Does consciousness arise out of having a language?

Define precisely what you mean by conscious. If it means can a unlanguaged person "have" sense-impressions, the answer seems to be yes, to the extent that one supposes animals to have it. But would this same conscious be able to understand and employ universals, or reason; the ability to be self-consciousness (for example) would appear to be debatable.

Good question-

What is consciousness? By consciousness, I mean does it have self-awareness, emotions, or thoughts? Or, is it a robot, which is controlled only by it's instinct?

... language is a form of communication ... if consciousness can arise out of language, does that mean consciousness can arise out of any form of communication? ... were humans conscious before they evolved language, or only after? ... did Helen Keller only become conscious once she was finally taught sign language? ... (don'tcha just love idiots who answer questions with questions? ) ...

Answers:

1: No- language is not only a mere form of communication. language is a formal system that can manipulate symbols representing abstract ideas and concepts. I think consciousness is simply using language to communicate with oneself.

2: They were conscious only after, IMO

3: She became conscious only after she was taught language.

4: No...

... aren't you confusing written language with spoken language? ... in which case, humans have only been conscious for something along the lines of 6,000 years? (assuming, of course, that writing that old can even be considered a formal system) ...

I do not think so. All language, even spoken language, just has one purpose: to allow self-communication. There is no important difference between using sight or sound.

... I'm not sure I follow - are you saying that communication is only an incidental purpose of langauge?

... okay - let's follow this where it leads ... Helen Keller includes in her autobiography an account of her life leading up to the point where she first realized that the impressions being made in her hand were symbols ... if she was not conscious up to that point, how could she provide such an account? ... and how many symbols did she have to learn before she became conscious?

More like consciousness is an incidental side-effect.

You can have memories without having a consciousness, like a dog does.

Also, the number of symbols you need varies- in a minimalist language, it is possible to have just one. The only important point is that the language must be able to describe new situations- for example, to make thoughts that have never been thought before.
This is not possible with, for example, with the pheremone "language" used by ants.

... by your definition, self-awareness, emotion, or thoughts constitute elements of conscious ... how conscious is a dolphin who can recognize itself in a mirror? ... how conscious are my dogs? (who are always happy to see me) ... how conscious is a chimpanzee who has learned how to fashion and use rudimentary tools? (e.g., a stripped willow to fish termites out of a mound) ...

Well, I gave that definition to not upset animal-lovers. Really, IMHO, I consider consciousness to be defined as "Anything that uses a self-referential and logically complete language to communicate with itself". Tarski had a special word for such languages, but I forgot what it was.

... ah, well - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then ... you're thinking one thing, I'm thinking something else, but we're using the same symbol - consciousness - to describe our incompatible thoughts ... kinda makes you wonder how something like consciousness could arise from something as sloppy as language, eh?

Only the natural languages are sloppy. It would be interesting to have a consciousness formed out of that minimalist, 1-word language though...

Well, most philosophy arguments really end up to be just a disagreement in meaning. With your definition, I would easily have agreed, and vice versa.

Anyway, assuming this to be true, I wonder if this means that ethics is unnecessary- after all, we are still robots, like dogs and flies and ants. We simply happen to also have some weird self-referential logically complete method of self- and group- communication. So, is it OK to harm such a self-referential robot (aka us)?

... if all we are are robots, and I feel the way I do about "we", then it absolutely not okay to harm robots ... (what an interesting spin on robot ethics! ) ...

I take it you agree with my first, PETA-approved definition of consciousness.
However, emotions, self awareness, etc... aren't much different. Emotions are a simple categorizing system, and dogs don't have self-awareness- we proved it in the lab.
So, is it alright to harm a dog (aka 4-legged robot)?

... not my dogs, you don't!!! :letme-at-em: ... anyhoo, that's an ethical question much like the abortion question ... different people draw the line at different places ... for example, you draw the "consciousness" line at language ... myself, I see consciousness as something humans share with our cousins to varying degrees, possibly going back as far as the split between dinosaurs and mammals ... (I consider both higher birds and higher mammals to be conscious - what I cannot say is whether there is a common root of consciousness between the two lines, or if consciousness is yet another example of parallel evolution) ... anyhoo, pardon me for bugging out but I hear my pillow calling!

You're right, it all goes back to definitions. I have one, you have another, and there can't be a "winner." Cheers!

It is not language that is sloppy, but its use.

If consciousness is generally seen as being "aware of surroundings and being able to react to them, then to some degree we share this with all locomotive animals, as we do rudimentary memory in the higher forms of life.
As with other animals, our language allows us to communicate the present, but it does not allow them to communicate the past or the future outside of warnings and immediate wants. For this reason, they are unable to transcend their instincts.
It would appear that (self) consciousness is absent from other animals because they are unable to conceive of an enduring self, or that the self is necessarily mortal. It would also appear, if we carefully avoid anthropomorphism, that other animals are incapable of logic, reason, and abstraction.