Is conscious experience dependent on language?

@Pukka Sahib,

Quote:

“There is no ‘redness’ in nature, only different wave lengths of radiation.”
- Alfred Korzybski, “The Nature of Language in the Perceptual Processes,” reprinted from Perception: An Approach to Personality (1951).

This would be correct...if there was radiation in nature. You say ‘but of course there is radiation in nature’, but radiation is a name for something...just like red is. That said, I have no real issue with the gist of this thought.

Quote:

Working it out for oneself is not very objective, much less scientific.

A fair observation that shouldn’t stop one from trying to be objective or work it out for themselves. Suspending such helps one miss obvious discrepancies in other peoples conclusions.

Quote:

Science has shown that much of what we believe to be true is structurally false to fact.

True enough as a generalisation, and not correct in many cases. In this case, science has shed little light on consciousness (as opposed to how the brain works) – it is currently mostly philosophy. It is a mistake to think that while language may influence our consciousness, that it IS consciousness.

There should be plenty of tests that show certain results, but the interpretation of those results is often based on a rather imperfect understanding of how the mind works. In reality, you are then left to either take other peoples words for it, or work it out for yourself - or a combination of both. A combination of both helps one, at the very least, to see, as you say, the difference between the results, and the interpretations.

Quote:

Still, we persist in believing that things are ordered as we perceive them; when in truth what is perceived to be the cause may not necessarily produce the effect.

Yep.

Quote:

Do you see red? If you believe that you see red, then, as Korzybski points out, you are mistaken

This would be an incredible oversimplification. The easy answer is the only one you would give in any normal circumstance, because it is not worth being scientifically accurate about it...or even bothering to give it much thought – unless there is a purpose to doing so. We name things for ease of communication, not because the name IS the thing. (that 'thing' likely has thousands of different names throughout the world, in thousands of different languages)

0 Replies

@fresco,

Fresco, you show how complex this question is. I tend to think of consciousness (and society) as dependent on language, but this would, I think, apply only to "human consciousness". Animals cannot be said to lack consciousness because of their lack of language (forget about higher apes and whales for the moment; they have a "different" consciousness). Humans, it seems evolved language in order to have society--and society is a prerequisite for survival. But animals--and even insects--have societies of sorts. But I do believe that culture implies language and both have been, like society, essential for our survival within our socially constructed reality.

0 Replies

@G H,

Vikorr, I agree with your comments on language. It is dynamic, fluid, sometimes unwieldly and therefore not to be treated simplistically in its role for consciousness. I especially like that you include the "subconscious" and the function of images for its operations. Nevertheless, language does name things, and while it is often sketchy and not adequate to our thoughts, it can operate slowly, precisely and very adequately, as in poetry. There is a spectrum, I suppose, from fuzzy and inadequate to clear and adequate in the use of words for cognition. I have to think more about your proposition that "the 'concept' ... forms first in the conscious brain, before the language is (usually) subconsciously applied to express the concept."
The complexities you cite for language does suggest that it is not THE foundation for consciousness, but doesn't it provide at least some of the content (i.e., names of the objects) of consciousness? I would like to know how the differences in the consciousness of animals and humans varies because of our language advantage. I would also like to know the role of words for emotion (I tend to think of emotion as named feelings), and, perhaps, how this may affect the lives of people in societies with different cultures.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Hi JL, have to go to work soon, so don't have much time to explain many of my thoughts.

In relation to concepts/images coming before language - imagine you are playing a memory game with someone. The other person has placed 4 objects on a table, and you've had but a 1 second glance at them before you have to say what you saw. Now you know the name of 3 of them, but not the name of the fourth object. Now the rules are that you have to wait until the next day to tell this person what you saw. So the next day - is it language that comes to you for the 3, and a picture for the 4th? Or is it 4 pictures that come to you (whether you are aware of them or not), and then language (the names) for 3 of them?

Or to put it another way - names have to be attached to something in our mind. That something has to exist in our mind first before the name can be attached.

And yet another way : object exists : our eyes see object : our mind interprets what our eyes see : our mind finds the attached word for our minds intepretation of the object that our mind sees - and we can now speak the name.

The same process applies to everything that our mind can conceive. Our mind of course, can conceive much more than the physical (hence the use of the term 'concepts', which is much more encompassing), which is why language can be formed.

When someone says to you 'what is it you are trying to say' - you realise that the words you chose aren't conveying the concept you are trying to express in an understandable way. You then go back, 'look' at the concept you are trying to convey, and the words used, and then try and 'describe' the concept again, in a different manner. So the concept you are trying to convey doesn't change - just the language used to describe it.

There are many more examples I'm sure, but running out of time Smile

1 Reply

@vikorr,

The automatic associations that the mind makes (otherwise known as 'attachments') of course, also work in reverse - when someone speaks a name, you can then picture the object.

