I admire how beautifully Robert Lawrence Kuhn understands and summaries the complex content uttered by the experts. For instance recall, how well he transformed the words of the expert into a simplified version. "So it seems, that language then gives us capacity to transform momentary experiences into general principals that we can relate over time, so that we built categories and meaning from the individual experiences". This way of abstractions make the content more intelligible for listeners.
So, it has been determined that written human language arouse about 5 thousand years ago. Then, who/what wrote the written language of biological systems found in DNA starting at least billions of years ago if language is a product of mind / consciousness / intelligence?
Interesting that you say this. I too was struck by his succint summary. Its a great concise way to think about the role of language in relation to consciousness.
Computers have language without consciousness. Infants have consciousness without language. You don't need language to enrich consciousness, as you could think entirely in terms of pictures without words. Animals can make complex plans for the future and have self awareness by thinking entirely in terms of pictures. We now know that ants can pass the mirror test, in that the ant will recognize that she is looking at a reflection of herself.
I think that the key point is that the meaning making ability that language provides enriches consciousness, regardless of whether or not that language utilizes words or pictures or whatever as a medium, but that languages that do utilize words provide for the potential of quite complex meaning making and thus work to enrich consciousness in a very complex way
A sweet memory from my daughter's childhood - she always rode in the back seat of the car (this is when she was pre-talking age). My wife and I, sitting in the front seat, would have a conversation. One time, in the midst of our talking, our daughter started speaking in nonsense words, as though joining in the conversation.
This may be obvious to some, but I think I know how we came to communicate the word “no” by shaking our head from side to side. Imagine yourself as a one year old sitting in your high chair having a meal and your mother spoons up mashed broccoli 🥦 and moves the spoon toward your mouth. You take a little sample to taste and immediately decide you don’t like. Then Mom spoons up a little more. Of course, you don’t want it. So you create a moving target. You shake your head. Logically, the opposite of no is yes and the opposite of shaking your head is nodding. This was a mildly profound insight for me. I present this for your ridicule.
This was Darwins hypothesis, way back in 1872 - although he referred to the actions surrounding breast feeding. There's no real evidence to support the idea but it is a commonly held belief. Indeed there are countries where the opposite is true - a nod means 'no' and a shake means 'yes' - so it may be a little more complex than a simple food association.
I think the true essence of man is to know meaning behind any thought or deed, so language, is the tool or device to attain that goal or purpose and to share with others, for collaboration and learning from each other. If it wasn’t for language we couldn’t have learnt and passed on to other generations who would build on it. Language is the best way to preserve what we learn whether verbally or in written form.
1. Consciousness is holding the same place in the universe what it holds in a dream. 2. A dream,Including every body living in the dream is observed by consciousness which is not a part of the dream. 3. The universe, including every body living in the universe is also observed by consciousness which is not a part of the universe.
When Rebecca Goldstein marvels at the variety of ways in which her readers have understood the characters she created in her novels, does she inadvertently confirm the central fact of our beings, that the fullness of the experience of being is fundamentally unknowable to others?
Very intriguing idea indeed... just like solipsism. This reminds me so much of this scene from 'Waking Life' (fantastic film btw): ruclips.net/video/iDGMS_tjRxU/видео.html
The key word in your comment is 'know'. You apply it as if we fully comprehend what we mean by its, as it were, trivial application, but this is far from being the case. It therefore isn't the question you asked which is important but the way you applied the term/notion 'know' as part of it. To illustrate my point, consider this: I KNOW that I am writing this reply now (although this assertion was not necessary at all for me doing so just a millisecond before I stated it here). But I don't KNOW how you or anybody else will interpret/understand it, or I do only partly or not fully and we can discuss it will utter coherence and potential for further growth in our mutual understanding. But than again - is the latter version/application of KNOW a partial or incomplete manifestation of the former or an altogether different application ("meaning") of the term 'KNOW'? If it is, then Mrs. Goldstein's observation does not confirm anything of what you suggest it might. Thanks for your comment.
The human world is composed of real things and imaginary things. The real things can be broken down into two categories: material objects and abstract ideas. Abstract concepts are ideas which do not have a specific material manifestation, while the other kind of thing has both a concept and an object existing in reality (whether it be physical or conceptual). For example, an apple is something that exists as both a concrete entity with certain properties but also as an idea which has additional properties such as sweetness. The thing about an abstract concept is that it doesn't necessarily have a material manifestation, which means that there are no constraints on its definition. An apple is constrained in the fact that its redness and roundness are inherent to what it is as well as being physical properties of it (whether we choose to refer to them or not). However, if I define "freedom" as "the ability to do whatever you want", this then becomes something with additional aspects such as freedom from limitations. Human consciousness is made up of ideas, which are abstract concepts that we use to make sense of the world around us. To take a very simple example, if you see a red apple on a table and it makes you think "that's an apple", then your mind has created an idea called "apple" based on what your senses have told you. You have not seen every single property of this thing called "apple" but rather just its colour and shape. It could be argued that these properties are intrinsic to an apple because they define what it is as well as being physical features. So while an apple is a real thing, the idea of an apple (which your mind created) is not. The key difference between the two is that a material object can be experienced directly by you whereas ideas have to be interpreted from other things. So if someone says "you're so round", this has to be understood in terms of what they mean rather than being based on any direct experience. So we must distinguish between the material and abstract, with the latter being composed of ideas. So if we say "I love you", this is not based on any direct experience but rather a concept which has been formed from other things. We can see that these ideas (consciousness) have two key aspects: interpretation and meaning. The former refers to the fact that all concepts must be interpreted by a mind in order for them to become relevant, while the latter is what gives these concepts their relevance.
I think consciousness precedes all. I think language evolves to describe our conscious experiences between us. Animals have language, from vocal noises and body language to scent communication (which I think some species such as foxes, might "see" smells through bioluminescent scent chemicals, which we cannot). I agree with what Rebecca Newberger Goldstein said.
Many times I've known what I want to say, but been unable to find the words to say it. Or when needing to chose between two languages, I've always been aware that the thought comes first; it then comes out, often imperfectedly, in one language or the other depending on the environment. I therefore believe that language was bolted on long after the development of conciousness. It can only approximate what we experience in the conscious. In fact, language can even masquerade as our thoughts, which can deceive us into thinking we think something when we don't.
"The words of the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanisms of thought. Conventional words or other signs have to be sought for laboriously at a second stage." -- Albert Einstein
@@rclrd1 interesting how that works. Similar thing reading those 2 posts, the text is read perspective is understood without further conscious thought , then commentary about it after it's already known
@@pedrova8058 Some of us imagine stuff in 3d structures and processes then struggle to find the words to describe and communicate them. Would that be aaphantasia?
Now I'm wondering how much my 45 years of programming experience involving imagining data structures and the code to process them has influenced my previous comment.
Searle is right the others are a little confused - consciousness can be non-linguistic but thinking must be done with language. So the perception of a scene or an emotional reaction, those enter consciousness pre-linguistically but are immediately defined or channeled by thought, by language. Speech is especially interesting in this regard, since it is language and thinking but seems to proceed almost without a separate consciousness. Thinking out loud, for example, is language as consciousness.
They once said that there can't be consciousness without language. Fortunately they changed their mind. They say there can't be consciousness without matter. I' quite sure many will change their mind on this as well.
