
Consciousness Doesn’t Depend on Language - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/76/language/consciousness-doesnt-depend-on-language
======
simonh
When I am at rest, looking around myself, taking in sensations, observing
others runaround me, and aware of myself and my place in the world, I consider
myself consciously aware. I don't see what any of that experience has to do
with language.

Furthermore, I don't see any reason why that state of conscious awareness
would need to have been significantly different in my pre-human ancestors.
Would a Homo Erectus have had a significantly different sense of experience?
An Australopithecus? Our common ancestor with other apes? If so, why?

It seems to me the parts of the brain active in that state correspond closely
to those in other mammals. Yes when I'm solving maths problems, writing a HN
post, playing a board game or solving a crossword puzzle I'm using higher
brain functions that other mammals don't have. Sure. But what has that got to
do with conscious awareness? I have that when I'm doing things very much along
the same lines as activities of other mammals. Running a race, climbing a
tree, walking through woodland, stalking prey, experiencing love, or loss or
panic. I don't see why I would expect their experience of those things to be
much different from mine.

There's no 'animal mode' state of awareness that we have when doing 'animal'
things that's a vestige of our pre-conscious past. Conscious awareness isn't
something that only kicks in when actively engaging higher brain functions. So
surely that is evidence it's a foundational part of our mental heritage, not a
modern addition?

It seems to me that arguing that a higher mammal's experience must be
dramatically different from mine when doing common activities, to the point
that it's impossible for us to even imagine what that experience is like, is
the extraordinary claim.

~~~
collyw
Have you ever tried meditating? The first time you do you probably think your
mind isn't wandering, it actually takes a bit of practice to even notice quite
how much internal dialogue you actually have. It's non stop for most of us.

~~~
whlr
Is it established that internal dialogue is facilitated by our language
faculties, though? That’s certainly not was I would guess from my subjective
experience.

~~~
core-questions
This seems like something that should be obvious: most people's internal
monologue is delineated in their primary language, or in a pastiche of the
languages they know well. Just think about your own thoughts - if they
crystallize into something and you serialize it out, it's going to be in
language form.

------
avinium
I find the stroke anecdote fairly unconvincing. The man clearly still had the
capacity for language - he was miming the action of a tennis racquet. Sign
language is still language. Just because something went haywire between his
brain and his mouth doesn't mean he lacked language.

I also don't think you can easily dismiss the conscious of animals by saying
they lack language. Most animals (dogs, whales, birds, etc) seem to engage in
limited communication via audible signals.

As with most philosophical questions, though, it all hangs on the definition
of "consciousness". It may not even be a concept worth defining.

~~~
INGELRII
Sign language has linguistic structure. Vocalizations or signs that are
composed of simple symbols are not language.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Fwiw, it appears you're saying "[human] sign language is complex; simple use
of physical signalling is not language". But, your statement could be read as
disparaging sign language as "not language", something I'd strongly refute.

~~~
INGELRII
I said that sign language has linguistic structure so it's language.

Proper language requires this structure, just making sings is not
automatically language. Just the ability to signal using single atomic words,
in some medium (signs, verbal, written, machine) is not a language.

------
jonathanstrange
I have only published two (unimportant) articles in the Philosophy of Mind
about computationalism, so I'm certainly not an expert on this, but from what
I gather from colleagues in philosophy who work in this area, the problem with
"consciousness" is that everybody defines the notion differently. Maybe there
is some convergence on some soft criteria, but these are loose and in the end
there is no unified, agreed upon definition or way to measure consciousness.

IMHO, that makes a meaningful discussion difficult. Probably most ways of
looking at consciousness don't depend on language - consciousness does not
even imply self-consciousness, so it's not easy to see why it should. However,
it shouldn't be hard to make a philosophical case for a dependence, too. In
the end, it's questionable whether any of those theories are _empirically
testable_.

That's my impression, though admittedly I'm not really working in that area.

~~~
denton-scratch
"everybody defines the notion differently"

As I see it, the problem is that everyone _knows_ what consciousness is - in a
sense, it's the only thing they can know, it's direct experience. But it's
impossible to inspect the consciousness of someone else; so scientists have
trouble with the word, because verifiability.

So "scientists" (I mean those who advocate a scientific approach) tend to
prefer the idea that consciousness is an "emergent phenomenon", rather than
something fundamental; and that acts of will really follow an action, rather
than causing it.