This is why I don't agree with people who say that we should be free of attachments - they don't understand that language itself uses attachments....as does almost every part of our life. All motor skills are attachments, all habits are attachments, all language is attachments, all values are attachments, all beliefs are attachments...etc.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Good point. You make a semantic refinement. But in the case of Buddhism, most famous for denouncing "attachments", their referent is not exactly the same as yours. I guess Buddhists should use a term more to their point, something like fixating or grasping. I certainly prefer non-attachment to detachment. I would not want to be detached from life, but I don't like the grasping that causes so much frustration and blocks the flow of an open perception.

1 Reply

I had a concious experience with a large lady named Helga once, and she couldn't speak a word of English so we had to do it all with furious hand motions, which turned out to be very enjoyable.
So no, language doesn't count for much.

However, I WOULD say that it was more dependent on alcohol.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

The complexities you cite for language does suggest that it is not THE foundation for consciousness, but doesn't it provide at least some of the content (i.e., names of the objects) of consciousness?

Language identifications simply use abstract synoptic signs (that are visual or audible themselves) to replace what would have otherwise been associations to a parade of past recollections (images and other stored perceptions) serving that role of classification and meaning. These symbolic conceptions speed-up and expand thought, analysis and inventiveness for humans, but with the cost of either sacrificing specific details of the original perceptions or burying them at a subconscious level (not being exhibited during such lingual thought processes). There's a researcher with autism below who adds some personal insight to this.

Quote:

I would like to know how the differences in the consciousness of animals and humans varies because of our language advantage.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080219203603.htm

Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science whose best-selling books have provided an unprecedented look at the autistic mind, says her autism gives her special insight into the inner workings of the animal mind. She based her proposal on the observation that animals, like autistic humans, sense and respond to stimuli that nonautistic humans usually overlook. . . . "Since animals do not have verbal language, they have to store memories as pictures, sounds, or other sensory impressions." And sensory-based information, she says, is inherently more detailed than word-based memories. "As a person with autism, all my thoughts are in photo-realistic pictures," she explains. "The main similarity between animal thought and my thought is the lack of verbal language."

An opposing or critical view in the article: ". . . rather than having privileged access to lower level sensory information before it is packaged into concepts, as has been argued for savants, animals, like non-autistic humans, process sensory inputs according to rules, and that this manner of processing is a specialized feature of the left hemisphere in humans and nonhuman animals. . . . . the left hemisphere sets up rules based on experience and the right hemisphere avoids rules in order to detect details and unique features that allow it to decide what is familiar and what is novel. This is true for human and nonhuman animals, likely reflecting ancient evolutionary origins of the underlying brain mechanisms."

However, rules must be stored in memory and Grandin obviously has a point that this won't be as language in animals -- or at least, the natural vocabulary of most species is so small (like warning cries) that few if any complex relations could be represented by it. The word-based concepts that humans use to classify and sum-up the perceptual details of past events eventually loses the clarity and specific accuracy of those details in recall.

Quote:

I would also like to know the role of words for emotion (I tend to think of emotion as named feelings), and, perhaps, how this may affect the lives of people in societies with different cultures.

Well, I'm a little bit skeptical that emotions are not globally common in their purposes, that cultures can significantly overide their innately intended functions (though certain societal outlooks can obviously suppress emotions in individuals). I do agree with you that emotions are in some ways another substitute for language in non-human animals. An emotional response to an environmental or social/herd circumstance involves, to at least some degree, a "meaning" or "label" for the circumstance. Even if the emotion was nothing more than an outward body expression, response, or action rather than an internal state -- that is still about something, presenting or correlating a meaning for/to that something.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

That's a good way to describe what the mind does. It makes associations between ideas, that often become automatic and almost "involuntary" in some sense.

However, it is often the case that people's minds become "attached" is certain ways that cause them trouble, suffering and pain. People become attached to certain interpretations of and ways of thinking about themselves and life that end up hindering them in certain ways, causing problems for them.

In such a case, trying to free ourselves from such attachments would a good thing, with the aim of trying to alter the attachments in such a way that benefit us, and change us, rather than cause us problems.

Its not that people should be free of attachments altogether though, I think that was the point you were making, and I'm not even sure such total "detachment" is even possible.

The point I'm making however, is that people can become so deeply attached to things, ideas, values, beliefs, ways of thinking etc, that may not be beneficial to them, and even harmful to them, but because they are so entrenched within their attachments, they see them as totally necessary, and they consequently struggle to change and grow.

self-growth becomes almost impossible if people are too attached to things.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Vikorr, other terms would be clinging, grasping, craving, dependence, addiction, etc. You're right, "attachment" sounds so innocuous.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Vikorr, other terms would be clinging, grasping, craving, dependence, addiction, etc. You're right, "attachment" sounds so innocuous.

