But once you inherit a language it frees up a solipsism, language isn't communal, it's alienating, it creates distance in making distinction. We linguistically construction and deconstruct our own universe(s) which we can only invite others to participate.
I wonder how child development would fit into this pt you are making, as it seems the child first becomes aware of people and things, then of language, and out of this begins to form a sense of self apart from the relationships which have come to constitute himself to himself. In this sense one's consciousness of self emerges out of a community of relationships vs being a primary beginning pt for becoming aware of others.
@gedgetips Yes, that is very much in line w/ what I was talking about. Our robust sense of self and the capacity of attributing it to others is a linguistic-cultural artifact. My son had the primitive capacity to recognize me. The he learned from me that I was "Da Da." From further instruction and example, he learned to attribute subjective states to himself and others as in "I sad" or "Daddy sad."
I have been watching this conversation quietly from the sideline. I am not sure where I stand yet, but you do make some interesting arguments to be sure.
so babies without language are not conscious. I think that language is far too high level a concept to associate with a sense of self. I do not think non-linguistic thoughts, logics, are relatively easilly obtained.
@pyrrho314 It's not nice to shift the goal posts. Before (in your video) you talked about awareness of one's own subjectivity & attributing it to others. Now you shift the goal post to consciousness. But, hey, I'll give an answer. Yes, babies are conscious, but they do not have a robust sense of themselves. They have to learn to do that. When they do, they can do more than just recognize an other. They can also believe the other is capable of what we call subjectivity.
@DanaGarrett : I did not shift the goal posts, those are two different things. My point is there is consciousness without language, including for us. I accept what you've said, I do think when you use an adjective like "robust" among humans, yes, language is needed for a "robust" sense of self, but not a sense of self.
@pyrrho314 Thanks for the clarification of your view. But, in terms of what you advanced in your video, a rudimentary *pre-linguisitic* consciousness would be conceptually insufficient to attribute consciousness to an other. It could recognize the other as other, but it could not attribute subjectivity to it w/o the conceptual distinctions provided by participation in a linguistic community. In short, the attribution of subjectivity does not arise from solipsistic resources.
@DanaGarrett : I still don't follow you at all. You think that a person that did not know language could not attribute a subjective consciousness to another human?
@pyrrho314 Yes, I do not think that that a person who does not know some kind of public language of signification cannot attribute (better: recognize) subjectivity to another human.
@DanaGarrett : ok, I do not quarel with that... I think subject is what it takes to be recognize consciousness, which may itself require, one supposes, self-consciousness. That may require language but I doubt it, unless the notion of language is expanded radically to encompass more types of communication.
@DanaGarrett As it usually happens in these nature v nurture debates, I think there is some middle ground to be found with the acceptance of the third N - neuroplasticity. I'm not sure if either you or pyrrho have looked into neuroconstructivism, but I believe that all the forms of feedback that exist in the cytoarchitectural and neurocognitive development of humans provides a way to understand how the combination of language and the primitive sense of self can establish a robust sense of self.
@TrenchantAtheist : I have primarilly been arguing that there is SOME sense of awareness in all life. Not looking into the details of uniquely human consciousness or highly abstract or self-reflective forms in general... but the relation of simple sensation to simple awareness.
@pyrrho314 Yeah, I got that sense after looking back at your original comments and arguments. I agree, though, that these concepts are difficult to grapple with when we're talking about lower-order functioning that is incommunicable via linguistic terms (i.e. how do we account for the "awareness" of a locust, given that its neurological algorithms seem to bypass even its own primitive brain?). But I also think the gap is easily bridged when we extrapolate from what is currently known.
@trench : not to simplify the particular and as of yet unknown mechanisms, but I think we over-complicate it. We already know groups of cells which are distributed in a network can generate what appears to be a subjective experience, It is an illusion a groups of cells can generate. The locust acts aware of food and water and potential partners, so that to me is clear evidence of this subjective perspective.
@pyrrho314 I would say that being "aware of" is an unnecessary interpolation of a mental skill if the behavior of being "aware of" means possessing a "subjective perspective." I would say that being "aware of" need only mean "being capable to react to..." to be perfectly explanatory of the phenomenon.
@pyrrho314 You may very well be right - it's worth nothing that over-complication often occurs during miscommunication and these terms are poorly defined. Some people equate "being aware" with "being conscious" while others do not... and neurologists acknowledge that there is so much room for disagreement in both terms that many are unwilling to provide any definitions before seeking to explain them as phenomena. I think we all agree though that many organisms behave as though they're aware.
But once you inherit a language it frees up a solipsism, language isn't communal, it's alienating, it creates distance in making distinction. We linguistically construction and deconstruct our own universe(s) which we can only invite others to participate.
brokennarcissist 9 months ago
I wonder how child development would fit into this pt you are making, as it seems the child first becomes aware of people and things, then of language, and out of this begins to form a sense of self apart from the relationships which have come to constitute himself to himself. In this sense one's consciousness of self emerges out of a community of relationships vs being a primary beginning pt for becoming aware of others.
gedgetips 9 months ago
@gedgetips Yes, that is very much in line w/ what I was talking about. Our robust sense of self and the capacity of attributing it to others is a linguistic-cultural artifact. My son had the primitive capacity to recognize me. The he learned from me that I was "Da Da." From further instruction and example, he learned to attribute subjective states to himself and others as in "I sad" or "Daddy sad."
