The Vastness of Inner Experience and the Limits of Language
Exploring Consciousness, Language, and the Fluidity of Inner States
Note: I’m sure that I got that look on my face with my baby too. Not very manly of me was it?
Note: Has anyone else noticated that AI can create faces that are beautiful beyond beautiful?
Note: Another Long Conversation with ChatGPT, Acting as Research Assistant and Now as Ghost Writer
Author’s Preface
This essay emerges from an exploration of the complexities of inner experience and the limitations of language in expressing the true range of consciousness. Language categorizes emotions, sensations, and thoughts into artificial boundaries, creating a simplified map of an otherwise fluid and expansive reality. Our vocabulary attempts to describe countless states of consciousness, but each term is imprecise, often capturing only a fraction of an experience. Words that define emotions—joy, love, sadness, or fear—may feel universal, yet each person’s inner state is unique and remains ultimately inaccessible to others.
The language we use to describe our minds is inherently inadequate. While it may sketch broad themes, it fails to capture the innumerable configurations, shades, and depths that make up consciousness. This essay aims to navigate these themes, acknowledging that no conclusion can fully encompass the intricacies of conscious experience. Instead, it is an inquiry, a summary of possibilities that opens the door to further understanding.
Note: Not exactly how I said it, but not a bad précis. It was a much, much longer conversation, but in essays, as in life, we are confronted with the issue of what to leave in, what to leave out1.
Introduction
Consciousness is both vast and varied, encompassing a continuum of experiences, each unique and interwoven with emotion, perception, and cognition. The artificial distinctions we impose—separating sensation, thought, and emotion—are a function of language rather than a reflection of any objective reality. Consciousness resists such divisions, flowing through states that cannot be fully captured by discrete categories. Although language attempts to bring structure to this continuum, it ultimately falls short of expressing the full complexity of inner experience. This essay examines the challenges of describing consciousness, the role of language, and the immense diversity of possible inner states that words can barely approximate.
The Artificial Boundaries Created by Language
Language, by necessity, divides experience into manageable categories. Terms like “sensation,” “emotion,” and “thought” are linguistic constructs that create an illusion of separateness. However, these aspects of consciousness are fluid and interdependent, each influencing the others. Cognitive science increasingly supports this view, showing that thought and emotion, for instance, are inseparable; thought without emotional context often fails to guide coherent action (Mondal, 2021).
Yet, language treats these elements as distinct, as if they were standalone components of the mind. This is a simplification, one that can be useful for communication but ultimately distorts the nature of consciousness. In reality, emotions, sensations, and thoughts exist as interwoven processes, with boundaries that blur and shift (Searle, 2002). The language we use to describe them is an artifact, an artificial mapping that does not align with the actual experience of consciousness.
The Immensity of Conscious States
Consciousness cannot be adequately represented by a limited set of categories or states. The number of possible inner states is vast, shaped by countless parameters that adjust in subtle, often imperceptible ways. These parameters interact continuously, resulting in a fluid and analog experience rather than a series of fixed or binary states. Consciousness could be thought of as involving thousands of variables, each adjustable in infinite combinations (Tart, 1969).
This complexity makes consciousness resistant to linguistic description. Words can only approximate the nature of inner experience, often reducing intricate, multi-dimensional states to broad or generic terms. Each emotional state, for example, may encompass subtle variations—degrees of anger, shades of love, layers of sadness—that differ widely between individuals. Language struggles to capture these nuances, relying instead on a simplified vocabulary that can only hint at the true diversity of conscious experience (Chalmers, 1996).
Inner Language, Inner Silence, and Thought Without Words
A significant aspect of consciousness is the interplay between inner language and inner silence. Much of thought is non-linguistic, forming in abstract, pre-verbal ways before being expressed in words. There are periods of silence within the mind, where thoughts are gathered without immediate translation into language. These intervals are universal, although they may vary in frequency and duration between individuals (Jackendoff, 2007).
Some people report experiencing less inner speech than others, which raises questions about the role of language in organizing thought. Inner silence allows for a more direct engagement with consciousness, where thoughts form and shift without linguistic structure (Montemayor & Haladjian, 2015). This pre-linguistic stage highlights the limitations of language in capturing thought, as the mental process leading to speech is not itself linguistic. Inner language thus becomes a tool for expressing thought, rather than the substance of thought itself, illustrating the complex relationship between language and consciousness.
The Limitations of Language in Conveying the Full Spectrum of Consciousness
Language, while powerful, is ultimately inadequate for capturing the full spectrum of consciousness. Words categorize emotions and states into a limited number of terms, which can only approximate the diversity of human experience. This inadequacy is especially pronounced in rare or ineffable states—moments of awe, reverence, or the “made-me-melt” feeling—that defy easy description. Language can communicate broad themes, but it lacks the precision needed to convey the unique, subjective qualities of these experiences (Dennett, 1991).
This limitation underscores a central challenge in understanding consciousness: language is designed for communication, not for capturing the entirety of inner experience. When we describe feelings, we assume that others understand our words in a similar way, yet each person’s inner experience remains inherently private. Language provides only an approximation, leaving much of the nuance and depth of consciousness unexpressed and inaccessible.
Subjectivity and the Hard Problem of Consciousness
The “hard problem” of consciousness—understanding the nature of subjective experience—remains unresolved (Chalmers, 1996). Each person’s qualia, or individual experiences, are private and inaccessible to others. Although language offers a shared framework for describing emotions and states, it cannot guarantee that the same words evoke identical experiences in different people. Observable behaviors and physiological changes may suggest commonalities, yet they provide only indirect evidence of inner states.
