> >I don't understand what you (and Dennett) mean by this; What does the
> >phrase "the two do not need to be mutual" mean?
>
> There can be language without consciousness. There is no need for the two
> to be always present. Whether or not one can have conciousness _without_
> language, is, I think, not being debated....
So, is this what you and Dennett mean? :
there can be language with or without consciousness
there may or may not be able to be consciousness without language
?
I'd say the possibility of either existing without the other depends on
your definitions of both.
--Eva,
who has determined that in fact the lunar eclipse was yesterday (ending
early this morning) where she is, but is undaunted in her quest for
weirdness, and hopes the werewolves she will be playing with tonight will
be interestingly affected by the eclipse.