The distinction between what you call "aware" and "understanding" seems like an arbitrary one to me. Could you explain the difference in more detail?
The difference was between
"awake" and "understanding". Just because you're not unconscious doesn't mean that you understand your surroundings. The word "conscious" can mean both "not being asleep" and also "understanding your surroundings".
I am trying my best to understand this. I agree that being awake does not require language. Why does 'understanding' require language? Isn't an internal model that matches what is being observed enough? Is there reason to believe that language is needed before internal models of reality can be constructed?
So, according to you, a language can only be a language when those that use it know that it exists.
Whoa... slow dow. You're new here so I'll cut you some slack. But you are pushing me into a position and/or putting words into my mouth.
Here's what I said:
quote:
But that is different than a language in which all the bees would be understanding and aware of the actual existece of the language itself
Bees' language is different from our language. I haven't stated whether or not it can be rightly called a language.
Ah, sorry. My mistake.
You are not saying that bees are not aware AT ALL. You are saying that assuming that they have language, this is not reason enough to think that they are aware.
Is your position this: Language does not quarantee awareness, but awareness needs language.
Am I on the right track?
Why is it important for the users of a language to know it is a language before it is a language?
In the context of language being key to sapience, if you are not aware of the language you are using then it can hardly be contributing to your spapience.
Could you provide me with a link that describes 'sapience' more clearly? I have a suspicion that my misunderstanding is driven by my ignorance. I have googled it a bit, but it seems that everyone has their own idea of what it means.
You asked if bees' having a language makes them aware. Now, if by aware we are talking about sapience, then no. If we're talking about simply being awake, well then obviously they are not asleep but what's the point in discussing that?
Okay. Thank you for the answer.
I am unable to understand what you are saying without knowing what exactly you mean with "understanding knowledge". Could you explain further?
You can be knowledgable of something existing without undertanding its existence.
I don't think that the bees understand that, say, each second of vibration equals 10 feet distance so since the flower is 60 feet away I must vibrate in the difection of the flower for 6 seconds and then all my buddys will know where it is. It is just an instinct, a simple input/output program.
The bee has to have knowledge of the flower in order to communicate where it is, but they do not have to understand that knowledge.
This distinction between their language and ours means that, although they are obvuously not sleeping, them having what some might discribe as a language does not suggest that they have sapience.
We (me and others) were discussing how understanding knowledge might contribute to higher consciousness.
Okay. Sorry to clutter up your thread with my noise. But at least I think I have a better understanding now.
™ Version 4.2