You wrote: “they once said that there can't be consciousness without language. Fortunately they changed their mind. They say there can't be consciousness without matter. I' quite sure many will change their mind on this as well. Does that not depend entirely on what you or another suppose to be what they call “consciousness”? Do you suppose that there can be consciousness in limbo or wholly without any context - or without specifying *whose* consciousness or awareness and *of what* ?- If you do not specify whose consciousness and of what you might just as well use the word stuff, or thing or things, and you will convey or communicate as much. Would you agree that if you do not specify whose consciousness and *of what*, you are speaking of consciousness as if it were some vague generalisation, not experienced specifically identically by all beings? If you were to do that, upon what evidential basis would you be assuming or guessing that whatever consciousness might be, it is experienced identically in all beings - or even possibly all things? - Or in the simplest possible terms, why do you assume that consciousness is experienced identically in all beings? And that when you speak of consciousness with another it is perfectly possible for you and whoever to be discussing completely different things, phenomena or expereiniences,and that consciousness may not be a general term such as food or air or an equally vague generalisation such as life? When you speak of consciousness with another how could you discover - or how would you go about discovering, whether or not you were discussing *exactly the same* thing, experience, or phenomenon? Do you suppose that consciousness is somehow or other common to all experiencers as if it were time or space or some other generalisation that is or might be commonly or identically experienced by all that experience it? To give you an example of what I’m trying to convey if you speak of bread to one being, it will evoke associations that are particular or peculiar to that being and those associations may well not be identical to the associations evoked another being when he hears the word bread - Some may think of bread as sliced white bread and others of a paratha, chapati or tortilla, so when they speak of bread they will not necessarily be speaking of *exactly the same* thing and if you speak of consciousness without specifying whose consciousness and consciousness or knowledge or awareness of what, it is exactly as if you were speaking of bread, and when you speak of bread, it will evoke different associations or meanings in different beings and therefore you will not necessarily be speaking about or discussing *exactly the same* thing - you follow? Thus when you speak of consciousness do you suppose it to be something general like food or air or space (or possibly time), and thus generally and commonly understood by all, or are you seeking to be slightly more specific than that? Moreover how can you possibly be specific without identifying whose consciousness and consciousness of what? On what evidential basis do you suppose or assume that whatever you mean by “consciousness evokes identical associations in, or *mans, *exactly*the same thing* to, others? What exactly are you trying to get across or what exact associations do you seek to evoke in others when you use the word “consciousness”? Do please try to bear in mind that you will convey, or communicate absolutely nothing if you simply substitute for one vague meaningless generalisation such as consciousness another equally vague meaningless generalisation such awareness or knowledge, which, like bread will evoke different associations in, or mean different things to, different people. In short it would be exactly if you were to state X=Y=X, where both X and Y are undefined and not assigned any value or significance or meaning. If you do no more than swap or substitute for one undefined term another undefined term, your interlocutor will have no clear idea of what it is you are speaking or to what you are referring, and you will convey or communicate absolutely nothing at all. Let us suppose that when you use the word "consciousness" ,you use it to describe, or attach it to, a particular experience. If you are with me on that, to what particular experience (experienced by you) are you referring?- Do please bear in mind and understand that how you experience one phenomenon (say knowledge pain or consciousness, or time or air or space) may not be identical to how another experiences it and that neither of you have any possible method whereby you can discover whether or not you are speaking about identical experiences. I trust that is sufficiently clear to you. Whatever you mean by "Consciousness" cannot possibly have any meaning unless you identify *whose* consciousness and consciousness *of what*? Consciousness means at least if you look at its etymology, "With knowledge", and knowledge itself is utterly meaningless unless you specify whose knowledge and knowledge of what - it is as if you were to say I know without more or without specifying precisely what it is that you know, or simply saying or uttering the word "know". Know or knowledge without some context or for example specifying A knows B, is completely and utterly meaningless just as if you said to someone else "know", would they not enquire who knows what? It is completely and utterly futile and meaningless to speak of consciousness without speaking of whose consciousness and consciousness of what - it is no different from going up to someone and saying "know" - you would have told them nothing just as you tell me and everyone else nothing if you speak of consciousness without specifying some being that experiences consciousness and consciousness of what. You can repeat consciousness over and over and over again until you are blue in the face and you will communicate absolutely nothing unless you specify or identify whose consciousness and consciousness or knowledge of what. Can consciousness (or with knowledge) know or be conscious of itself? - How is that any different from enquiring whether or not a mirror can reflect itself? Is not consciousness (or with knowledge) identical to a mirror, or if not in what respect of the differ from a mirror? It is child's play to demonstrate whether or not consciousness is contingent on, or depends upon, son matter - specifically some sort of apparatus, and that can be simply demonstrated by destroying or damaging or injuring that apparatus and discovering Whether or not the user of that apparatus can still experience anything whatsoever or be conscious or with knowledge of anything whatsoever, and to ask that question is to answer it, is it not?- Destroy the dreamer and you destroyed dream, That is axiomatic self-evident not? You can find out for yourself by the simple process of trying to be aware of The exact moment when you fall asleep or cease to be conscious or capable of knowing or directly immediately personally apprehending or experiencing anything of anything other than dreams, Which is axiomatically or Definitionally (or by definition) *Impossible*. Therefore apprehension or experience of anything is plainly dependent upon some material apparatus capable of apprehension or experience or knowledge. QED. That dispenses with the absurdity that consciousness is not dependent upon the brain which is material, and I can simply demonstrate that by knocking you unconscious or administering to you some general anaesthetic, or simply getting blind drunk or stoned out of your mind, all of which have a direct immediate impact upon the brain or your apprehending apparatus which are using to read this at this very minute which you could not do if under a general anaesthetic or do you perhaps suppose that you might be able to do it under a general anaesthetic and totally unconscious because your brain had been switched off.QED "Dreams are true while they last; can more be said of life?" - Havelock Ellis
The challenge is to get out of all negativity and consider universe in abundance and positive energy without any artificial construct and being free of all worries. We might than be able to understand what a thought is and from where it comes and how our perception works towards any intention or phenomenon.
I wouldn't say language made humanity better, it's obvious it did, but compared to what exactly? Language was developed over a long period of time, it went trough many phases, symbols were constantly adapting and evolving into more practical system. Here's the question, why do we need to read and write anyway? Some things might come useful in life, most don't, it seems language is a huge waste of time. More over, what happened to original symbols, when words weren't attributed so precisely, looks like much was lost in translations from one form of language to another. If words are emotional responses to self and world outside, language also redefined what is personality, but not consciousness necessary, at least not directly. Think about physical reality, our consciousness affect how our body mass will move in the future, what kind of entropy it will cause to environment. Therefore symbols are energy, not sure we're using such a powerful force in right ways. Language could also be limitation to real brain powers, it's like solving cries-cross word puzzles, when we must find right word for short descriptions where each letter must fit exactly in empty squares. But this is not how nature works, when we enwoke word in our aware mind, we control various real energy potentials. Language is good universal tool for all kinds of purposes, but it's because we live this way, because we inherited this civilization and we strive to keep on going. It's like we're stuck in a stone age of consciousness, perhaps smart electric machines will help us unlock our natural potential. But i doubt it, it's more likely we will just continue solving even more complex word games, not realizing once upon there was a language out of that box. Best alternative example for expanded conscious powers that i can think of is arcane magic, but that's another story.
Well done research on the subject- entertaining yet educational- a bravo to your cinematographer. Very well done . Thank you for producing meaningful content
A lot, said an ex pro ebayer.... It depends on how often you use your inner voice... Depends on how you define 'consciousness'... and 'language'... I include the subconscious as part of consciousness, so your sensors, nerves, perception and cognition are the iceberg, of which your inner voice is the tip.... I define 'language' as a mutually understood common communication method... At least 2 people have to understand it, already know about the meaning of sounds/graphics/gestures..... Wthout language we have no inner voice, only emotions, desires and innate, natural physical actions and noises to express them with... or pictures - but that's bordering on written language as they are both graphical and the meaning is known by both parties... If you liberally redefine 'language' to mean 'any form of intentional communication' whether understood by more than one person or not then things are different, especially if you conservatively define 'consciousness' as 'inner voice'....Your conscience is not your consciousness.
I find it helpful to breakdown the issues this way; We, like all animals perceive the world through our senses. This is perceptual consciousness. The development of Complex language at some point in our past created Conceptional consciousness. We now perceive the world through our ability to conceptualize. I think this is a byproduct of complex language. At some point quantity became quality.
Have you read Julian Jaynes' great book, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? His book outlines a theory which proposes that humans were not conscious (in the way we are) until several thousand years after writing was invented and that writing was the proximate cause of our becoming conscious. (It's convinced me. I highly recommend it. If you've watched season one of Westworld you've been introduced to Jaynes' theory).
One critical character of the language is its social nature or group nature, which is also ignored most easily by western reductionism. Language can be understood as an evolutionary phenomenon called socializing. Human language is both a necessary active condition and a necessary passive consequence for human-level superorganism. Knowledge and language enrichment is a matter of mutual-stimulation. Compare to ants, the advantage of the mechanism of human language is very apparent.
"Consciousness is the false representation of our subjective self". Perhaps but alternatively, the false representation of the self is one instance of consciousness among others including a correct representation of the self in relationship to consciousness as something of which it is only a part.
How do consciousness and language relate? Consciousness is cause and language is effect. I can say " I exist " but could I say that without actually existing! Language is just something that consciousness uses to express itself, it serves consciousness.