Hi JL, in a way it is innocuous. 'Attachment' is correct, but has multiple applications to our lives - which can lead to confusion about whether it is good or bad (either, depending on context). Other words like you have used can serve - or be added for clarity, before summising them as 'attachments'.

Quote:

Good point. You make a semantic refinement. But in the case of Buddhism, most famous for denouncing "attachments", their referent is not exactly the same as yours. I guess Buddhists should use a term more to their point, something like fixating or grasping. I certainly prefer non-attachment to detachment. I would not want to be detached from life, but I don't like the grasping that causes so much frustration and blocks the flow of an open perception.

Yes, I agree that buddhists mean it slightly different to the frame of reference I was using. However, I see many people here who use it not too dissimilar to what I’m talking about, without realising just how dependant our lives are on ‘attachments’. The point being – the nature of attachments needs to be understood – some are very useful in our lives, while others hinder us. Understanding and using our attachments in the right way actually increases the quality of our life, as does releasing attachments that do not serve us anymore.

Quote:

However, it is often the case that people's minds become "attached" is certain ways that cause them trouble, suffering and pain. People become attached to certain interpretations of and ways of thinking about themselves and life that end up hindering them in certain ways, causing problems for them.

In such a case, trying to free ourselves from such attachments would a good thing, with the aim of trying to alter the attachments in such a way that benefit us, and change us, rather than cause us problems.

Hi EP, yes this is true. The point of attachments I make is rather that they serve a purpose in our lives. See my above reply to JL.

In relation to emotional reaction to an event (say conflict) that no longer serves them well – if you’ve ever noticed someone attempt to change that type of reaction - they often have great difficulty, even if they understand the flaw in their reaction.

This is because when they experience a ‘trigger’ situation, the mind runs an automatic program. This ‘program’ is a process the mind goes through in a split second, and you will find that it is always a consistent process for the ‘trigger’ situation. The outcome on the other hand, can differ slightly dependant on the stimuli received.

A trigger situation by the way, can be generic, as in ‘how you handle conflict’, ‘how you handle stress’, ‘whether you get drained or enlivened by socialising’, ‘what occurs when you think of approaching a very attractive stranger’, etc. Or the trigger situation can be very specific.

The point of this is that the problem with peoples ‘attachments’ is that it is not just an 'attachment' working in isolation from the mind. Those 'attachments' can trigger automatic processes in the mind, and automatic processes in the mind can trigger 'attachments'. In simplified terms, it works much the same way as when a object we see triggers language (a name for the object) and language can trigger a picture of the object.

So 'problems' can occur in either the automatic process, or the emotional attachment, or both...meaning that it's often a case of not just the ‘attachment’ that needs to be released, but the ‘automatic process’ that needs to be changed (as stated before, an automatic process is a form of 'attachment' itself), before true 'change' can occur.

0 Replies

@existential potential,

Quote:

The point I'm making however, is that people can become so deeply attached to things, ideas, values, beliefs, ways of thinking etc, that may not be beneficial to them, and even harmful to them, but because they are so entrenched within their attachments, they see them as totally necessary, and they consequently struggle to change and grow.

self-growth becomes almost impossible if people are too attached to things.

In many cases this can be true.

In other cases I would question that.

Does Love of a spouse prevent you from growing? Or can it motivate you to learn more about yourself, more about him/her, more about life, etc? It could even do both, preventing you from growing in one area, while growing in other areas.

What about a great 'attachment to/passion for', say 'cars'. It could lead you passionately into learning about cars, rebuilding cars, forming friendships with other people with the same passion for cars, etc.

Attachments aren't necessarily bad - it's the purpose they serve in your life, and whether they serve your purpose that is the question. I doubt anyone argues that you aren't attached to something you love or are passionate about...but you can realise the purpose that serves in your life, and use it for it's intended purpose, rather than being used by it for in a way that doesn't really serve you.

Did you understand by the way - the 'automatic process' implicit in saying 'and use it for it's intended purpose, rather than be used by it in a way that doesn't really serve you', and the similarity between the sentence structure of that and 'an object triggers a name, and a name triggers a pictureo f the object'?

0 Replies

@existential potential,

existential potential wrote:

Husserl said that the perception of our own conscious experiences is not based in sense-perception; is it not language that gives us “consciousness”? Is it not through language, which allows for the “identification” of “reality” that essentially provides consciousness with its own awareness?

not the experience of conscious but the communication of the experience of conscious to others is dependent on language

1 Reply

@north,

Also, in addition to simple naming and communication about the content of conscious (and other levels of) experience there is the formal categorization of classes of experience that is served by language.

0 Replies

Is conscious experience dependent on language?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know