Consequences to current debate
Difficulty in expression, consciousness is not as well represented as other cognitive processes. This has at least two consequences:
Emphasis on cognitive processes like computers, which leads to strong AI, and the general idea that consciousness is "just" something else that can be fit in current linguistic limits (basically with precise and unequivocal/functional relations). This "something else" might be a computational process, a part of the brain, etc.
Detrimental view of animals, denying that the vast majority of species has consciousness or even higher mammals, attempting to shove the neural correlates of consciousness into the cortex (although the only areas of the brain which seem necessary for consciousness are the thalamus and the reticular complex ??).
Framing all the problems of consciousness as problems representable in terms of behavior.
Explaining what symbolic language is
distinguishing between spoken (and written) language and other kinds of language. Spoken language refers to a system of making reference to objects which is relatively unambiguous (at least as long as it works). Ambiguity is in most cases seen as a flaw, for
Things I don't know or am confused about
Kinds of languages, should we say "symbolic", "spoken", "conceptual", "abstract", etc?
We want to distinguish it from art, facial expressions, touch, or the mere presence. "direct" language, which directly expresses an inner state of mind to the observer. For instance, the dog is aggressive, so he barks. he shows aggressiveness. Not that there is aggressiveness somewhere but that he is aggressive. Direct language is prevalent in paintings, nature, body language, music, etc. Although painters like Picasso used their canvas to make references to works by other authors. We can easily see in that case that the work of art is immediately rendered as useless as a piece of Chinese vocabulary, it may be incredibly meaningful to those that are in possession of the rules that connect the work with its reference, but are unusable to all others. Therefore a distinctive feature of "indirect" language is that it necessitates a separate work, a set of rules, that allows for the connection to be set between the signal and its meaning. Whereas in the case of the barking dog that connection is hardwired, not only in the brains of humans but of many other species, or, perhaps, it is not even hardwired but truly expresses anger, like a flower expresses beauty (opposing theses!), in the case of the "artificial or indirect" connection it must be given externally, and, at least in the case of spoken language, the sound waves that signify the things have no direct connection with them. The sound of "dog" does not resemble a dog more than the word "god", "pork", "tomato" or even "alkaline". Instrumental music, on the contrary, does not seem to rely on arbitrary connections, either it speaks to our hardwired connection or it simply is beautiful, light, profound, full of pain, etc.
Do we need a "subject" to have sensations, emotions, etc?
Can music really "express" sensations without being a (flesh and bone) subject?
If there were pure sensations where would they exist? Who would see them, feel them, if not a subject?
This could happen, of course, if conscious properties were "real" properties, not only things we "create in our minds" but real, existing things, in the world, independently of our existence or of any conscious observer.
In that case beautiful flowers, rivers, seas, mountains, stars, comets, jets of interstellar dust, the rings of Saturn, etc., all of these things would be beautiful, intrinsically, really, even when there was no life in the universe (this probably does not apply to Saturn for life was there previously).
Conscious properties could have subtle effects on reality, like organizing molecules in certain shapes or even augmenting the probabilities for the creation of DNA. This would help to explain how the first DNA strings were created in such a relatively short amount of time.
If this is true then it makes sense playing a music in a room even if there is no one there to hear it. The beauty of music by itself could have an "influence" in the room. This would also explain why plants can benefit from hearing Mozart.
If this is true then we have the ability to "sense" that "something" that is the beauty of things. What sense is that, an extra sense organ, or just a way of "organizing" the basic materials?
Hearing to music would make us think that it is perhaps just the organization, for it seems we only need the sounds in the correct order, sound volume and duration. The frequency can change a bit (as the old vinyl recordings show in a bad player), noise can be introduced (bad radio reception) and there can be a lot of distortion (as in low-fi cassette players). But what is entirely necessary is the ability to distinguish at least vaguely the upper from the lower notes (at least to hear Bach - or everything is just noise) and, mostly, and by far the most important thing, to try to get into the "spirit" of the music. This requirement of tuning-in is perhaps important in all kinds of emotional expression. Even to see the beauty of a flower, of a grasshopper, a butterfly, a dolphin, etc, we need some "involvement", that kind of mysterious "tuning-in" which is not easy to explain.
In any case, it does not seem to be a matter of "sense" perception. Although the senses can alert us and guide us, they can never, by themselves, bring beauty.
Does conceptual language work like perception?