It is easier than that once you change the idea that a single machine should do everything like a human brain, instead you must think in a cluster of small machines each one good at one task and networked . Then the problem becomes quite trivial.
My thought is that consciousness preceded language, and sought common symbols through which to communicate, first in terms of environment, needs, safety concerns, etc, but that language then allowed the propagation of consciousness through shared ideas and concepts, and so, our consciousness evolved, and as it evolved, so did our language, and as our language evolved, as we developed more sophisticated symbols that could be transmitted and shared, (and therefore allow new ideas to be synthesized from preceding ones, ) so our consciousness continued to evolve, and so on, and so on.
Language is related to perception. Language skills are part of perceptual skills. Consciousness skills are perceptual skills. Deep neural nets show this.
So the first machines to develop consciousness will be those developed around language AI models. Add some focus- deliberate attention, give network sub networks that they specialize in dedicated tasks and let the language overlay, to float on them make them align together and decide non momentarily decisions. Say, feeling existence. The problem is we are bound and defined by our body. Our sensing mechanism will not apply to a machine. The day that humanity become stupid gradually and irrelevant is approaching fast.
Putting such machines in human type bodies (i.e. making androids), with vast numbers of sense organs like all animals have, might go a long way to helping those machines become conscious. Have you watched season one of Westworld which is focused on this topic?
We are all exist for a purpose and we can find that reason through communication with other dimensions either through lucid dreaming or meditation. Meditation is found through clearing the thoughts from consciousness, where lucid dream are more elusive, as a savant, they just happen when I am focused on a solution to a existential problem.
Have you read Julian Jaynes' great book, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? His book outlines a theory which proposes that humans were not conscious (in the way we are) until several thousand years after writing was invented and that writing was the proximate cause of our becoming conscious. (It's convinced me. I highly recommend it. If you've watched season one of Westworld you've been introduced to Jaynes' theory). Does Jaynes' theory relate to Boris Porshnev's thoughts?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL It's still on my reading list. For too long TBH. Porshnev's book is basically the same in key ideas, like role of language in forming collective behaviour, toos, complex social and techno structures, greater intelligence overall. Didn't know about Westworld thing. I guess I underestimated the show and should've read on it before watching.
There are many kinds of languages, if by words we mean symbolic system of descriptive meaning. We can transfer information trough arts and other forms of sublime communication, but everything must be transcribed into words at the end, if we want to give meaning to an experience. But do we have to really, can't we just look at each other after a masterful concert, like I know how you feel after listening to same music, no need to explain anything. We are not so different, we were all enjoying same vibrations of air molecules. Only music resonate in individual minds, everybody experience music in a completely unique way. It's not possible to describe how it feels for a person when listening to a good music and experience also change each time we listen to a same song. What is music, why is different from other sound and what are those vibrations actually affecting, besides molecules of hearing organs. How is music translated into meaning, It seems we can listen, feel and think at same time. First words were used as tribal sounds, don't want to go into that. We think of each word as precise piece of a puzzle, if words sorted and connected in a right way, we can make cognitive observations, rationalize, remember, calculate and do other things. But this is not how words work. Like pointed out in a video, animals also use same sounds, difference is they never attribute their gestures to a specific object. Natural words are not meant to pin point any defined subject, those words apply to general urges and complex situations. It takes symbolic reduction to refine meaning and this is a very complicated mental process. This is where consciousness come in play, but there's a huge problem. Once we start using language, we need to stick with terms used in sentences. But words doesn't do that to a mind, when we say banana, brain must compute signals from many parts before it can reaffirm and visualize that object in an imaginary meaningful space. This is why scientists can distinguish firing of neurons at specific areas, so meaning should originate in those neurons. Problem is, thinking is not just a sensory phenomena, consciousness involve emotional intelligence also. But there's are no brain centers for emotions, this sensations are stitched together from sensory and rational perception. Emotions are emergent, not just a chemical flow but brain can also induce convenient chemicals with own desires and intentional thoughts. Sorry for a long post, so many words, i just wanted to show how emotional intelligence is the key to understand consciousness.
Consciousness gives meaning to the relationships and arguments of reality which the mind interprets from the information collected by the brain. Language expresses meaning, relationships, arguments, interpretations and information, so language communicates between the functions of brain, mind and consciousness.
The self-being-conscious-process is perhaps the most important process that our brains are running, especially when it comes to maintaining our complex civilization and navigating within it.
The Spirit of a man understands the spirit of the source from what is written or spoken, even more than his mind understands what was written or spoken!
This is a point that I completely disagree with. Have you ever watched a baby? They are very conscious and as they grow their consciousness interfaces with the material over time through the development of language, muscle control and neural pathways.
@@psycherevival2105 I agree. Looking into my newborn daughters eyes I was engulfed in the feeling she knew so much more than me.. I once worked with cloned animals. We can clone the body or vessel but not the driver and their experiences. Our time and space is our consciousness and it is unique to us all. I think that all life possesses consciousness, but that it is the vessel and its environment that dictates what can be done with it.
"I too remember worrying wether my children would ever learn to speak , marveling when they did then quickly forgetting the marvel." Kuhn said it instead of us all ,, wow ,.., "And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colours: verily in that are Signs for those who know. (Surat of Rome ) holy koran
within the spin up of meaning language facilitates there is no perspective of its uniqueness or value except from within the closed structure of the thing animated by it. a thing thinking of itself is impressed with its uniqueness and the value of its expansion of awareness and breadth of interpretation of experience, although it sets all the criteria with itself as the central measure. conversations about consciousness are suspicious when they start in this way, and thinking that begins with an assumption of consciousness's wonder are usually flawed.
My son cannot speak. His perception of the world is quite limited. But he is obviously conscious. Can his level of consciousness me graded along a scale? Can mine? Or does everyone have the same level of consciousness?
@@User-jr7vf In the real world, people with mental deficiencies, whose use of language is quite limited, are often dismissed, pitied or taken advantage of. That is how the world works, I am under no illusions otherwise, therefore I protect people like these hard. There are some of us who protect them, because they are not able to protect themselves and no one else will. Language and consciousness I believe are linked, so without the ability to communicate effectively, no matter how they experience the world, they cannot express that clearly for others to understand fully. That is a very lonely existence. Why should society care about the few who are not able to communicate or show that level of consciousness that society seems acceptable?
Albert Einstein made a nice observation on the relationship between Thought and Language. He argued that Language cannot be the basis of Thought, because we often have difficulty finding the proper words to describe our ideas. So, in Einsten's view, an idea enters our brain first, and then our brain searches for the best words to express that idea to other people. Granted, Einstein was not necessarily equating "consciousness" with "thought"; I am remembering this from many years ago.
This is not an "Einstein discovery". This was perceived among philosophers long before Einstein and is a simple and easy conclusion that anyone with some reflection could reach. You see this even in a child who does not understand or express himself using language, but you see that they know how to interact with some things around him. First, the intellect grasps the structure of reality, the essences (ideas or Platonic forms) of things. The language is only printed on this prior knowledge as we use it. Structured knowledge of reality is necessary and comes before language. That is why it is a mistake to say that someone does not know something when they have difficulty explaining it in terms of language. Our structure of ideas about reality is extremely richer than our ability to express them through language. We can apprehend something from reality and know what it is, but we don't have the vocabulary to express it. That is why we sometimes have difficulty in explaining something, but at the same time, we have confidence to know what it is about. Therefore, the more we read literature (mainly poetry), feeling and imagining what is written, the more we get a vocabulary that gives us the ability to express ourselves better. But, whatever the explanation, language is just a tool to guide the interlocutor's mind to reach the same idea.
i’m not sure that we can conclude that just because we sometimes have trouble finding the words to express our ideas, that this means that the idea in question is encoded in the brain in a non-linguistic form. this could just mean that we are having difficulty retrieving the linguistic code that represents the idea. we know that this is possible because some ideas can’t be retrieved even though they must be represented in the brain as a linguistic code. take for example the tip of the tongue phenomenon where you can’t recall the person’s name, which can only be represented linguistically, but you know that you know it. does this mean that because you know the person’s name but you can’t recall it, that their name is represented in your brain non-linguistically? such a conclusion seems very unlikely. likewise, it may be the case that when you know something but you can’t find the words, that you are simply experiencing retrieval failure.