The article touches on Buddhist philosophy. Some Buddhists do indeed take the
view that consciousness is something fundamental, that really exists.

I find it really hard to talk about this subject. I have a very strong
conviction that consciousness is real and fundamental, because, well, it's all
I've got, at the end of the day. But if consciousness is fundamental, then all
that other stuff is secondary. There are schools of Buddhist philosophy that
claim that all that secondary stuff is literally created by consciousness.

But my very consciousness constantly provides me with very convincing evidence
that all that secondary stuff is in fact fundamental. So who's kidding who?

One reason it's good to play with this kind of stuff is that it makes you less
certain of anything!

~~~
mercer
My impression is that the Buddhist view, at least from a zen perspective, is
not so much telling you that all that secondary stuff is 'literally' created
by consciousness, but rather that attachment to this idea is part of the
problem.

Being too attached to the idea that there is an objective reality outside of
yourself is just as problematic as being attached to the idea that there is
nothing outside of you subjective consciousness/experience.

The truth, possibly impossible to find out, probably lies somewhere in
between.

The zen approach, as I understand it, is to focus on your own awareness of
these two extremes, and to keep yourself from reifying either one. Instead,
focus on your direct experience, on 'wu-wei', and consider these two extremes
interesting perspectives that can help you on your path to 'naturalness'.

Personally I find this philosophy maddeningly unclear and subjective, but it's
been the most helpful in my life when it comes to 'happiness', or perhaps
'contentment'.

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
The idea that you can cleanly separate the self from the outside reality is
probably the flawed bit. The in-between truth is that the self is intricately
interlinked with the "outside" reality. Sensory deprivation tanks do really
weird things to people's consciousness. The mind depends upon its inputs for
proper functioning.

------
317070
I mean, you are basically saying that this man did not have a consciousness:
[https://neuroanthropology.net/2010/07/21/life-without-
langua...](https://neuroanthropology.net/2010/07/21/life-without-language/)

I mean, there are plenty of language-less people. But they are clearly
conscious. So why is this even a discussion?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>her work with Ildefonso, who had grown up without learning sign language or
any other form of communication. //

It sounds like she's limiting her definition of language to "ability to
communicate". Which I think it's wrong.

One example is how babies can communicate with sign long before they can talk.

When I learnt some BSL I was essentially in a situation like Ildenfonso (sp?)
in your link. But, I certainly had language, it just wouldn't let me
communicate in that situation, it essentially became a private language only
for me. Now, Ildenfonso may not have developed a sophisticated language, but
once the penny dropped and he began to communicate in sign with his tutor it
seems like he already had a working language to match the signs to, that
better explains - IMO - the rush to identify signs for the physical items
around him, rather than waiting to learn as things came up.

------
techas
Blindsight by Peter Watts is a fiction novel with pretty interesting ideas on
consciousness. In the book, consciousness is presented as a error during
evolution, with no added value for species to survive. I find that idea quite
disturbing and extremely interesting!

~~~
Baeocystin
I second the recommendation. So many little morsels of thought on the nature
of the Mind's I.
[https://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm](https://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm)
for those who wish to read it.

------
buboard
Consciousness is not so much a scientific problem than a political one. As far
as science is concerned, "consciousness" is a word, and is vaguely defined.
Therefore this discussion is more relevant about its implications in legal and
political matters such as animal rights and abortion.

~~~
nihilismislove
In this case, the ability to experience positive and negative mental states,
can be used in place of consciousness.

Especially the ability to experience suffering might offer reasonable basis
for approaching ethical questions.

In terms of animal rights this is as simple as assuming that at least most
vertebrae experience mental states, incl. suffering, from at least shortly
after birth (which we can safely do)

In terms of abortion, this still leaves us with the additional question of
weighing contrary interests of 2 individuals. This is trivial when weighing
the interests of pregnant person vs sth like a 10-week fetus (obviously
incapable of experiencing mental states) but maybe not sufficient for
arguments about 30+ weeks fetuses, depending on personal values

~~~
pbhjpbhj
A 10-week fetus, ie 20 weeks of gestation, can hear [1], suck, swallow. I
would not say it's obvious they can't experience "mental states"; especially
not as you appear to be arguing almost all animalkind can experience those
states.

