Consciousness is a subjective label.

In my opinion "consciousness" is the application of "language".

Without "language" there is no "consciousness".

The more sophisticated the "language" the more "consciousness".

"turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:26ce7897-ad36-4cd2-921f-8fed020dcc2e@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

Interesting opinion.

Is there consciousness in Silence?

Be silent and listen.

[Doing a dictionary search on the word "anagram" might help. I say "might".]

On Sep 18, 10:28 pm, "Sean" now.com.au> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:22:01 -0700, turtoni wrote:

Interesting.

My new position here is: Humans always had language, if language can be
extended to encompass a system of communicating abstractions, like
'feelings', distant events and objects.

The very interesting issue you raise here is the element of
'sophistication' being tied to the quality of 'conscious'.

I can see how this is not true at all. Of course, the definition of being
"more conscious" would have to be settled first.

Who is the "more conscious", one who drinks the water or one who hears
about it?

Complexity or sophistication might be a hindrance. Quantity mistaken for
quality.

On Sep 19, 9:26 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

Agreed.

Is an ant "conscious" ? Is a dog "conscious"?