1. consciousness as "awareness" or "experiencing existence"
2. consciousness as "mind" or what we experience that doesn't seem to correspond to the outside world.
The former is certainly not a result of language, and that is what is referred to as consciousness in Buddhist/Hindu philosophy. The latter is definitely influenced by language and seems to be what many modern scientists are referring to when they talk about consciousness. The conflation of the two definitions does a great disservice to understanding what consciousness "is".
> The former is certainly not a result of language, and that is what is referred to as consciousness in Buddhist/Hindu philosophy.
I recommend reading Jaynes' book (assuming you haven't already) before you draw any firm conclusions on the role of language.
I really don't think I can do him justice, but his thesis seems to be that humans were, until relatively recently (4000 years ago, perhaps?), non-conscious - they would not have "experienced existence".
He goes on to discuss consciousness as a product of metaphor, and thus with decidedly linguistic origins. That is terrible summary, though, so I recommend reading the book and forming your own view - I have found it quite enjoyable so far.
As an aside, he starts the book with a list of things that consciousness is not, from his perspective:
1. consciousness as "awareness" or "experiencing existence" 2. consciousness as "mind" or what we experience that doesn't seem to correspond to the outside world.
The former is certainly not a result of language, and that is what is referred to as consciousness in Buddhist/Hindu philosophy. The latter is definitely influenced by language and seems to be what many modern scientists are referring to when they talk about consciousness. The conflation of the two definitions does a great disservice to understanding what consciousness "is".