This subjectivity is fundamental to consciousness. Even if language could describe states with precision, the experience itself would still be unique to each person. Our qualia—what it feels like to be us—are ultimately isolated within our own minds, making direct understanding of another’s experience impossible. Language can bridge some gaps, but it cannot overcome the inherent privacy of conscious experience.
Examples of Ineffable and Subtle States
Certain emotions defy easy classification and resist precise description. For instance, tenderness in response to seeing a baby, a “made-me-melt” feeling when encountering extraordinary beauty, or awe within a cathedral or natural landscape are all subtle and layered states (Tart, 1975). These moments reveal the limitations of language, as terms like “adorable,” “reverence,” or “awe” fall short of capturing the full experience.
These examples illustrate how consciousness encompasses a range of states that are difficult to articulate. Each of these feelings blends emotion, cognition, and sensation in unique ways, making them challenging to categorize. The diversity of inner states is immense, extending far beyond the common categories of joy, sadness, love, or anger. Language may offer familiar terms, but these words cannot fully express the rich, multi-dimensional nature of consciousness.
Summary
Consciousness is a vast and intricate phenomenon, with an immense range of states that cannot be neatly categorized or fully expressed through language. While language attempts to impose structure by dividing experience into sensation, emotion, and thought, these distinctions are artificial and fail to reflect the true complexity of consciousness. Each state of consciousness is shaped by countless subtle parameters, creating a continuum of experiences that language can only approximate.
Inner language and inner silence reveal further complexities, as thought often forms in non-linguistic ways before reaching expression. This highlights the inadequacy of language in capturing the full nature of thought and consciousness. Ultimately, the subjective nature of consciousness—our unique qualia—remains private and inaccessible to others, underscoring the limits of communication.
In this exploration, we find that language is a useful but limited tool, providing broad classifications that only begin to approach the diversity of conscious experience. Consciousness itself remains a mystery, a continuum of states that extends beyond the reach of words. This essay has outlined possibilities rather than conclusions, reflecting the open-ended nature of inquiry into consciousness and the challenges of truly understanding the depths of inner experience.
References
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/Chalmers_The_Conscious_Mind.pdf
Author Note: David J. Chalmers is a philosopher specializing in philosophy of mind and consciousness studies.
Reading Note: This work explores the "hard problem" of consciousness, discussing subjective experience and the limitations of objective study.
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Little, Brown and Company. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1422870
Author Note: Daniel C. Dennett is a philosopher and cognitive scientist, known for his work on consciousness and free will.
Reading Note: Dennett offers a comprehensive theory of consciousness, examining the role of language and thought
Note: Not really a fan of Dennett’s way of looking at the problem anymore —he glosses over the essential point of qualia, does some handwaving; his explanations are wanting in my view.
Jackendoff, R. (2007). Language and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, & E. Thompson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 489–504). Cambridge University Press. https://perpus.univpancasila.ac.id/repository/EBUPT181231.pdf
Author Note: Ray Jackendoff is a cognitive scientist focused on language and consciousness.
Reading Note: This chapter examines how language shapes consciousness and influences cognitive processes.
Koch, C. (2024). Then I am myself the world: What consciousness is and how to expand it. MIT Press. https://www.amazon.ca/Then-Am-Myself-World-Consciousness/dp/1541602803
Author Note: Christof Koch is a neuroscientist known for his research on the neural basis of consciousness.
Reading Note: Koch integrates insights from neuroscience and philosophy to explore the nature and variability of consciousness.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.593137/full
Montemayor, C., & Haladjian, H. H. (2015). Consciousness, attention, and conscious attention. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262552479/consciousness-attention-and-conscious-attention/
Author Note: Carlos Montemayor and Harry H. Haladjian are philosophers and cognitive scientists focusing on attention and consciousness.
Reading Note: This book explores the relationship between consciousness and attention, examining how language and awareness intersect.
Searle, J. R. (2002). Consciousness and language. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/consciousness-and-language/C57EB3F8CA2E04CB15256B3E8DCE8D79
Author Note: John R. Searle is a philosopher noted for his work in philosophy of language and mind.
Reading Note: Searle explores how linguistic structures influence consciousness and discusses the constraints language imposes on understanding subjective experience.
Tart, C. T. (1969). Altered states of consciousness. Wiley.
Author Note: Charles T. Tart is a psychologist and researcher in transpersonal psychology and altered states of consciousness.
Reading Note: This seminal work examines various altered states and their implications for understanding consciousness beyond ordinary experience.
Tart, C. T. (1975). Transpersonal psychologies. Harper & Row. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1975-30802-000
Author Note: Charles T. Tart is known for his work in transpersonal psychology and studies on consciousness.
Reading Note: Tart’s work delves into altered states of consciousness and the limitations of language in describing subjective experiences.
Note: I owned it for years, read it at least twice. Considered a seminal work.
The phrase "what to leave in, what to leave out" appears in the reflective verses of Against the Wind, where Seger recalls the tension between youthful freedom and the growing responsibilities that adulthood brings. The surrounding lines, mentioning "deadlines and commitments," ground this phrase in a context of life’s inevitable constraints. Here, it resonates as an introspective pause, as if the speaker is assessing what he has chosen to hold onto and what he has allowed to slip away.
The full context suggests a life lived with both a sense of adventure and a recognition of limits. In the face of pressures and obligations, "what to leave in, what to leave out" becomes a powerful refrain on the need to prioritize and make choices that shape the course of one's life. It highlights the bittersweet reality that pursuing certain paths often means relinquishing others, marking a reflection on the trade-offs that accompany personal growth, commitment, and resilience as one moves “against the wind.”