Language and The Development of Consciousness

[Montero]

@tinkderdan
I think you are perhaps being a fraction optimistic to say "At some place along the scale our awareness is such that we realize that the world doesn't revolve around us."
Some people never manage that.
Or if they do, in a dim and distant way, they immediately try to fix it.

Other than that - you making the point about learning body language. Cats have that in bucket fulls. Boy do they ever let you know what is wanted.
It also occurs to me from you mentioning body language that there is an awareness of eyes and gaze - as in prey animals knowing they are being watched, being very sharp on you, or anything else looking at them.
Also toddlers and kids are very aware of their parents' attention - "Look at me".

Its a fascinating subject, how all of this interacts and where you'd put the borderline for self-awareness.

 

[Ursa major]

as in prey animals knowing they are being watched, being very sharp on you, or anything else looking at them.

A couple of decades ago, my mother told me that she had encountered a small mouse on the terrace at the back of the garden. It stood there looking directly up at her eyes and not at the parts of her that (in physical terms) posed the mouse most risk. Now I can understand why pets would do this: they're around us and get to know how to behave to achieve what they want. It's harder to understand how and why a mouse would know to look at a human being's face.


For those of you concerned about the outcome, both human and mouse survived the encounter unscathed. (The mouse was probably only 50 metres or so from the nearby nature reserve... and about twenty metres from the house, so far enough away, in my mother's opinion.)

 

[Montero]

Wild birds know if you are looking at them too. I sometimes try to watch from the corner of my eye. Also prey animals in the main of course.

I get the feeling that there is a built in understanding of eyes and gaze in many creatures - so many know to move when you look away. If you talk survival of the fittest (which I know is a bit more complicated than that and sometimes misused but anyway....), then the ones that work out attention being on them, vs attention not being on them, probably have a better chance of living to breed.

Not about attention as such, but remember reading an account written by someone whose cat had had kittens - and it was how cats can count to two but not higher. The cat was moving the kittens across the garden - pick up a kitten from starting place, move it to finishing place, trot back for the next one. To help her they moved the rest of the pile to finishing place - and she was very upset, casting around at the starting place, expecting to find kittens. They moved the kittens back and all was OK. So they reckoned she could count to two - two heaps - but not higher - as in many kittens. Or as Terry Pratchett had it - some, many, lots.....

 

[hej]

without language is it possible to have consciousness?

Consciousness is far more fundamental that present science typically acknowledges.

The humble electron knows where the nucleus is. The electron also knows not to crash into something to which it is attracted.

Philosophers of the mind lack the tools in their field to understand consciousness -- but that doesn't stop them from trying.

The complexity of human consciousness vis-a-vis that of, say, an insect (which is very well aware of changes in its environment), confuses discussions about consciousness.

Consciousness can be exquisitely simple, but saying so -- let alone defending such a position -- invites mockery and ostracism.

 

[LordOfWizards]

Peter Russel gives some very enlightening talks on this topic.
The Reality of Consciousness

 

[hej]

Peter Russel gives some very enlightening talks on this topic.
The Reality of Consciousness

Refreshing to see this view from a scientist.

It's one thing for him to give a talk. It's quite another to put the bases for his conclusions in a journal article. I wonder if he's done so.

On his site he lists articles and books -- but not journal publications. Disappointing, but not surprising.

 

[Pyan]

Refreshing to see this view from a scientist.

It's one thing for him to give a talk. It's quite another to put the bases for his conclusions in a journal article. I wonder if he's done so.

On his site he lists articles and books -- but not journal publications. Disappointing, but not surprising.

No, not really surprising - because journals tend toward provable, peer-reviewed articles, whereas anyone can publish a book. Suggest that you google Mr Russel and decide whether the word 'scientist' in your quote is strictly applicable...

 

[hej]

Suggest that you google Mr Russel and decide whether the word 'scientist' in your quote is strictly applicable...

I catch your drift.

I merely refer to what he claims as his education. Considering the content of his site alone, I should have said 'someone trained/educated in science.' He seems to have veered away.

 

[LordOfWizards]

Ah, but if you never question the status quo, how can progress be made? He starts out saying that there are many contradictions in current understanding of science, and consciousness is one area where this is definitely the case. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions either, but he makes several good arguments about the difficulty involving the science of consciousness. Specifically, "How does something as immaterial as consciousness arise from something as inanimate as matter?"

 

[hej]

"How does something as immaterial as consciousness arise from something as inanimate as matter?"

Note the premise. If consciousness arises from that which is beneath matter, e.g. dark energy, then we have a difference question.

 

[Brian G Turner]

If consciousness arises from that which is beneath matter, e.g. dark energy, then we have a difference question.

Much as I agree with some of your notions of consciousness, I think you're stumbling over your use of terms here.

 

[hej]

Much as I agree with some of your notions of consciousness, I think you're stumbling over your use of terms here.

My statement that consciousness is fundamental to the cosmos is too simple -- and paradoxically, too complex -- to easily grasp. Please, I ask for your patience.

Consciousness emerges with dark energy, and thus it -- and all other systems -- must demonstrate it. We can only see it manifest in that which we can measure.

We may explain away certain reactions as mere laws of nature, but what is consciousness other than a set of rules that, when followed, show awareness?

The electron knows to absorb and release certain photons -- but not others. Also, it is conscious of the nucleus -- and knows not to crash into the proton (to which it is attracted and from which it is repulsed).

The cell, with its sense of smell (the first sense), is conscious of its food and prey. The following gif demonstrates.
Neutrophil Chases and Eats a Staphylococcus aureus Bacterium - Neutrophil Chases and Eats a Staphylococcus aureus Bacterium
Note, too, how the bacterium knows to move away from the neutrophil -- but not other cells. The bacterium has sufficent consciousness to discriminate.

