I am; therefore I think. But wait!! If you had never learned words, language, and all the various complicated sub-languages (like neuroscience), YOU would not be you. If you had fallen from the wagon and been raised by the wolves like Mawgli, and had No words, you would not exist. Consciousness depends on words, if there are no words, then then is no being, and the "You" of the "I am;" aren't. A universe where there is no consciousness is a maze of electrons, but there is no being there. The really exquisite thing about being a person is that we are wired for language, and as the language has grown, we have become more conscious. There have been some huge leaps in consciousness as language and its stability improved. Writing, the use of metaphors and printing. The whole beingness of our world our universe and our existence blooms into existence by our sharing and perfecting our words and expressions. Take Dos for example. Just my opinion about your thinking about thinking... = Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
2+2: I wish you to stopped pushing this silly position that knowledge = words. Animals possess no capability of speech; nevertheless they possess vast amounts of knowledge. For example, a dog knows who its owner is. A tiger knows how to chase down its prey, and what prey to avoid. A bird knows where its nest is, and it knows where to forage for food. A trained horse knows it will get a snack for doing a trick (and it has learned how to do that trick, too). Hopefully, you see my point. Knowledge does not include just the explicit facts that can be put into words; it also encompasses such implicit things as skills, events, locales, qualities and memories of objects. For example, if I asked you to describe a chair, you would tell me all about its major components and its function. The knowledge you used for that was not entirely verbal; you first had to know what a support looks and feels like, how objects behave when put on it, what the rough geometry of a chair is, etc. For example, to attach meaning to the word 'straight', you must first understand the quality of 'straightness' (unless you are a mathematician, that is -- but even mathematicians start out learning about their world with no help from mathematics.) Behind the word 'solid', you have the experience-based concepts of flexibility, spatial extension, continuity, interpenetration. Behind every word, there is a set of mental concepts which is non-verbal, and oftentimes irreducible; it is these intrinsic mental concepts that give words meaning in the first place). The word 'leg' is just a combination of letters without the attached meaning. Hopefully, you can see now that meaning must arise first, and only then can language follow. There exists knowledge that one cannot even put into words. For example, if I asked you to describe how exactly you accomplish the task of regaining balance when you are about to fall (so that I could take your directions and make a computer program out of them to enable a robot to walk), you would not be able to tell me. Nevertheless, it is knowledge, and must be learned. By the way you'll notice that children learn to crawl, for example, way before they are able to say even their first word, much less describe how crawling is accomplished, or what it's useful for. In fact, most of the things children learn are not taught to them verbally; they simply obtain the bulk of their knowledge from direct experience, and often only later on do they end up associating words with things they already know. In fact, the modern complexity of life in itself is a form of knowledge. You can think of the bioorganisms and biosystems as 'learning' about their world, becoming more and more capable of surviving and navigating within it as time passes, and thereby encoding information about the world within their structures and behaviors. Ultimately, at its core, knowledge is simply information. It may be expressible verbally, but oftentimes it is not, and sometimes it even does not involve a conscious mind. The 'knowledge' carried by the Earth's biosphere is an encoding of information about this very biosphere, its environment, and its history. However, it is not knowledge inside a mind; it's simply information accumulated by biological processes. Similarly, when we talk about the collective knowledge of the modern civilization, we mean the <u>information</u> accumulated by humans around the world so far -- not knowledge possessed by any individual in particular, nor even knowledge that resides within a brain (for example, it may presently reside within a book, on a schematic, or within a computer database). When we talk about 'passing on knowledge', we imply transmission of information. This is where language really becomes useful -- one of its two primary goals is to serve as a medium of communication. (though it certainly is not the only possible medium; one could also communicate by drawing pictures, for example -- though it would be much less efficient.) The second major effect of language is that verbal representation of large sets of complex concepts certainly helps to increase complexity of thought itself. In this light, you can think of language as a method of compressing the overwhelming non-verbal information down to manageable size (sort of like forming an index, or a compilation of summaries, over a vast database), so that concepts can be manipulated faster, easier, and in greater quantities at a time. <hr> Hopefully, I have managed to show you that knowledge by far does not consist of just words (in fact, most of even human knowledge is non-verbal, and for every word there are a host of non-verbal mental concepts to provide it with meaning). And hopefully, you can now better understand the relationship between words, knowledge, and intelligence. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
