I think this is a meta-allusion to the theory that human consciousness developed recently, i.e. that people who lived before [written] language did not have language because they actually did not think. It's a potentially useful thought experiment, because we've all grown up not only knowing highly performant languages, but also knowing how to read / write.
However, primitive languages were... primitive. Where they primitive because people didn't know / understand the nuances their languages lacked? Or, were those things that simply didn't get communicated (effectively)?
Of course, spoken language predates writings which is part of the point. We know an individual can have a "conscious" conception of an idea if they communicate it, but that consciousness was limited to the individual. Once we have written language, we can perceive a level of communal consciousness of certain ideas. You could say that the community itself had a level of shared-consciousness.
With GPTs regurgitating digestible writings, we've come full circle in terms of proving consciousness, and some are wondering... "Gee, this communicated the idea expertly, with nuance and clarity.... but is the machine actually conscious? Does it think undependably of the world, or is it merely a kaledascopic reflection of its inputs? Is consciousness real, or an illusion of complexity?"
I’m not sure why it’s so mind-boggling that people in the year 1225 (Thomas Aquinas) or 1756 (Mozart) were just as creative and intelligent as they themselves are, as modern people. They simply had different opportunities then comparable to now. And what some of them did with those opportunities are beyond anything a “modern” person can imagine doing in those same circumstances. _A lot_ of free time over winter in the 1200s for certain people. Not nearly as many distractions either.
Saying early humans weren’t conscious because they lacked complex language is like saying they couldn’t see blue because they didn’t have a word for it.
Well, Oscar Wilde argues in “The Decay of Lying” that there were no stars before an artist could describe them and draw people’s attention to the night sky.
The basic assumption he attacks is that “there is a world we discover” vs “there is a world we create”.
It is hard paradigm shift, but there is certainly reality in “shared picture of the world” and convincing people of a new point of view has real implications in how the world appears in our minds for us and what we consider “reality”
It should be almost obligatory to always state which definition of consciousness one is talking about whenever they talk about consiousness, because I for example don't see what language has to do with our ability to experience qualia for example.
Is it self awarness? There are animals that can recognize themselves in mirror, I don't think all of them have a form of proto-language.
