Further to my proposal language is a result of consumption of psychedelic mushrooms — I can’t imagine why anyone would want to debate such a concept — and that awareness of language is a result of global consciousness — it strikes me an alternative reason for the rise of consciousness expressed as language should be offered.
A greater world consciousness is not a new idea. It’s ancient and has resurrected as the Gaia principle, which a quick search defines as: “living organisms on the planet interact with their surrounding inorganic environment to form a synergetic and self-regulating system that created, and now maintains, the climate and biochemical conditions that make life on Earth possible.” But there is no mention of the Earth being a greater consciousness— it’s more a formulation of how the balancing forces of the biosphere are part of the greater system of the world itself. Nary a peep about the mind, consciousness, language. Let’s forget that premise.
My prior thought accepted that there is no need to explain psychedelic experience leading to consciousness, if the premise is such events mirror a pre-existent greater consciousness. That is also an acceptable definition of God or Godhead. Let’s set that aside for now.
What are we left with? I’ll propose the nervous system, and by that, I mean any nervous system, any nervous system gives rise to consciousness, and depending on the quality of the nervous system, there is a greater abundance of consciousness equivalent to the complexity of the nervous system.
Incidentally, in my prior essay I mentioned that consciousness might accrete — this is what I mean by that statement.
To the idea that a nervous system, any nervous system generates some form of consciousness, I would direct you to Darwin’s last book “The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits” usually known as “Worms”. Darwin observes that worms pull leaves into their burrows smallest end first as that is the best way to do it. He wrote they had a “notion, however rude, of the shape of an object”. He says they find food pleasurable and they turn away from light. They’ll seek sex even at risk to themselves.
From such rudimentary nervous systems greater ones develop. I think that would fit with Darwin’s thoughts on evolution. Actually, I think the thought is equally Lamarckian, as I’d  contend the nature of the nervous system is to evolve to support greater consciousness, and the organism influences its choices to support that evolution. The drive to consciousness once begun is inexorable. This is a primal urge on the level of food and sex. Whether this is the Gaia principle in action or not, it is part of evolution.
There is no distinction between animal and human consciousness, other than quality — and that which is incomprehensible to us.
First, the quality of animal consciousness contrasted to human is obvious. We train animals, we breed them, we direct them in any number of ways to do tasks for us. Aside from pet owners joking their pets tell them what to do, animals are our lessers in respect to imposed consciousness. Animals have less rights and are less than children to us. I don’t mean this is the way of things, rather this is what exists now.
This doesn’t mean animals aren’t conscious. We see in them the same urges that drive our consciousness. It’s impossible not to hear a dog howl, and presume they wish to communicate, or be unaware of a cat letting you know exactly what it thinks of its latest food. Every animal on earth wants security, food, shelter and freedom, as much as we want ours. In this, our consciousnesses are more the same than different.
My argument is a nervous system creates consciousness, measured as self awareness. Whether this includes language is a matter of order of consciousness. We are aware of our language; we suspect lower animals use some form of communication lesser than ours. But it is undeniable that every animal is aware of itself.
It doesn’t follow one form of consciousness is the only possible form that a nervous system can generate. There may be many types and states of consciousness, some of which are inaccessible to humanity. Birds may not be philosophers, but by their balance, sense of wind and wing, swiftness in action, perhaps understand things we do not. Insects perceive a far greater range of color. Maybe cats really are the devil in disguise.
If the rise of consciousness is a result of a nervous system, then consciousness is chemical in nature. We know this is how the brain works. Adrenaline, Acetylcholine, Cortisol, Dopamine, Endorphins, Glutamate, Melatonin, Norepinephrine, Oxytocin, and Serotonin these are the Ten Muses of thought and consciousness.
(To my prior essay, we also know psychedelics are chemicals that mimic our brain chemicals. When we take psychedelics, we temporarily alter our brain chemistry and hence thoughts and perceptions.)
Despite the astounding creation of thought through chemistry and our biologic structure, including thought’s attendant, language, that these chemicals work in array, create processes of and from their combinations, all at the speed of our extremely fast nervous system is not the point. The point is we’re as simple as we are. We barely participate in the functioning of our brain and nervous system. Instead, we benefit from them, that which is almost invisible to us, which creates for us the ability to communicate, to be aware of our existence. Perhaps invisible because we are driven by very simple, earthworm-like needs that leave little time for valuing reflection on the foundations of consciousness and language.
Maybe earthworms know more than we ever shall.
Again, I reiterate from my prior essay: “I simply cannot imagine consciousness without words, the ability to think to oneself.” I think within that statement we can determine a principle: where there is a nervous system controlling and directing an individual biological creature, then that can be described as a rudimentary consciousness.