<html> <head> <title>New Page 3</title> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 3.0"> </head> <body> <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> </font><font size="2">Boris says,</p> I wish you to stopped pushing this silly position that knowledge = words.</p> </font> <font size="2"> </font><font size="2" color="#804040">Please read the original post Boris, "knowledge" is not mentioned. Actually, I am saying that consciousness is dependant on word. And if a being has no words running through his or her head then they are unconscious beings, reacting very mechanically.</font></p> <font size="2" color="#804040"> </font><font size="2">Animals possess no capability of speech; nevertheless they possess vast amounts of knowledge. For example, a dog knows who its owner is. A tiger knows how to chase down its prey, and what prey to avoid. A bird knows where its nest is, and it knows where to forage for food. A trained horse knows it will get a snack for doing a trick (and it has learned how to do that trick, too). Hopefully, you see my point.</font></p> <font size="2"> </font><font color="#804040" size="2">Yes, I see your point, about knowledge. And actually I believe that the horse has been taught a few words, and like a trained dog, appears more conscious. We have taught the horse a few words.</font></p> <font color="#804040" size="2"> </font><font size="2"><font color="#804040"> </font>Knowledge does not include just the explicit facts that can be put into words; it also encompasses such implicit things as skills, events, locales, qualities and memories of objects. For example, if I asked you to describe a chair, you would tell me all about its major components and its function. The knowledge you used for that was not entirely verbal; you first had to know what a support looks and feels like, how objects behave when put on it, what the rough geometry of a chair is, etc. For example, to attach meaning to the word 'straight', you must first understand the quality of 'straightness' (unless you are a mathematician, that is -- but even mathematicians start out learning about their world with no help from mathematics.) Behind the word 'solid', you have the experience-based concepts of flexibility, spatial extension, continuity, interpretation. Behind every word, there is a set of mental concepts which is non-verbal, and oftentimes irreducible; it is these intrinsic mental concepts that give words meaning in the first place). The word 'leg' is just a combination of letters without the attached meaning. Hopefully, you can see now that meaning must arise first, and only then can language follow.</font></p> <font size="2"> </font><font size="2" color="#804040">Well, no I don't just accept all of this. First of all because you are talking about "knowledge." And my point is about consciousness and words...language. And about the chair...all these words and concepts are held in words. Words that sort of graduate into globally understood metaphors.</font></p> <font size="2" color="#804040"> </font><font size="2">There exists knowledge that one cannot even put into words. For example, if I asked you to describe how exactly you accomplish the task of regaining balance when you are about to fall (so that I could take your directions and make a computer program out of them to enable a robot to walk), you would not be able to tell me. Nevertheless, it is knowledge, and must be learned. By the way you'll notice that children learn to crawl, for example, way before they are able to say even their first word, much less describe how crawling is accomplished, or what it's useful for. In fact, most of the things children learn are not taught to them verbally; they simply obtain the bulk of their knowledge from direct experience, and often only later on do they end up associating words with things they already know.</font></p> <font size="2"> </font><font color="#804040" size="2">There are "other languages" that we are capable of learning, for sure. Music. Playing the piano, for example. However, I doubt it that someone who did not have some sort of communication going, sign language, could learn to play the piano. And crawling, and getting your balance are good points, because they really are pre-words, and pre-conscious in my little point that I am trying to express to you all.</font></p> <font color="#804040" size="2"> </font><font size="2"><font color="#804040"> </font>You can think of the biosystems as 'learning' about their world, becoming more and more capable of surviving and navigating within it as time passes, and thereby encoding information about the world within their structures and behaviors.