Consciousness and Language

Consciousness, as a word, is a giant muddy swamp. With so many spiritual, biological, social, evolutionary and metaphorical descriptions, it is difficult to discuss without debating what it actually is. Let’s leave the debate of dualism and monism behind. Lets leave the spiritual, biological, social and evolutionary descriptions behind. Let's leave the metaphors behind, as metaphors are simply that. For this following question I only have to define a few ‘fairly’ indubitable points. Some of these points are more pertinent to the question than others, but I believe they are all important to defining the kind of consciousness I’m referring to. First, we know we may not always be conscious, as we cannot be conscious of the moments we are not conscious. Second, we know it can impede learning or inhibit our ability to perform difficult tasks. Think of a secretary (Alex) typing away. If Alex suddenly becomes conscious of its fingers' movements it will most definitely make a mistake or slow down. The same goes with piano players, sprinters, etc. Third, we know we can consciously imagine our present, past or future situations while leaving our body and situation (if applicable) behind (mentally speaking within our imagination… lets not allow this to be a point for dualism). Fourth, we can be conscious of what we are doing without pulling from past experiences (you can be conscious of new feelings) but to consciously reflect on something, whether in the present or past, you have to pull from past experiences and knowledge. Now for the question: Is it possible to have consciousness without language? Or more accurately: can we describe something consciously to ourselves without language?

I'm inclined to say yes, however I'm lead to believe that this conscious examination will be much less profoundly reflective of our existence up to that point. Example: I can consciously see myself sitting in a white walled room on a wood chair. I can see myself from another angle than that where I sit. I do so by comparing the walls that are white to how I know they should look like from that location. I can think of the color white in my head not as a word but as a comparison to something else white, say a flower or milk. By drawing a simile, I am not summoning up the full extent of the meaning 'white', as the word itself would. The word 'white' is based on everything I know as white whereas I have to compare the color of the wall to objects in my memory one by one if I don’t know of this word that represents it. The word ‘white’ acts as a sort of metaphor or a billboard of similes allowing me to pull from all my past experience to experience what I am seeing or imagining. I can do this to everything in the room as well as the feeling of the pressure of my elbows on the chair’s armrests. I can compare that feeling to lying on my elbows on my balcony. I don’t need the words: slight pressure not causing discomfort. However those words likewise bring up a lot more past experiences and feelings than elbows on a balcony.

It is impossible to truly answer this question. At least I can say at this time, with my resources, it is impossible for me to answer this question with complete substantiated conviction. Someone who has not developed language may have no inclination to consciously evaluate anything by drawing from past experiences. Linking one thought to another may be may be foreign to a mind that has not developed any language. How could you even begin to ask a subject with no language to introspect on any given subject? However images are a type of language, and have been used to communicate between people with no or little verbal language. I imagine pictorial communication would be much slower and less specific. So where did I get with this question? I guess nowhere. It would be safe to say however that language has greatly improved contemplative conscious thought.

Why did I pose this question? I guess to trace conscious thought backwards through time and even maybe understand intelligent animal behavior? I haven't fully reflected on it. No matter.

Maybe I’m off on some of the initial descriptions of consciousness. But right now I agree fully with them. I’m certain more research will alter my views, in which case I will update this. I realize this post will be easily nit-picked. It is short and only one thing should be drawn from it, and even that point is vague. I will not post a 60 page diatribe debating it's inconsequential details however, so comment as you wish, but I will only justify what I am trying to prove... which I don't think I managed all that well anyways.