David

Wittgenstien's over-quoted line: "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain siltent" seems appropriate here.

Either one suggests that all language is nothing more than language, and attempting to consistently link any labels to real world referents is futile and meaningless, or one takes the (IMO, 'coherentist') view that language is yet another imperfect tool and we simply need to use it as best we can. In the first scenario, all discussions of consciousness are as meaningful as each other - the point is the discussions, not consciousness.

In the second scenario, we come up against the apparently huge divide between third person and first person apprehensions of mental states. Or, as one might say, coming back to a discussion that we have have had somewhere on the board before: what are qualia?

IMO, as far as qualia are 'real' things, non-human huamn-created entities will someday have them.

cheer

the sunshine warrior