</font></p> <font size="2"> </font><font color="#804040" size="2">I think of these biosystems as "adapting." But hardly conscious.</font></p> <font color="#804040" size="2"> </font><font size="2"><font color="#804040"> </font>Ultimately, at its core, knowledge is simply information. It may be expressible verbally, but oftentimes it is not, and sometimes it even does not involve a conscious mind. The 'knowledge' carried by the Earth's biosphere is an encoding of information about this very biosphere, its environment, and its history. However, it is not knowledge inside a mind; it's simply information accumulated by biological processes. Similarly, when we talk about the collective knowledge of the modern civilization, we mean the <u>information</u> accumulated by humans around the world so far -- not knowledge possessed by any individual in particular, nor even knowledge that resides within a brain (for example, it may presently reside within a book, on a schematic, or within a computer database). When we talk about 'passing on knowledge', we imply transmission of information. This is where language really becomes useful -- one of its two primary goals is to serve as a medium of communication. (though it certainly is not the only possible medium; one could also communicate by drawing pictures, for example -- though it would be much less efficient.) The second major effect of language is that verbal representation of large sets of complex concepts certainly helps to increase complexity of thought itself. In this light, you can think of language as a method of compressing the overwhelming non-verbal information down to manageable size (sort of like forming an index, or a compilation of summaries, over a vast database), so that concepts can be manipulated faster, easier, and in greater quantities at a time.</font></p> <font size="2"> </font><font size="2" color="#804040">In this paragraph you almost run into my point that consciousness is dependent on words. That "language is how we pass on information..." That ability to pass on information from generation to generation is why humans don't live in caves any longer, and tigers do. And our language is growing, and we have language upon languages like DOS that let's us communicate and pass on "knowledge" like this even.. Consciousness is expanding. Many people have huge vocabularies.</font></p> <font size="2" color="#804040"> </font></p> </body> </html> ------------------ The landscape opened like a children's book... It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
So there you are wondering why I went on this huge discussion of knowledge, when what you are in fact talking about is consciousness. There is a big reason. You seem to think of motor skills (such as crawling) as a form of primitive language. I believe a more appropriate way to think about language is that it is an advanced motor skill. After all, motor skills emerged first, and language only in one (or perhaps just a few) advanced species. What you refer to as 'expanding consciousness' is in fact expanding knowledge. Words are merely labels, handles on chunks of information. At its root, language is a system for manipulating knowledge easier, not a system for merely manipulating words. What has happened to the human civilization, is that it indeed accumulated ever more knowledge, and formed ever more complex theories -- and thus we are more sophisticated now than we ever were, and possess the largest vocabulary ever. Language is only a symbolic representation of knowledge. Knowledge comes first; language follows. The expansion of language and communicated thought is a secondary phenomenon -- with expansion of knowledge being the primary. As is easily seen by observing animals, one does not need language to obtain and utilize knowledge, or even to form theories. Language merely brings more power -- but not a fundamentally new capacity. But, your usage of the word 'consciousness' is a little wider. You use it for knowledge, but you also seem to use it in the more traditional sense -- self-awareness. Again, to be aware of the self, one does not need language or words. You may need to use words to convey your perceptions to someone else, but you are constantly self-aware without constantly telling yourself about it -- aren't you? <hr> Now, what you may ultimately be trying to express is that our vast and expanding knowledge of the world is due to our capacity for language. If that is indeed your claim, then we are in perfect agreement. Language enables us to communicate knowledge, and to easily manipulate vast amounts of it. Without a physiological capacity for language, we would indeed be doomed forever to live in caves. However, language is not related to consciousness. What you may be trying to say is that our <u>awareness</u> is growing -- not our 'consciousness'. But note that the concept of awareness is inexorably tied to the concept of knowledge. Which is why I went into a discussion of knowledge in the first place... ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 30, 1999).]
and, awareness is the result of perceived knowledge and and its 'practice'. perceived, not mimicked. awareness is not a practice or discipline, it is a principal of perception. being right minded does not imply a clear understanding.