I suspect that language and mathematics are a guaranteed product of relativity and conciousness. In our physical reality at least,polarity and relativity are the driving force of conciousness. Language and Mathematics automatically come into existence. They cant not happen from the first concious observation.
Adam and Eve gave names ( language ) to the animals. The "jumping spider" really liked it's name. Hmmm... did it jump before or after they gave him the name ? "Jump spider" and it landed on "the Tree." Ooops
Our consciousness wasn't corrupted by language. Language and images interplay in thought in a seamless way beyond the human race. It is the written word, the alphabet, that systemized not only communication, but changed the way we think, dream, relate to the world and each other. Our consciousness is corrupted not by language, but by the written word. Speculation. Truth is grasped in consciousness and language is how we exchange truth or knowledge, BUT IT ALWAYS LOSES SOMETHING IN THE 'TRANSLATION'.
Language is just a tool to "pin down" our ideas, or to formalize them if you will. It doesn't really enrich consciousness (our experience), it just helps you to think clearly, just like putting things on paper does. Our brain is built and optimized for language, like a GPU is for graphics and matrix operations. All kind of calculations are also possible, but the whole thing will not run as efficiently.
I wouldn't bring animals in connection with human consciousness. The animal world is a separate level of existing species, followed by the insects world and lower. We need to accept the different worlds with their existing environment and make own researches of what we are interested in such worlds, without mixing the worlds together. Our senses are the most powerful tools that required a guide, to percept and experience, to comprehend and analyze what is caught sensored and projected to pictures. Once the experiences are gathered the automation proceeds in a never ending loop. Reality, senses, and language the three main factors for consciousness.
Isn't it about time to investigate if words in languages such as love, hate, meaning, truth etc., to have consciousness? Once those words become conscious, begin to understand and are aware of their meaning we might be the creators. The circle from the consciousness to the language to the conscious would be complete. ,
Does language communicate how person(s) consciously relate to environment? Brain signals carrying conscious feelings are given words by the mind to communicate through language; the mind giving words to brain signals to connect conscious feelings so can be communicated using language?
We think in words, for the most part, at least, the narrator of the inner monologue of our lives, out of which, emerges a type of self referential feedback. Before language, patterns of sensation would have to be assigned mental states, whether learned or genetically expressed, for the body to "communicate" it's current state to the mind. Artifacts remain, as we can infer these states in most other animals, with mammals in particular, we can communicate pain, danger, hunger, curiosity, etc. Obviously proto-emotional content, but it shouldn't be taken for granted.
So which is it ?? does language add more to consciousness or other way around .is it also ttrue does words have true power over tine as meaning adds to its relevance ??
The discussion should begin with a clear definition of language. The poisonous frog signals to would-be predators with its bright red color. Is the natural selection to say "don't eat me" language? Does manifestation of this trait/signal require consciousness?
21:01 *driven to Become language masters* “Chomsky tried for a long time to discern absolutely universal features of grammar that might be represented computationally in the structure of the brain-maybe that could be inherited? But seems to have retreated from that position and the commonalities now seem to be absolutely minimal between language.. the really deep commonalities maybe could be expressed very simply. Well I’d be prepared to concede that maybe those things are somehow built into brains. But we just have the kinds of brains that through their organization, particularly through their plasticity and their learning capacity, have this drive toward acquiring language through exposure. That’s another point-if children are not exposed to language before the age of eight or so then they can never learn it. You’ve got to hear other people speaking in order to learn to speak, it’s acquired.”
Nor Marcel Kuijsten who heads up the Julian Jaynes Society which explores bicameral theory as outlined in Julian Jaynes' great book, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". (You know, the theoretical foundation of Westworld ).
An object may refer to a state of affairs or simply an idea with only an ideational refetent. Enter Kant, objects are no more naked bearers of truth than words.
I think they should've mentioned that NOT everyone has an inner monologue. On the other hand, there are people who don't have a "mind's eye" and can't visualize things
Chimpanzees have vastly superior sequential and pattern matching capability (like the "memory card game") but interior general language. It suggests that our language abilities cannibalized previous abilities.
Infants and toddlers before the maturation of Broca and Wernicke area 14-17 months (speech/language and listening) are actually far more more subtle, rich, fluid, dynamic in UNDERSTANDING, that is, through intuitive understanding-feeling-sensation (theory of mind) at a basic level. Once reaching the ripe old age of 5-6 yrs old that begins to become (most often not always, there are exceptions) dramatically and dare I say tragically lost (we begin to live exclusively if not mostly in the left hemispheric rational deductive brain alone). Language/symbolic usage is one particular construct or translation from silent-intuitive understanding and Intent. One particular way of ascribing as a common medium events (event/exchanges). However, rich it may seem in its grandeur to build, deconstruct and explain, it is alas extremely delimiting on the other hand as it whisks away if you will (unless one is a poet, artist) the fields of greater perception. Most over identify with "language" to the point of become haplessly and intuitively moronic, devoid of transiting and traversing the greater fields of Intuitive understanding and non-verbal expression where are great art and poetic utterances emerge!
Language and consciousness have nothing to do with each other. Animals have consciousness, but no (higher) language. ChatGPT has language but no consciousness.
If language is the commemoration of objects in their absence; the analysis seems incomplete without including writing -- the expression of language in the absence of the speaker.
yes very much agreed! speaking is always 'life' and bound to the place where it is spoken. but writing is a huge new step of it's own. it breaks the 'only life' character of the spoken word and lasts through time....
Communications Is Interesting Enough: Human Central Nervous System must have undergone incremental internal fine tuning. Probably Language Evolved via neuron network cross talk; maybe circular loops created abstract symbolic representations we call language?
Does the mind connect brain signals to consciousness using words? Do the brain signals have conscious feeling that stimulates the mind to attach words to the brain signal?
not complicated, but complex, its pretty easy, but they simply do not wish to hear it. as they consider themselves as experts. so a non scientist cant know. ive meditated for 40 years and now able to show the structure or blueprint and mechanics ,its a little like quantum mechanics it only seems complicated because they have a lot of puzzle pieces but have no picture of the whole.
Before we had language, I assume we had no inner dialogue. Without the inner dialogue can we know we’re conscious? Just a thought running around in my head.
I admire how beautifully Robert Lawrence Kuhn understands and summaries the complex content uttered by the experts. For instance recall, how well he transformed the words of the expert into a simplified version. "So it seems, that language then gives us capacity to transform momentary experiences into general principals that we can relate over time, so that we built categories and meaning from the individual experiences". This way of abstractions make the content more intelligible for listeners.
He is doing such a great job! I love the way CTT is made.
Cannot agree more
@@andreas.9353 Gv
So, it has been determined that written human language arouse about 5 thousand years ago. Then, who/what wrote the written language of biological systems found in DNA starting at least billions of years ago if language is a product of mind / consciousness / intelligence?
Interesting that you say this. I too was struck by his succint summary. Its a great concise way to think about the role of language in relation to consciousness.
The more I think about this, the more complicated it gets. Similar to when I watch those quantum mechanics vids. I may return to drinking.
Dave Howie , I already returned to drinking in part because I red that the alcohol screws up the viruses...
Link Age The idea sounds fascinating. When do you anticipate publishing?
Link Age No rush. Just get it right.
it's just life, baby
no howie noooooo
John Searle never ceases to surprise me with his insights! Always a pleasure to listen to him 😊
Computers have language without consciousness. Infants have consciousness without language. You don't need language to enrich consciousness, as you could think entirely in terms of pictures without words. Animals can make complex plans for the future and have self awareness by thinking entirely in terms of pictures. We now know that ants can pass the mirror test, in that the ant will recognize that she is looking at a reflection of herself.
I think that the key point is that the meaning making ability that language provides enriches consciousness, regardless of whether or not that language utilizes words or pictures or whatever as a medium, but that languages that do utilize words provide for the potential of quite complex meaning making and thus work to enrich consciousness in a very complex way
A sweet memory from my daughter's childhood - she always rode in the back seat of the car (this is when she was pre-talking age). My wife and I, sitting in the front seat, would have a conversation. One time, in the midst of our talking, our daughter started speaking in nonsense words, as though joining in the conversation.
This may be obvious to some, but I think I know how we came to communicate the word “no” by shaking our head from side to side. Imagine yourself as a one year old sitting in your high chair having a meal and your mother spoons up mashed broccoli 🥦 and moves the spoon toward your mouth. You take a little sample to taste and immediately decide you don’t like. Then Mom spoons up a little more. Of course, you don’t want it. So you create a moving target. You shake your head. Logically, the opposite of no is yes and the opposite of shaking your head is nodding. This was a mildly profound insight for me. I present this for your ridicule.
