Ideal communication is to replicate your own thought process in the listener's mind and no language can do that consistently so, language is imperfect and hence, it makes no sense to distort an already sad situation by talking about an imperfect system, using the same imperfect system although Godel seems to have succeeded very well .To my mind, mankind's single greatest collective discovery of the 20th century.

This is a part of a conversation I had a few days ago over Gtalk.

Talking doesn't help much.

True ,but listening does and I am listening.

I don't believe in a deterministic universe. There are empirical truths that are unique to each one of us and yours are different from mine so the only way we can arrive at the WHOLE truth is to agree on it deterministically, through logic and to arrive at it EXPERIENTIALLY, through self-awareness .

Does anyone know the truth?
To pull out an over-used cliche …….everyone does and to substantiate it with my favorite argument everyone knows he is going to die and yet, no one actually does.

Death is the ultimate truth then
nah there is no question of 'ultimate'. A theorem is either true or false.There are no gradations in truth neither is it something holy to be viewed with awe.

But everything in life is so fuzzy
I know . So is a cellular automata but it has deterministic rules and it is replicable .About a week ago i felt so HAPPY when i formulated the following ……what Krishna told Arjuna in the Gita was "arjuna, be a finite state automaton".Forget it i always assume everyone loves math as much as i do.The whole point is its not fuzzy at all its fuzzy to me , if i am too lazy to look at the source code if i do, it becomes very clear there will be randomness and chaos, of course.

Whats the source code?
I can't describe it to you because you have your own as in its written in a language that is individual to your consciousness and so, you are the only one who can read it the code is the same for you and me

I am the machine and a unique machine for that particular language
YOU are not the machine YOU is a recursive cycle of awareness that observes the machine in action , so YOU are the machine, and YOU are also the operator and which YOU is which is decided by the level of self-awareness you are at and, to my mind, the higher up in the managerial hierarchy you are.Its not something you can THINK of, thinking presupposes logic and logic can never examine ITSELF ,whereas that is what self-awareness requires to be able to communicate with other consciousnesses.Well, you see all of us are running the same source code and it is compiling differently for all of us

Let's say you have a company say GE it makes a light bulb who has made the light bulb?Can any ONE entity take responsibility?No the same way there are so many levels of consciousness and if you say, "I am unaware" you are saying, "this level of consciousness is unaware" and the only thing to do is to rise up to the next one.

And we are limited
No, we're not because we can all access the level of consciousness that is pure awareness.
But wait a minute when i say, we can all access it that is the equivalent of saying any divergent sequence can go to infinity can we see it going to infinity?We can't .Can we, at any point, look at it , measure its value and say , it has crossed the threshold for being considered infinite? We can't and yet, they all do now, to answer your question me. You just need to be "aware" to divert your consciousness towards the act of being "aware" infinite levels of consciousness? If you could enumerate them, then, yes, there would be an infinity. Its a contnuous spectrum, you see can we, at any point, look at it , measure its valueand say , it has crossed the threshold for being considered infinite?We can't and yet, they all do.

So how do we climb the levels?
By being "aware"that's it just THAT there are different systems that people use.You have yoga
you have bhakti.

What about drugs?
That is a tricky one. The thing with drugs is that they do it temporarily they do and so does sex.The experience is genuine but it is not self-generated and hence, does not help.Its like hard-coding a program with numbers you will see a nice graph every time you run it but you won't advance in solving the problem ,will you ? Sex IS a drug they can be useful if you stay AWARE of the objective the fear is that the experimenter will start mistaking the nice little graph for the objective.

"Language is always going to be imperfect" because it involves taking a last common denominator.One self-generative system is trying to communicate with another self-generative system and both have different compilers so, there is naturally going to be information loss."
Indeed.