Boris says,So there you are wondering why I went on this huge discussion of knowledge, when what you are in fact talking about is consciousness. </p> There is a big reason. You seem to think of motor skills (such as crawling) as a form of primitive language. I believe a more appropriate way to think about language is that it is an advanced motor skill. After all, motor skills emerged first, and language only in one (or perhaps just a few) advanced species. </p> <font color="#800040">This is an interesting metaphor, and may well be correct. If a human baby is brought up by apes, then it will walk like apes, and if the the child is brought up in Cuba then the child speaks Spanish.</font></p> What you refer to as 'expanding consciousness' is in fact expanding knowledge. Words are merely labels, handles on chunks of information. At its root, language is a system for manipulating knowledge easier, not a system for merely manipulating words. What has happened to the human civilization, is that it indeed accumulated ever more knowledge, and formed ever more complex theories -- and thus we are more sophisticated now than we ever were, and possess the largest vocabulary ever. Language is only a symbolic representation of knowledge. Knowledge comes first; language follows. The expansion of language and communicated thought is a secondary phenomenon -- with expansion of knowledge being the primary. </p> <font color="#800040">But I am lost here...A person can gain knowledge in large chunks, but it must come in words. When a person is learning a skill say playing the piano, it seems like you may be saying metaphorically that the piano holds apriori all the music. While I would say that the pupil must learn a whole new language that will be opened slowly with the use of the primary language. Knowledge is locked up in words, in different languages, and to possess this knowledge that has come down through the generations one must have language. If you don't have the language to absorb this knowledge there is nothing there. To hear the music in your head, you must learn the language, and then read all the music available to gain "knowledge." A respected and innovative composer will have consumed most of the written music of hisorher times, and then adds to the " body of knowledge" creating new patterns, phrases, or even "new words." </font>Language is only a symbolic representation of knowledge.<font color="#800040"> How I see it there would be no knowledge if we did not have language...words that travel through generations, holding information. A glorious meme.(Is there a different way to store information [knowledge] and pass it along from generation to generation other than words?) I think that knowledge is just like what you express. Like a gifted jazz pianist hearing the melody and Still Choosing a complicated metaphor to re-express it. One that makes a little more sense in the times, these times. Time.</font></p> As is easily seen by observing animals, one does not need language to obtain and utilize knowledge, or even to form theories. Language merely brings more power -- but not a fundamentally new capacity. </p> <font color="#800040">If all of the people were gone form this planet, and not coming back. Would there be knowledge here? I don't think an elephant knows where the water hole is, it goes there. It is a beautiful machine, that is doing exactly as it must do.</font></p> But, your usage of the word 'consciousness' is a little wider. You use it for knowledge, but you also seem to use it in the more traditional sense -- self-awareness. Again, to be aware of the self, one does not need language or words. You may need to use words to convey your perceptions to someone else, but you are constantly self-aware without constantly telling yourself about it -- aren't you? </p> <font color="#800040">Well...this is a trick question if ever I saw one. But let me try to stick close to this struggle. Yes, I am constantly self-aware. I am aware too that words are running through my head spinning out a story in words. And I am self-aware, I have come to believe, because I was NAMED. I was given an identity and time too (consciousness) as I was tenderly brought into the sea of words.</font></p> Now, what you may ultimately be trying to express is that our vast and expanding knowledge of the world is due to our capacity for language. If that is indeed your claim, then we are in perfect agreement. Language enables us to communicate knowledge, and to easily manipulate vast amounts of it. Without a physiological capacity for language, we would indeed be doomed forever to live in caves. </p> However, language is not related to consciousness. What you may be trying to say is that our <u>awareness</u> is growing -- not our 'consciousness'. But note that the concept of awareness is inexorably tied to the concept of knowledge. Which is why I went into a discussion of knowledge in the first place...</p> <font color="#800040">Okay. I see your point, and I beg to differ. Sure Helen Keller was alive and conscious (in a basic sense) before she got language. And she got knowledge through language. But inside of herself, she became conscious of the world...a story with her at the center of the universe began, and grew. Expanded. That complex internal dialogue is to me consciousness.If you don't have a language in there, I don't believe there is a story being told in there, and then you are definitely unknowledgeable, and unconscious of the world around you. But as you say, they are still conscious.</font></p> </body> </html> ------------------ The landscape opened like a children's book... It has the look of careful joy.John N Morris