[1]
[https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm](https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm)

~~~
nihilismislove
Well, that wasn't my main point and I did mean 10 weeks of gestation (just as
an example).

Still, physiological responses are not the best indicator of mental states -
plants and primitive animals (from sponges to bivalves) have them too, despite
lacking the neurological development necessary for (or evolutionary need for)
"consciousness".

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Your second paragraph there seems to refute your position. If you can't tell
physiologically then how are you telling that "most vertebrates experience
mental states". You seem to be arguing for an assumed position starting from
that position ( _petitio principii_ ).

And I agree that physiological responses aren't the best way to show mental
states. I cry sometimes for no reason whatsoever, my eyes just leak; you can't
infer fear just because a creature backs away from fire, either.

------
Roark66
Well, I'm wondering if consciousness is even a real state that can be defined
precisely, or is it simply a made up construct so we humans can feel better
about ourselves. For example, if there was AI sufficiently complex to pass
Turing test by emulating self-awareness how can we determine where emulation
ends and real self-awareness begins?

What if the AI is not even created by emulating neurological processes like we
do now with neural nets, but some new fairly transparent mechanism of self-
coding is invented like massive collection of if-then-else conditions covering
everything the AI can experience and updated in real time? If we knew exactly
how that AI operates could we then state definitely that it is or isn't
conscious?

~~~
vekker
> Well, I'm wondering if consciousness is even a real state that can be
> defined precisely, or is it simply a made up construct so we humans can feel
> better about ourselves.

Statements like this always baffle me. People who straight up deny that there
is something like subjective experience. I mean, I guess it's possible that
there are non-conscious humans with no notion of what experiencing existence
is like ("p-zombies") and their internal logic systems then will logically
argue against the existence of consciousness.

There's obviously no way to "objectively prove" to one another that a human
being or sufficiently complex AI is conscious, because that's the very
definition of subjectiveness, but if only for moral and ethical reasons I
think it's safer to assume all beings have a level of consciousness.

~~~
PeterWhittaker
To my read and mind, there was no denial of that subjective experience, merely
an attempt to frame a useful question around it.

All of science is based upon shareable ideas, many testable. They may have
begun as vague notions bouncing inchoate through our consciousness (or
subconsciousness, etc., yada, so forth) but at some point they became
expressible, then, eventually, measurable.

If we want to study consciousness, whatever it/they is/are, then first we need
to agree to useful operational definitions, things we can tease apart
observationally, reason about, form hypotheses, then eventually theories.

If one accepts that all human experience are fundamentally based on biology
(since our meat seems to be all we have, at least until some extra-corporeal
notion such as the soul is itself capable of being measured, analyzed, and
reasoned about), then, fundamentally, our individual subjective experiences
are based on what would likely be common chemistry and biology.

So back to the original comment: Is consciousness a real state? We identify it
as such, but perhaps it is several, perhaps many, cooperative or even
competitive microstates, if you will, all of which together give us the
experience of consciousness, but which are inaccessible to us...

...just as the perception of individual hues and saturations within our eyes
are inaccessible, since they reach "us" after considerable backend processing
(literally, since visual processing is largely occipital).

If we are going to make progress on understanding consciousness, we first need
to set it aside and ask "what is going on?" at various levels, then,
eventually, draw a complete picture from those dots....

------
nabla9
Here is first person account: Thinking the Way Animals Do: Unique insights
from a person with a singular understanding. By Temple Grandin
[https://www.grandin.com/references/thinking.animals.html](https://www.grandin.com/references/thinking.animals.html)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
That's interesting.

He says: "I have no language-based thoughts at all."

And he creates that idea converting it into external language using various
thought processes. Surely he's wrong about his own introspection (as so often
we are as people); how could he spell a word of he can't fix any linguistic
thoughts?

[fwiw, I fit into the middle of his range, I think in language sometimes,
picture often, feeling, smell, imagery, and occasionally in a non-linguistic
way that doesn't relate to any other senses (a sort of weird feeling of
connectedness)]

~~~
DFHippie
I assume by "he" you mean Temple Grandin. Temple Grandin is a woman. Not that
this is obvious. I know a man named Temple.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Thanks, it doesn't really interest me who the writer is, nor their sex, so I
don't normally check unless it appears to have a bearing on the piece.