This was Darwins hypothesis, way back in 1872 - although he referred to the actions surrounding breast feeding. There's no real evidence to support the idea but it is a commonly held belief. Indeed there are countries where the opposite is true - a nod means 'no' and a shake means 'yes' - so it may be a little more complex than a simple food association.
The "no" head shake, while common, isn't actually universal
I love to see Robert sitting quietly while John eloquently place his arguments
The amazing thing is that consciousness is completely private but communication conveys ourselves via physicality outward and towards others.
I think the true essence of man is to know meaning behind any thought or deed, so language, is the tool or device to attain that goal or purpose and to share with others, for collaboration and learning from each other. If it wasn’t for language we couldn’t have learnt and passed on to other generations who would build on it. Language is the best way to preserve what we learn whether verbally or in written form.
1. Consciousness is holding the same place in the universe what it holds in a dream.
2. A dream,Including every body living in the dream is observed by consciousness which is not a part of the dream.
3. The universe, including every body living in the universe is also observed by consciousness which is not a part of the universe.
When Rebecca Goldstein marvels at the variety of ways in which her readers have understood the characters she created in her novels, does she inadvertently confirm the central fact of our beings, that the fullness of the experience of being is fundamentally unknowable to others?
Very intriguing idea indeed... just like solipsism. This reminds me so much of this scene from 'Waking Life' (fantastic film btw): ruclips.net/video/iDGMS_tjRxU/видео.html
The key word in your comment is 'know'. You apply it as if we fully comprehend what we mean by its, as it were, trivial application, but this is far from being the case. It therefore isn't the question you asked which is important but the way you applied the term/notion 'know' as part of it. To illustrate my point, consider this: I KNOW that I am writing this reply now (although this assertion was not necessary at all for me doing so just a millisecond before I stated it here). But I don't KNOW how you or anybody else will interpret/understand it, or I do only partly or not fully and we can discuss it will utter coherence and potential for further growth in our mutual understanding. But than again - is the latter version/application of KNOW a partial or incomplete manifestation of the former or an altogether different application ("meaning") of the term 'KNOW'? If it is, then Mrs. Goldstein's observation does not confirm anything of what you suggest it might. Thanks for your comment.
The human world is composed of real things and imaginary things. The real things can be broken down into two categories: material objects and abstract ideas. Abstract concepts are ideas which do not have a specific material manifestation, while the other kind of thing has both a concept and an object existing in reality (whether it be physical or conceptual). For example, an apple is something that exists as both a concrete entity with certain properties but also as an idea which has additional properties such as sweetness.
The thing about an abstract concept is that it doesn't necessarily have a material manifestation, which means that there are no constraints on its definition. An apple is constrained in the fact that its redness and roundness are inherent to what it is as well as being physical properties of it (whether we choose to refer to them or not). However, if I define "freedom" as "the ability to do whatever you want", this then becomes something with additional aspects such as freedom from limitations.
Human consciousness is made up of ideas, which are abstract concepts that we use to make sense of the world around us. To take a very simple example, if you see a red apple on a table and it makes you think "that's an apple", then your mind has created an idea called "apple" based on what your senses have told you. You have not seen every single property of this thing called "apple" but rather just its colour and shape. It could be argued that these properties are intrinsic to an apple because they define what it is as well as being physical features.
So while an apple is a real thing, the idea of an apple (which your mind created) is not. The key difference between the two is that a material object can be experienced directly by you whereas ideas have to be interpreted from other things. So if someone says "you're so round", this has to be understood in terms of what they mean rather than being based on any direct experience.
So we must distinguish between the material and abstract, with the latter being composed of ideas. So if we say "I love you", this is not based on any direct experience but rather a concept which has been formed from other things.
We can see that these ideas (consciousness) have two key aspects: interpretation and meaning. The former refers to the fact that all concepts must be interpreted by a mind in order for them to become relevant, while the latter is what gives these concepts their relevance.
I think Julian Jaynes had the right idea as to how language may have ‘evolved’ alongside consciousness, even if many of his details may have been off.
I read the book. Jaynes is compelling. It gets short shrift in the public view.
I think consciousness precedes all. I think language evolves to describe our conscious experiences between us. Animals have language, from vocal noises and body language to scent communication (which I think some species such as foxes, might "see" smells through bioluminescent scent chemicals, which we cannot). I agree with what Rebecca Newberger Goldstein said.
Many times I've known what I want to say, but been unable to find the words to say it. Or when needing to chose between two languages, I've always been aware that the thought comes first; it then comes out, often imperfectedly, in one language or the other depending on the environment. I therefore believe that language was bolted on long after the development of conciousness. It can only approximate what we experience in the conscious. In fact, language can even masquerade as our thoughts, which can deceive us into thinking we think something when we don't.
"The words of the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanisms of thought. Conventional words or other signs have to be sought for laboriously at a second stage." -- Albert Einstein
@@rclrd1 aphantasia?
@@rclrd1 interesting how that works. Similar thing reading those 2 posts, the text is read perspective is understood without further conscious thought , then commentary about it after it's already known
@@pedrova8058 Some of us imagine stuff in 3d structures and processes then
struggle to find the words to describe and communicate them.
Would that be aaphantasia?
Now I'm wondering how much my 45 years of programming experience
involving imagining data structures and the code to process them
has influenced my previous comment.
Searle is right the others are a little confused - consciousness can be non-linguistic but thinking must be done with language. So the perception of a scene or an emotional reaction, those enter consciousness pre-linguistically but are immediately defined or channeled by thought, by language. Speech is especially interesting in this regard, since it is language and thinking but seems to proceed almost without a separate consciousness. Thinking out loud, for example, is language as consciousness.
This is like "Awaking Life", without the painting. Great content.
You mean "Waking Life" by Richard Linklater
17:55 yes, language _speaks us_ (speaks our mind) when we speak it
They once said that there can't be consciousness without language. Fortunately they changed their mind. They say there can't be consciousness without matter. I' quite sure many will change their mind on this as well.
You wrote: “they once said that there can't be consciousness without language. Fortunately they changed their mind. They say there can't be consciousness without matter. I' quite sure many will change their mind on this as well.
Does that not depend entirely on what you or another suppose to be what they call “consciousness”?
Do you suppose that there can be consciousness in limbo or wholly without any context - or without specifying *whose* consciousness or awareness and *of what* ?- If you do not specify whose consciousness and of what you might just as well use the word stuff, or thing or things, and you will convey or communicate as much.
Would you agree that if you do not specify whose consciousness and *of what*, you are speaking of consciousness as if it were some vague generalisation, not experienced specifically identically by all beings?
If you were to do that, upon what evidential basis would you be assuming or guessing that whatever consciousness might be, it is experienced identically in all beings - or even possibly all things? - Or in the simplest possible terms, why do you assume that consciousness is experienced identically in all beings? And that when you speak of consciousness with another it is perfectly possible for you and whoever to be discussing completely different things, phenomena or expereiniences,and that consciousness may not be a general term such as food or air or an equally vague generalisation such as life?
When you speak of consciousness with another how could you discover - or how would you go about discovering, whether or not you were discussing *exactly the same* thing, experience, or phenomenon?
Do you suppose that consciousness is somehow or other common to all experiencers as if it were time or space or some other generalisation that is or might be commonly or identically experienced by all that experience it?
To give you an example of what I’m trying to convey if you speak of bread to one being, it will evoke associations that are particular or peculiar to that being and those associations may well not be identical to the associations evoked another being when he hears the word bread - Some may think of bread as sliced white bread and others of a paratha, chapati or tortilla, so when they speak of bread they will not necessarily be speaking of *exactly the same* thing and if you speak of consciousness without specifying whose consciousness and consciousness or knowledge or awareness of what, it is exactly as if you were speaking of bread, and when you speak of bread, it will evoke different associations or meanings in different beings and therefore you will not necessarily be speaking about or discussing *exactly the same* thing - you follow?
Thus when you speak of consciousness do you suppose it to be something general like food or air or space (or possibly time), and thus generally and commonly understood by all, or are you seeking to be slightly more specific than that? Moreover how can you possibly be specific without identifying whose consciousness and consciousness of what?
On what evidential basis do you suppose or assume that whatever you mean by “consciousness evokes identical associations in, or *mans, *exactly*the same thing* to, others?
