with is that a person listening to a vinyl record and a person reading a poem are both experiencing the record of human experience. — Moliere

Yes, that would be the case, if it is true that there is more than an analogy here.

So while I understand the OP to be asking after something like a sci-fi version where I could plug a USB into my neck and re-experience the world at some point before exactly as I did then -- I want to suggest we already have the means of accomplishing exactly that, only not in the fantastical way which might tempt us.

Rather, we only need read and think about books, and they transport us to other worlds. — Moliere

Yes, I think you're right. 100%. Poetry is a recording in that sense, it is a recording of an individual human experience. And, just as you can listen to a person "sing" when you are listening to a song on an MP3 file or whatever, you can also listen to a person "talk" when you are reading a poem that they wrote. Fully agree with you on that point.

What I'm not so sure about is if this can be generalized to include every type of written communication. To read Emily Dickinson is to look at the beauty of her own soul, and I say that as an atheist. By contrast, I don't know if I would compare her to someone that has a "drier" tone, such as Willard van Orman Quine. I mean, Quine writes like a tax lawyer writes. There's nothing poetic about it. And I say that as a fan of Quine's work. So, I suppose that Emily Dickinson is on the "Spirit of the Law" team, while Willard van Orman Quine is on the "Letter of the Law" team. He did coin a strange term, though: "Pegasizing". And he famously said that Pegasus does not exist because "nothing Pegasizes", there is no object or creature in the world that "Pegasizes" as an act. Now the question here is: if nothing Pegasizes, can we say that something "Trumanizes" when we talk about President Truman? This is what people told Quine like way back in the 50's.

And the scientistic idea of a record is the only reason we'd dismiss the whole of human literature as evidence of a record. — Moliere

I'm not sure if I understand the idea here. What's the underlying concept in this case? I'm struggling just to understand it.

(Edited for clarity)