------
philip142au
No one can define consciousness... so what is it we are taking about?

~~~
codeulike
Its quite hard to define 'chair' too, if you want to define it absolutely
precisely. But we can still talk about chairs.

~~~
subroutine
It's actually not that hard if you have a dictionary...

consciousness: the state of being conscious

chair: a person who presides over a meeting or committee

~~~
throwaway413
Didn’t see that one coming!

~~~
subroutine
Indeed, humor is largely based on the subversion of expectations.

------
hexxiiiz
I'm surprised that this is coming from leading neuroscientists Christoff Koch,
arguing through anecdotes and facts well known by every writer who has
explicated a position against this claim. The position he takes is really not
one that attempts to substantiate the claim that consciousness doesn't depend
on language scientifically, philosophically, mathematically, etc... Instead,
this reads more like a vague reflection on some of the thoughts Koch has that
give him pause about the question. His answer, that consciousness doesn't
depend on language, appears here as little more than a belief he holds. Pehaps
the article should have been titled "Why I Feel Like Consciousness Doesn't
Depend on Language". That could indeed be the case, but the great why that
makes it so will have to be more than a feeling you get about your dachshund.

~~~
hexxiiiz
I would add, as an aside, that the article does go well with the photo of Koch
showing his slide deck to the Dalai Lama, as though to pay some kind of
metaphysical penance for being a scientist. I feel like the encounter with the
Dalai Lama has become a bit of a trope among the darlings of American
academia. I remember seeing a lecture with Paul Eckman in which he seemed to
brag about the number of hours he had logged with the Dalai Lama, not to be
outdone in the breadth of his perspectives.

------
m0llusk
Animals communicate using not only sound but color and pattern and such. That
may not be full language, but it is a reasonable approximation. The same goes
for animal consciousness. It may not be full consciousness with awareness of
history and planning for the future, but it is close enough to function more
or less the same way.

The only examples given of consciousness functioning without were people with
major damage to their neurology. If anything that is evidence that the link
between consciousness and language is strong enough to only be broken by
severe incapacitating injury.

------
snapey
The idea that we are not all that dissimilar from our animal counterparts is
one of the central arguments put forward by John Gray in Straw Dogs.

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Straw-Dogs-Thoughts-Humans-
Animals/...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Straw-Dogs-Thoughts-Humans-
Animals/dp/1862075964)

------
codeulike
He has a book that seems to take some sort of dualist or perhaps squishy-life-
forms-only approach to consciousness

 _The Feeling of Life Itself: Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can 't Be
Computed (The MIT Press) Christof Koch

Koch describes how the theory explains many facts about the neurology of
consciousness and how it has been used to build a clinically useful
consciousness meter. The theory predicts that many, and perhaps all, animals
experience the sights and sounds of life; consciousness is much more
widespread than conventionally assumed. Contrary to received wisdom, however,
Koch argues that programmable computers will not have consciousness. Even a
perfect software model of the brain is not conscious. Its simulation is fake
consciousness. Consciousness is not a special type of computation―it is not a
clever hack. Consciousness is about being_

I might have to read that to see what his take is exactly.

~~~
INGELRII
Why you can't program computers to "be" requires explanation. Maybe someone
who has read the book can comment.

I'm sympathetic towards "consciousness is about being" idea. I don't see why
consciousness requires conscious thinking, much less language. When you sip
coffee in the morning looking trough window, you are just experiencing while
staying alert. All decisions and cognition is unconscious, yet the level of
consciousness is not diminished.

When we are just "being" we are still doing active cognitive processing and
reacting, but the process is not conscious, yet the conscious awareness of
being is still there.

(concepts like being, awareness, consciousness, experiencing would require
better definition in this context)

~~~
denton-scratch
"All decisions and cognition is unconscious"

I'm deeply troubled by the idea of an "unconscious". This is an idea created a
century ago by Sigmund Freud; all modern psychotherapy schools seem to have
inherited it, many psychologists (I mean experimental scientists) seem fine
with the idea, and for the general public it's commonplace that we have
"unconscious thoughts".

But how can you have an unconscious cognition? A cognition is an elementary
moment of knowledge; how can such a thing be unconscious?

And how do people who treat consciousness as an emergent phenomenon deal with
this "unconscious"? Is it an emergent phenomenon that is waiting to emerge?
Seriously, I don't know, and I'd like to know.