DanaGarrett 9 months ago
Interesting video.
whistlingdust 9 months ago
I have been watching this conversation quietly from the sideline. I am not sure where I stand yet, but you do make some interesting arguments to be sure.
As a side, I like that nifty shirt of yours!
Laurel
YeOldeHeretic 9 months ago
@YeOldeHeretic You can get the shirt from leftturn.org (assuming it's still in existence).
DanaGarrett 9 months ago
@DanaGarrett Thanks!
YeOldeHeretic 9 months ago
so babies without language are not conscious. I think that language is far too high level a concept to associate with a sense of self. I do not think non-linguistic thoughts, logics, are relatively easilly obtained.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 It's not nice to shift the goal posts. Before (in your video) you talked about awareness of one's own subjectivity & attributing it to others. Now you shift the goal post to consciousness. But, hey, I'll give an answer. Yes, babies are conscious, but they do not have a robust sense of themselves. They have to learn to do that. When they do, they can do more than just recognize an other. They can also believe the other is capable of what we call subjectivity.
DanaGarrett 9 months ago
@DanaGarrett : I did not shift the goal posts, those are two different things. My point is there is consciousness without language, including for us. I accept what you've said, I do think when you use an adjective like "robust" among humans, yes, language is needed for a "robust" sense of self, but not a sense of self.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 Thanks for the clarification of your view. But, in terms of what you advanced in your video, a rudimentary *pre-linguisitic* consciousness would be conceptually insufficient to attribute consciousness to an other. It could recognize the other as other, but it could not attribute subjectivity to it w/o the conceptual distinctions provided by participation in a linguistic community. In short, the attribution of subjectivity does not arise from solipsistic resources.
DanaGarrett 9 months ago
@DanaGarrett : I still don't follow you at all. You think that a person that did not know language could not attribute a subjective consciousness to another human?
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 Yes, I do not think that that a person who does not know some kind of public language of signification cannot attribute (better: recognize) subjectivity to another human.
DanaGarrett 9 months ago
@DanaGarrett : ok, I do not quarel with that... I think subject is what it takes to be recognize consciousness, which may itself require, one supposes, self-consciousness. That may require language but I doubt it, unless the notion of language is expanded radically to encompass more types of communication.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@DanaGarrett As it usually happens in these nature v nurture debates, I think there is some middle ground to be found with the acceptance of the third N - neuroplasticity. I'm not sure if either you or pyrrho have looked into neuroconstructivism, but I believe that all the forms of feedback that exist in the cytoarchitectural and neurocognitive development of humans provides a way to understand how the combination of language and the primitive sense of self can establish a robust sense of self.
TrenchantAtheist 9 months ago
@TrenchantAtheist I am unfamiliar w/ neuroconstructivism. But I will look into it. Thanks for the tip.
DanaGarrett 9 months ago
@DanaGarrett Sure thing. Here is a link, page 80 of being of particular importance as a diagram of what I was referring to, in terms of feedback:
psyc.bbk.ac.uk/research/DNL/personalpages/Westermann_DS dot pdf
TrenchantAtheist 9 months ago
Please pardon the typo: "page 80 being of particular importance..."
TrenchantAtheist 9 months ago
@TrenchantAtheist I'm unable to get the link to work. Do you have some search terms I can use to get to this site?
DanaGarrett 9 months ago
@DanaGarrett I just removed ".pdf" and replaced it with a "_dot_pdf" to make sure the google link blocks wouldn't prevent the comment post.
But you can search 'neuroconstructivism' and follow the psyc.bbk link
TrenchantAtheist 9 months ago
@TrenchantAtheist : I have primarilly been arguing that there is SOME sense of awareness in all life. Not looking into the details of uniquely human consciousness or highly abstract or self-reflective forms in general... but the relation of simple sensation to simple awareness.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 Yeah, I got that sense after looking back at your original comments and arguments. I agree, though, that these concepts are difficult to grapple with when we're talking about lower-order functioning that is incommunicable via linguistic terms (i.e. how do we account for the "awareness" of a locust, given that its neurological algorithms seem to bypass even its own primitive brain?). But I also think the gap is easily bridged when we extrapolate from what is currently known.
TrenchantAtheist 9 months ago
@trench : not to simplify the particular and as of yet unknown mechanisms, but I think we over-complicate it. We already know groups of cells which are distributed in a network can generate what appears to be a subjective experience, It is an illusion a groups of cells can generate. The locust acts aware of food and water and potential partners, so that to me is clear evidence of this subjective perspective.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 I would say that being "aware of" is an unnecessary interpolation of a mental skill if the behavior of being "aware of" means possessing a "subjective perspective." I would say that being "aware of" need only mean "being capable to react to..." to be perfectly explanatory of the phenomenon.
DanaGarrett 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 You may very well be right - it's worth nothing that over-complication often occurs during miscommunication and these terms are poorly defined. Some people equate "being aware" with "being conscious" while others do not... and neurologists acknowledge that there is so much room for disagreement in both terms that many are unwilling to provide any definitions before seeking to explain them as phenomena. I think we all agree though that many organisms behave as though they're aware.
TrenchantAtheist 9 months ago