What exactly are you trying to get across or what exact associations do you seek to evoke in others when you use the word “consciousness”?
Do please try to bear in mind that you will convey, or communicate absolutely nothing if you simply substitute for one vague meaningless generalisation such as consciousness another equally vague meaningless generalisation such awareness or knowledge, which, like bread will evoke different associations in, or mean different things to, different people. In short it would be exactly if you were to state X=Y=X, where both X and Y are undefined and not assigned any value or significance or meaning.
If you do no more than swap or substitute for one undefined term another undefined term, your interlocutor will have no clear idea of what it is you are speaking or to what you are referring, and you will convey or communicate absolutely nothing at all.
Let us suppose that when you use the word "consciousness" ,you use it to describe, or attach it to, a particular experience.
If you are with me on that, to what particular experience (experienced by you) are you referring?- Do please bear in mind and understand that how you experience one phenomenon (say knowledge pain or consciousness, or time or air or space) may not be identical to how another experiences it and that neither of you have any possible method whereby you can discover whether or not you are speaking about identical experiences. I trust that is sufficiently clear to you.
Whatever you mean by "Consciousness" cannot possibly have any meaning unless you identify *whose* consciousness and consciousness *of what*?
Consciousness means at least if you look at its etymology, "With knowledge", and knowledge itself is utterly meaningless unless you specify whose knowledge and knowledge of what - it is as if you were to say I know without more or without specifying precisely what it is that you know, or simply saying or uttering the word "know".
Know or knowledge without some context or for example specifying A knows B, is completely and utterly meaningless just as if you said to someone else "know", would they not enquire who knows what?
It is completely and utterly futile and meaningless to speak of consciousness without speaking of whose consciousness and consciousness of what - it is no different from going up to someone and saying "know" - you would have told them nothing just as you tell me and everyone else nothing if you speak of consciousness without specifying some being that experiences consciousness and consciousness of what.
You can repeat consciousness over and over and over again until you are blue in the face and you will communicate absolutely nothing unless you specify or identify whose consciousness and consciousness or knowledge of what.
Can consciousness (or with knowledge) know or be conscious of itself? - How is that any different from enquiring whether or not a mirror can reflect itself?
Is not consciousness (or with knowledge) identical to a mirror, or if not in what respect of the differ from a mirror?
It is child's play to demonstrate whether or not consciousness is contingent on, or depends upon, son matter - specifically some sort of apparatus, and that can be simply demonstrated by destroying or damaging or injuring that apparatus and discovering Whether or not the user of that apparatus can still experience anything whatsoever or be conscious or with knowledge of anything whatsoever, and to ask that question is to answer it, is it not?- Destroy the dreamer and you destroyed dream,
That is axiomatic self-evident not? You can find out for yourself by the simple process of trying to be aware of The exact moment when you fall asleep or cease to be conscious or capable of knowing or directly immediately personally apprehending or experiencing anything of anything other than dreams, Which is axiomatically or Definitionally (or by definition) *Impossible*. Therefore apprehension or experience of anything is plainly dependent upon some material apparatus capable of apprehension or experience or knowledge. QED.
That dispenses with the absurdity that consciousness is not dependent upon the brain which is material, and I can simply demonstrate that by knocking you unconscious or administering to you some general anaesthetic, or simply getting blind drunk or stoned out of your mind, all of which have a direct immediate impact upon the brain or your apprehending apparatus which are using to read this at this very minute which you could not do if under a general anaesthetic or do you perhaps suppose that you might be able to do it under a general anaesthetic and totally unconscious because your brain had been switched off.QED
"Dreams are true while they last; can more be said of life?" - Havelock Ellis
Dr. Kuhn: please interview Brian Greene, Robert Sapolsky, and Sam Harris at some juncture.
The challenge is to get out of all negativity and consider universe in abundance and positive energy without any artificial construct and being free of all worries. We might than be able to understand what a thought is and from where it comes and how our perception works towards any intention or phenomenon.
On the flip side language takes us out of the present moment and can diminish consciousness.
I wouldn't say language made humanity better, it's obvious it did, but compared to what exactly? Language was developed over a long period of time, it went trough many phases, symbols were constantly adapting and evolving into more practical system.
Here's the question, why do we need to read and write anyway? Some things might come useful in life, most don't, it seems language is a huge waste of time. More over, what happened to original symbols, when words weren't attributed so precisely, looks like much was lost in translations from one form of language to another.
If words are emotional responses to self and world outside, language also redefined what is personality, but not consciousness necessary, at least not directly. Think about physical reality, our consciousness affect how our body mass will move in the future, what kind of entropy it will cause to environment. Therefore symbols are energy, not sure we're using such a powerful force in right ways. Language could also be limitation to real brain powers, it's like solving cries-cross word puzzles, when we must find right word for short descriptions where each letter must fit exactly in empty squares. But this is not how nature works, when we enwoke word in our aware mind, we control various real energy potentials.
Language is good universal tool for all kinds of purposes, but it's because we live this way, because we inherited this civilization and we strive to keep on going. It's like we're stuck in a stone age of consciousness, perhaps smart electric machines will help us unlock our natural potential. But i doubt it, it's more likely we will just continue solving even more complex word games, not realizing once upon there was a language out of that box. Best alternative example for expanded conscious powers that i can think of is arcane magic, but that's another story.
I've always felt the effort of learning language to communicate stifles our consciousness
and -as language "growup" consciousness in a feedback loop- always fails (and then go to learn how to expres, again...)
Well done research on the subject- entertaining yet educational- a bravo to your cinematographer. Very well done . Thank you for producing meaningful content
A lot, said an ex pro ebayer.... It depends on how often you use your inner voice... Depends on how you define 'consciousness'... and 'language'... I include the subconscious as part of consciousness, so your sensors, nerves, perception and cognition are the iceberg, of which your inner voice is the tip.... I define 'language' as a mutually understood common communication method... At least 2 people have to understand it, already know about the meaning of sounds/graphics/gestures..... Wthout language we have no inner voice, only emotions, desires and innate, natural physical actions and noises to express them with... or pictures - but that's bordering on written language as they are both graphical and the meaning is known by both parties... If you liberally redefine 'language' to mean 'any form of intentional communication' whether understood by more than one person or not then things are different, especially if you conservatively define 'consciousness' as 'inner voice'....Your conscience is not your consciousness.
I find it helpful to breakdown the issues this way; We, like all animals perceive the world through our senses. This is perceptual consciousness. The development of Complex language at some point in our past created Conceptional consciousness. We now perceive the world through our ability to conceptualize. I think this is a byproduct of complex language. At some point quantity became quality.
Ken.... very interesting.
John Brzykcy look up The Cognitive Trade Off Hypothesis. You might find that interesting as well
Interesting. Pondering the relationship between language and consciousness.
Have been fascinated by the connection between consciousness and language - thank you RLK
Have you read
Julian Jaynes' great book,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?
His book outlines a theory which
proposes that humans were not conscious (in the way we are)
until several thousand years after writing was invented and
that writing was the proximate cause of our becoming conscious.
(It's convinced me. I highly recommend it.
If you've watched season one of Westworld
you've been introduced to Jaynes' theory).
One critical character of the language is its social nature or group nature, which is also ignored most easily by western reductionism. Language can be understood as an evolutionary phenomenon called socializing. Human language is both a necessary active condition and a necessary passive consequence for human-level superorganism. Knowledge and language enrichment is a matter of mutual-stimulation. Compare to ants, the advantage of the mechanism of human language is very apparent.
Absolutely!
Hard to imagine civilization lasting long
should a virus suddenly revert all humans
to instinctual behavior only.
Another brilliant episode. Thank you.
Has anyone else noticed that so many of the guests on this program do NOT have wedding rings? Just an observation.
Hahaha
Gotta love this guy. In every video: conssciouness. And all greatly done.
Great, really. Its a fortune to get video like this for free and easily
"Consciousness is the false representation of our subjective self". Perhaps but alternatively, the false representation of the self is one instance of consciousness among others including a correct representation of the self in relationship to consciousness as something of which it is only a part.
How do consciousness and language relate? Consciousness is cause and language is effect. I can say " I exist " but could I say that without actually existing! Language is just something that consciousness uses to express itself, it serves consciousness.
It is easier than that once you change the idea that a single machine should do everything like a human brain, instead you must think in a cluster of small machines each one good at one task and networked . Then the problem becomes quite trivial.