~~~
chousuke
To me, "unconscious" encompasses all the processes in your brain that you are
not aware of, which is most of them. You can become aware of the result of
those processes as they emerge as a phenomenon of consciousness (such as
becoming aware that you have made a decision, and possibly even being able to
trace your own justification for the decision) but it is not really possible
to account for everything.

Most of what we experience consciously is already heavily altered by processes
that we have no control over. For example, the brain does a whole bunch of
signal processing on the input of your eyes before you consciously see
anything.

------
koonsolo
It's always funny how people try to make the distinction between "people" and
everything else.

Other animals don't have feelings. Oh wait, other animals cannot think. Oh
wait, other animals don't use language. Oh wait, other animals don't use
'true' language.

Same with computers. Computers can never defeat humans in chess. Go is too
complex for computers, and so humans are better.

Sometimes we even have to change the definition a bit to still keep the
distinction between 'us' and the rest of the animals and objects.

Very strange.

And if you think humans are the only animals that can be deliberately cruel,
you should watch some chimp documentaries.

------
wrnr
There was a paper on HN some years ago that in my mind settled the old
question whether humans share a universal grammer to process language. The
gist was that a visual image is parsed the same way as language is, with noun
phrases and verb phrases combined into complex structures. It is convenient
for linguists to claim that consciousness requires language. I suspect
consciousness is a form of seeing and visualising oneself. Maybe a way of
planning ahead by trying different solutions in the mind without doing them in
the physical world.

------
Merrill
The thing that higher animals and humans can do is imagine alternative
futures, predict consequences, and choose to act accordingly. This would
probably meet some definition of consciousness.

Classification, abstraction, language and logic are probably not common
features except in very limited ways. So animals likely live in a world of
continuous special cases.

------
ramblerman
Haven’t there been cases of feral children who grew up in the wild?

Was the common assumption that they lacked consciousness?

------
blobs
Is that surprising? As if a just born baby cannot have consciousness because
it doesn't know a language yet.

Makes me think of mindfulness, the practice of putting consciousness first by
trying to disallow thoughts while experiencing the present, proves it all to
me. We think too much.

~~~
andrepd
It's not obvious to me that a baby has consciousness. I don't remember
anything from before I was 2 or 3. Isn't a newborn almost an automaton? Or
rather, how can you prove that it is not?

~~~
me_me_me
There are people with brain damage, that loose short- or long-term memory. Are
they conscious?

This whole debate is very grey area and one could argue from either position
and never prove anything (which is one of the reasons I like to read and think
about what make us 'us').

------
aiscapehumanity
It makes sense. You dont need language as a drive in the ambient medium of the
wild and natural selection, you need just a bit of sentience as the bare
minimum, granted by neurons(cog. thresholds is another topic). Language is a
special emergence not universal.

------
BlueTemplar
Sigh, it's a bit like reading obsolete scientific papers : "abrahamic
exceptionalism" \- no shit, Sherlock ? (At least, the later given examples are
still interesting...)

------
mikelyons
Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality. So fundamental that it is
actually the substrate from which all reality is possible.

------
msiyer
Language is a poor way to comprehend the cosmos. It is very limiting. Words
are not enough to explain what happens when rain drops fall on my skin or the
wet smell of sand intoxicates me or wind ruffles my hair...

I have seen cows chewing cud and they seem more in touch with the cosmos than
99.99 percent humans.

------
rafaelvasco
Makes me remember of:

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more
progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."

and

"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy,
frequency and vibration."

\- Nikola Tesla

------
palad1n
But then, just mammals?

~~~
ffwacom
Don’t see a reason for it to be limited to just life either.

~~~
WilliamEdward
How so? Is it because you believe computers can be conscious? I think life is
necessary for consciousness personally.

~~~
charlesism
Is consciousness a binary state? There are many examples that suggest it is
not: toddlers, the dream state, computer programs, communal endeavors (such as
a scientific inquiry), not to mention animals. If consciousness is something
that is a question of degree, it makes sense to think of the entire universe
being conscious to some degree or another. I’m not a very spiritual person,
but I find this train of thought hard to avoid.

~~~
9wzYQbTYsAIc
some Hindu historically (maybe presently?) considered there to be to something
like 20+ levels of consciousness.

------
Hoasi
Of course it doesn't. Come on.