Philosophers like to focus on the complexities of consciousness, which makes for good books. Philosophers either do not know -- or discard -- evidence of simple consciousness. It need not include self-awareness, but it necessitates certain reactions.

Quantitative arguments about consciousness, e.g. our having it somehow relating to language, are variants of the problem of the heap. When does a collection of material (evidence) become a heap?

Qualitative premises on consciousness look for the essential element of awareness, which we can see in laws of physics both known and unknown.

 

[Brian G Turner]

consciousness is fundamental to the cosmos is too simple -- and paradoxically, too complex

I can easily grasp that and have no problem with it. But citing "dark energy" is meaningless - "dark energy" is supposedly a gravitional effect relating to how the universe expands. You'd be better off invoking Quantum Mechanics, which requires an observer to collapse any system from a state of probabilities.

 

[Vertigo]

Sorry I must take exception a little here. We don't know what dark energy is, it's just a placeholder name for something that, as @Brian G Turner says appears to be continuing to accelerate the expansion of the universe. As such I'm not sure it's valid so say that anything other than that expansion can be caused by it.

Secondly any orbiting object whether it be an electron around the nucleus or the moon around the earth will not crash into the object it is moving around. This is not a result of some kind of conscious control of its orbit but just normal physics. The moon and all our man made satellites are not consciously avoiding crashing into the Earth what is keeping them there is a balance between the attractive forces (gravitation) and the forces 'pushing' them away (centripetal forces). With electrons it is more to do with the balance of kinetic and potential energy but the effect is the same; that equilibrium is what keeps it stable. Add more kinetic energy (eg by photons) and it may move to a higher level or even depart the nucleus altogether. No consciousness just physics.

To get a more realistic view of the electron's motion (and it not crashing into the nucleus) we would need to move to quantum terminology and look at the probabilities of where we expect to find it. But this is still straight physics not consciousness.

 

[hej]

I can easily grasp that and have no problem with it. But citing "dark energy" is meaningless - "dark energy" is supposedly a gravitional effect relating to how the universe expands. You'd be better off invoking Quantum Mechanics, which requires an observer to collapse any system from a state of probabilities.

At our present level of understanding/ignorance, you make a great point. My position is clearer if based on known physics, yes, but then excludes 96% of the universe.

What a quandary!

 

[hej]

To get a more realistic view of the electron's motion (and it not crashing into the nucleus) we would need to move to quantum terminology and look at the probabilities of where we expect to find it. But this is still straight physics not consciousness.

I respectfully disagree. Physics is one method by which we can see -- and measure -- consciousness.

As for the electron, in plasma it is not bound to the nucleus, yet it still does not crash into that to which it is attracted. We describe the attracto-repulsive force of and on the electron with physics. I am stating that what we so describe is, at its very essence, a consciousness. The electron knows where the protons are -- and acts accordingly.

I understand how many (most) may see my description of the conscious electron as jabberwocky. No big deal. I hope to provide a little grist for your intellectual mill, though.

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." - Neils Bohr

 

[Extollager]

With a thread title like this one, I need to recommend writings of Owen Barfield. Poetic Diction could be a good one to start with. The only big problem that's likely to arise is that poetry has dropped below the horizon for many of us, and so Barfield's allusions to readers' experiences of language might not be as persuasive as they would otherwise be. However, much that he says applies to more familiar forms of literature too.

 

[LordOfWizards]

Note the premise. If consciousness arises from that which is beneath matter, e.g. dark energy, then we have a difference question.

I'll have to go along with Brian and Vertigo on this one. When science makes a discovery such as the universe's expansion is accelerating scientists (in this case astronomers and Astrophysicists) propose a theory to describe the phenomenon they are measuring. In this context, the theory that was put forth to explain why the universe's expansion is accelerating is "Dark Energy". And that's all it is. A theory. There has been no empirical truth other than the observation of the expanding universe to "prove" the theory. Once a theory has been repeatedly proven for long enough it becomes a law. (a scientific law). e.g. "The law of Gravity". There has been no particles discovered that are responsible for Dark Energy. To say that consciousness somehow derives from Dark Matter is like saying that the text on your computer screen comes from the nitrogen in the air.

 

[hej]

I'll have to go along with Brian and Vertigo on this one. When science makes a discovery such as the universe's expansion is accelerating scientists (in this case astronomers and Astrophysicists) propose a theory to describe the phenomenon they are measuring. In this context, the theory that was put forth to explain why the universe's expansion is accelerating is "Dark Energy". And that's all it is. A theory. There has been no empirical truth other than the observation of the expanding universe to "prove" the theory. Once a theory has been repeatedly proven for long enough it becomes a law. (a scientific law). e.g. "The law of Gravity". There has been no particles discovered that are responsible for Dark Energy. To say that consciousness somehow derives from Dark Matter is like saying that the text on your computer screen comes from the nitrogen in the air.

I hear ya, but not quite.

First, I give you my respect for a hearty criticism.

I recover to return the following.

I am saying that consciousness, like physical laws, is fundamental to the universe.

I suppose if I said, we can measure it all the way down to the photon, you would be, perhaps, a bit more satisfied. but.

The question would remain. Is consciousness fundamental or not? 96% of the universe needs explaining. I say yes, consciousness is in there.

 

[Montero]

OK
So if a tree falls in the wood, do you have to have a self-aware and conscious being to hear it, or will a squirrel do?

And if consciousness is fundamental to the universe, does anything with a brain need to be present, or will the universe hear it?