My thought is that consciousness preceded language, and sought common symbols through which to communicate, first in terms of environment, needs, safety concerns, etc, but that language then allowed the propagation of consciousness through shared ideas and concepts, and so, our consciousness evolved, and as it evolved, so did our language, and as our language evolved, as we developed more sophisticated symbols that could be transmitted and shared, (and therefore allow new ideas to be synthesized from preceding ones, ) so our consciousness continued to evolve, and so on, and so on.
Language is related to perception. Language skills are part of perceptual skills. Consciousness skills are perceptual skills. Deep neural nets show this.
Your life experience, will give you consciousness and you can explain it by your languages.
So the first machines to develop consciousness will be those developed around language AI models. Add some focus- deliberate attention, give network sub networks that they specialize in dedicated tasks and let the language overlay, to float on them make them align together and decide non momentarily decisions. Say, feeling existence. The problem is we are bound and defined by our body. Our sensing mechanism will not apply to a machine. The day that humanity become stupid gradually and irrelevant is approaching fast.
Putting such machines in human type bodies (i.e. making androids),
with vast numbers of sense organs like all animals have,
might go a long way to helping those machines become conscious.
Have you watched season one of Westworld
which is focused on this topic?
We are all exist for a purpose and we can find that reason through communication with other dimensions either through lucid dreaming or meditation. Meditation is found through clearing the thoughts from consciousness, where lucid dream are more elusive, as a savant, they just happen when I am focused on a solution to a existential problem.
There are some great books by Boris Porshnev on origin and relation of language and consciousness.
Have you read
Julian Jaynes' great book,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?
His book outlines a theory which
proposes that humans were not conscious (in the way we are)
until several thousand years after writing was invented and
that writing was the proximate cause of our becoming conscious.
(It's convinced me. I highly recommend it.
If you've watched season one of Westworld
you've been introduced to Jaynes' theory).
Does Jaynes' theory relate to Boris Porshnev's thoughts?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL It's still on my reading list. For too long TBH. Porshnev's book is basically the same in key ideas, like role of language in forming collective behaviour, toos, complex social and techno structures, greater intelligence overall.
Didn't know about Westworld thing. I guess I underestimated the show and should've read on it before watching.
There are many kinds of languages, if by words we mean symbolic system of descriptive meaning. We can transfer information trough arts and other forms of sublime communication, but everything must be transcribed into words at the end, if we want to give meaning to an experience. But do we have to really, can't we just look at each other after a masterful concert, like I know how you feel after listening to same music, no need to explain anything. We are not so different, we were all enjoying same vibrations of air molecules. Only music resonate in individual minds, everybody experience music in a completely unique way. It's not possible to describe how it feels for a person when listening to a good music and experience also change each time we listen to a same song. What is music, why is different from other sound and what are those vibrations actually affecting, besides molecules of hearing organs. How is music translated into meaning, It seems we can listen, feel and think at same time.
First words were used as tribal sounds, don't want to go into that. We think of each word as precise piece of a puzzle, if words sorted and connected in a right way, we can make cognitive observations, rationalize, remember, calculate and do other things. But this is not how words work. Like pointed out in a video, animals also use same sounds, difference is they never attribute their gestures to a specific object. Natural words are not meant to pin point any defined subject, those words apply to general urges and complex situations. It takes symbolic reduction to refine meaning and this is a very complicated mental process.
This is where consciousness come in play, but there's a huge problem. Once we start using language, we need to stick with terms used in sentences. But words doesn't do that to a mind, when we say banana, brain must compute signals from many parts before it can reaffirm and visualize that object in an imaginary meaningful space. This is why scientists can distinguish firing of neurons at specific areas, so meaning should originate in those neurons. Problem is, thinking is not just a sensory phenomena, consciousness involve emotional intelligence also. But there's are no brain centers for emotions, this sensations are stitched together from sensory and rational perception. Emotions are emergent, not just a chemical flow but brain can also induce convenient chemicals with own desires and intentional thoughts.
Sorry for a long post, so many words, i just wanted to show how emotional intelligence is the key to understand consciousness.
Consciousness gives meaning to the relationships and arguments of reality which the mind interprets from the information collected by the brain. Language expresses meaning, relationships, arguments, interpretations and information, so language communicates between the functions of brain, mind and consciousness.
The self-being-conscious-process is perhaps the most important process that our brains are running, especially when it comes to maintaining our complex civilization and navigating within it.
“The unconscious is structured like a language.” -Jacques Lacan
I really enjoyed the discussion. Great Channel!!
The Spirit of a man understands the spirit of the source from what is written or spoken, even more than his mind understands what was written or spoken!
Colin Blakemore: "We don't come pre-programmed to be conscious, we _learn_ to be conscious."
This is a point that I completely disagree with. Have you ever watched a baby? They are very conscious and as they grow their consciousness interfaces with the material over time through the development of language, muscle control and neural pathways.
@@psycherevival2105 I agree. Looking into my newborn daughters eyes I was engulfed in the feeling she knew so much more than me.. I once worked with cloned animals. We can clone the body or vessel but not the driver and their experiences. Our time and space is our consciousness and it is unique to us all. I think that all life possesses consciousness, but that it is the vessel and its environment that dictates what can be done with it.
who taught us how to be conscious then ?
What's the difference? We obviously come preprogrammed with the capabilities to become even more conscious.
Anyone interested in the concepts Searle is exploring here, should consider Lakoff & Johnson's work.
Interaction between mind of universe and human person develops conscious language.
"I too remember worrying wether my children would ever learn to speak , marveling when they did then quickly forgetting the marvel." Kuhn said it instead of us all ,, wow ,.., "And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colours: verily in that are Signs for those who know.
(Surat of Rome ) holy koran
within the spin up of meaning language facilitates there is no perspective of its uniqueness or value except from within the closed structure of the thing animated by it. a thing thinking of itself is impressed with its uniqueness and the value of its expansion of awareness and breadth of interpretation of experience, although it sets all the criteria with itself as the central measure. conversations about consciousness are suspicious when they start in this way, and thinking that begins with an assumption of consciousness's wonder are usually flawed.
In Canada our PM has to speak two languages coherently. In the U.S. you have a President that can't form a coherent sentence. QED
My son cannot speak. His perception of the world is quite limited. But he is obviously conscious. Can his level of consciousness me graded along a scale? Can mine? Or does everyone have the same level of consciousness?
He can't speak but it's perfectly possible that he has thoughts. Furthermore, as pointed out in the video, language is not made only of words.
It's a matter of definition. He is probably more aware than someone who limits his awareness by concepts (when using language)
@@User-jr7vf In the real world, people with mental deficiencies, whose use of language is quite limited, are often dismissed, pitied or taken advantage of. That is how the world works, I am under no illusions otherwise, therefore I protect people like these hard. There are some of us who protect them, because they are not able to protect themselves and no one else will.
Language and consciousness I believe are linked, so without the ability to communicate effectively, no matter how they experience the world, they cannot express that clearly for others to understand fully. That is a very lonely existence. Why should society care about the few who are not able to communicate or show that level of consciousness that society seems acceptable?
Is it possible to think without language? If so, please explain how you do it.
Albert Einstein made a nice observation on the relationship between Thought and Language. He argued that Language cannot be the basis of Thought, because we often have difficulty finding the proper words to describe our ideas. So, in Einsten's view, an idea enters our brain first, and then our brain searches for the best words to express that idea to other people. Granted, Einstein was not necessarily equating "consciousness" with "thought"; I am remembering this from many years ago.
This is not an "Einstein discovery". This was perceived among philosophers long before Einstein and is a simple and easy conclusion that anyone with some reflection could reach. You see this even in a child who does not understand or express himself using language, but you see that they know how to interact with some things around him. First, the intellect grasps the structure of reality, the essences (ideas or Platonic forms) of things. The language is only printed on this prior knowledge as we use it. Structured knowledge of reality is necessary and comes before language. That is why it is a mistake to say that someone does not know something when they have difficulty explaining it in terms of language. Our structure of ideas about reality is extremely richer than our ability to express them through language. We can apprehend something from reality and know what it is, but we don't have the vocabulary to express it. That is why we sometimes have difficulty in explaining something, but at the same time, we have confidence to know what it is about. Therefore, the more we read literature (mainly poetry), feeling and imagining what is written, the more we get a vocabulary that gives us the ability to express ourselves better. But, whatever the explanation, language is just a tool to guide the interlocutor's mind to reach the same idea.
i’m not sure that we can conclude that just because we sometimes have trouble finding the words to express our ideas, that this means that the idea in question is encoded in the brain in a non-linguistic form. this could just mean that we are having difficulty retrieving the linguistic code that represents the idea. we know that this is possible because some ideas can’t be retrieved even though they must be represented in the brain as a linguistic code. take for example the tip of the tongue phenomenon where you can’t recall the person’s name, which can only be represented linguistically, but you know that you know it. does this mean that because you know the person’s name but you can’t recall it, that their name is represented in your brain non-linguistically? such a conclusion seems very unlikely. likewise, it may be the case that when you know something but you can’t find the words, that you are simply experiencing retrieval failure.
