On Sep 19, 9:26Â am, ZerkonX
X.net> wrote:> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:22:01 -0700, turtoni wrote:
>> Without "language" there is no "consciousness".
>
>> The more sophisticated the "language" the more "consciousness".
>
> 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.
Agreed.
> 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.
Is an ant "conscious" ? Is a dog "conscious"?
> Who is the "more conscious", one who drinks the water or one who hears
> about it?
"It has been defined loosely as a constellation of attributes of mind
such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, and the ability to
perceive a relationship between oneself and one's environment."
> Complexity or sophistication might be a hindrance. Quantity mistaken for
> quality.
The being more "concious" isn't about being better. On the scale of
things; typically i imagine humans having roughly the same amount of
"conciousness".