I suspect that language and mathematics are a guaranteed product of relativity and conciousness.
In our physical reality at least,polarity and relativity are the driving force of conciousness. Language and Mathematics automatically come into existence.
They cant not happen from the first concious observation.
Adam and Eve gave names ( language ) to the animals. The "jumping spider" really liked it's name. Hmmm... did it jump before or after they gave him the name ? "Jump spider" and it landed on "the Tree." Ooops
Our consciousness wasn't corrupted by language. Language and images interplay in thought in a seamless way beyond the human race. It is the written word, the alphabet, that systemized not only communication, but changed the way we think, dream, relate to the world and each other. Our consciousness is corrupted not by language, but by the written word. Speculation. Truth is grasped in consciousness and language is how we exchange truth or knowledge, BUT IT ALWAYS LOSES SOMETHING IN THE 'TRANSLATION'.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
wow - nice mineral stuff in the background !
You must interview Fracçois Recanati. The best philosopher of the language of our time.
Thanks!
Language is just a tool to "pin down" our ideas, or to formalize them if you will. It doesn't really enrich consciousness (our experience), it just helps you to think clearly, just like putting things on paper does. Our brain is built and optimized for language, like a GPU is for graphics and matrix operations. All kind of calculations are also possible, but the whole thing will not run as efficiently.
I wouldn't bring animals in connection with human consciousness. The animal world is a separate level of existing species, followed by the insects world and lower. We need to accept the different worlds with their existing environment and make own researches of what we are interested in such worlds, without mixing the worlds together.
Our senses are the most powerful tools that required a guide, to percept and experience, to comprehend and analyze what is caught sensored and projected to pictures. Once the experiences are gathered the automation proceeds in a never ending loop.
Reality, senses, and language the three main factors for consciousness.
Isn't it about time to investigate if words in languages such as love, hate, meaning, truth etc., to have consciousness? Once those words become conscious, begin to understand and are aware of their meaning we might be the creators. The circle from the consciousness to the language to the conscious would be complete. ,
Thank you! :)
Does language communicate how person(s) consciously relate to environment? Brain signals carrying conscious feelings are given words by the mind to communicate through language; the mind giving words to brain signals to connect conscious feelings so can be communicated using language?
We think in words, for the most part, at least, the narrator of the inner monologue of our lives, out of which, emerges a type of self referential feedback. Before language, patterns of sensation would have to be assigned mental states, whether learned or genetically expressed, for the body to "communicate" it's current state to the mind. Artifacts remain, as we can infer these states in most other animals, with mammals in particular, we can communicate pain, danger, hunger, curiosity, etc. Obviously proto-emotional content, but it shouldn't be taken for granted.
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
So which is it ?? does language add more to consciousness or other way around .is it also ttrue does words have true power over tine as meaning adds to its relevance ??
The discussion should begin with a clear definition of language. The poisonous frog signals to would-be predators with its bright red color. Is the natural selection to say "don't eat me" language? Does manifestation of this trait/signal require consciousness?
21:01 *driven to Become language masters* “Chomsky tried for a long time to discern absolutely universal features of grammar that might be represented computationally in the structure of the brain-maybe that could be inherited? But seems to have retreated from that position and the commonalities now seem to be absolutely minimal between language.. the really deep commonalities maybe could be expressed very simply. Well I’d be prepared to concede that maybe those things are somehow built into brains. But we just have the kinds of brains that through their organization, particularly through their plasticity and their learning capacity, have this drive toward acquiring language through exposure. That’s another point-if children are not exposed to language before the age of eight or so then they can never learn it. You’ve got to hear other people speaking in order to learn to speak, it’s acquired.”
I love this.another deep question with a difficult answer.
Great effort has been made here!
thanks, great episode :)
Consciousness develops language in the mind
Just realized that CLOSER to TRUTH has never spoken to Noam Chomsky.
Why is that?
Nor Marcel Kuijsten
who heads up the Julian Jaynes Society which explores
bicameral theory as outlined in Julian Jaynes' great book,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".
(You know, the theoretical foundation of Westworld ).
An object may refer to a state of affairs or simply an idea with only an ideational refetent. Enter Kant, objects are no more naked bearers of truth than words.
#LoveLearning 🔥
I think they should've mentioned that NOT everyone has an inner monologue. On the other hand, there are people who don't have a "mind's eye" and can't visualize things
Chimpanzees have vastly superior sequential and pattern matching capability (like the "memory card game") but interior general language. It suggests that our language abilities cannibalized previous abilities.
Do you think it's the fault of language or maybe a biological difference between brains of a human and a chimpanzee?
Consciousness uses language to communicate awareness from experience.
language communicates awareness of conscious (external?) experience?
I sometimes become unconscious Watching episodes on this fantastic channel
Infants and toddlers before the maturation of Broca and Wernicke area 14-17 months (speech/language and listening) are actually far more more subtle, rich, fluid, dynamic in UNDERSTANDING, that is, through intuitive understanding-feeling-sensation (theory of mind) at a basic level. Once reaching the ripe old age of 5-6 yrs old that begins to become (most often not always, there are exceptions) dramatically and dare I say tragically lost (we begin to live exclusively if not mostly in the left hemispheric rational deductive brain alone). Language/symbolic usage is one particular construct or translation from silent-intuitive understanding and Intent. One particular way of ascribing as a common medium events (event/exchanges). However, rich it may seem in its grandeur to build, deconstruct and explain, it is alas extremely delimiting on the other hand as it whisks away if you will (unless one is a poet, artist) the fields of greater perception. Most over identify with "language" to the point of become haplessly and intuitively moronic, devoid of transiting and traversing the greater fields of Intuitive understanding and non-verbal expression where are great art and poetic utterances emerge!
Language and consciousness have nothing to do with each other. Animals have consciousness, but no (higher) language. ChatGPT has language but no consciousness.
Language allows conscious agents for efficient exchange of information.
If language is the commemoration of objects in their absence; the analysis seems incomplete without including writing -- the expression of language in the absence of the speaker.
yes very much agreed! speaking is always 'life' and bound to the place where it is spoken. but writing is a huge new step of it's own. it breaks the 'only life' character of the spoken word and lasts through time....
There is a certain consciousness that allows you to understand what this guy is saying. I say that because my cousin didn't get it.
The only thing that ingonated consciousness is wondering and questioning.....
Imagination is the true language of the mind.
Wat
Communications Is Interesting Enough: Human Central Nervous System must have undergone incremental internal fine tuning. Probably Language Evolved via neuron network cross talk; maybe circular loops created abstract symbolic representations we call language?
Does the mind connect brain signals to consciousness using words? Do the brain signals have conscious feeling that stimulates the mind to attach words to the brain signal?
I love ur works professor, I invite you to read for Muhammed Sharur. You will find lot of answers to ur wonder
every species has their own language / communication
not complicated, but complex, its pretty easy, but they simply do not wish to hear it. as they consider themselves as experts. so a non scientist cant know. ive meditated for 40 years and now able to show the structure or blueprint and mechanics ,its a little like quantum mechanics it only seems complicated because they have a lot of puzzle pieces but have no picture of the whole.
Before we had language, I assume we had no inner dialogue. Without the inner dialogue can we know we’re conscious? Just a thought running around in my head.
We can be conscious without being aware that we're conscious. Most animals have just awareness, but don't develop any self-awareness.
A dog can clearly learn the word for "ball" and makes that association. So, later, when a dog sees the ball, does his consciousness use the word?
Maybe the essential question for this topic is how you'd answer: WHAT is consciousness?
Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking. Don't they?
Consciousness and Body Language comes first, then Language. This can be proven by logical reasoning.