Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Someone who is completely blind has no awareness of light?
Someone who is completely deaf has no awareness of sound?

So I'm wondering if someone was born with no sense of smell, taste, vision, hearing, balance and none of the four components of touch (pain, temperature, touch and proprioception) then would they even have a consciousness?

Yes, because they would still be able to think.

but think of what, we develop though experience, and we gain experience from our senses, blind people have a hard time , but they can hear, and they can feel, they can tell pain is bad, someone lacking in seances couldn't do that kind of thing, so they would not develop past the mental age of a baby

Sure they would..except for sight, even if it was restored, because the brain has no references....But as for the others look at Helen Keller..

If they had non of these things...They would just live in their own little world, I guess.....

What about all of the senses we do not have. We can not see x-ray. We can not hear ultra sound. We can not feel the surface of an atom. There are many more things we have no sense for, then for what we do have. Do we have a consciousness? In a very limited why, we do, and in that same way, so does a bacteria.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Someone who is completely blind has no awareness of light?
Someone who is completely deaf has no awareness of sound?

So I'm wondering if someone was born with no sense of smell, taste, vision, hearing, balance and none of the four components of touch (pain, temperature, touch and proprioception) then would they even have a consciousness?


I think they would. It would be interesting though. If a person as you describe were born...that might allow us to become aware of other senses we don't know exist.

Well if they did have any other senses it would be difficult if not impossible for them to convey information about the senses to us since they'd likely be incapable of communication.

Especially if you think of the brain as more a receptor of our intuition or what's around us instead of the originator...this kind of person might even perceive things we all cannot at all....Maybe to the point of something many people try to connect with.....Interesting.

if a child like that were born, he/she would be nothing like us. He/she would be in another plain of existense. i suppose the child would just be a living and breathing soul (thus proving the existance of the soul), since all of its thoughts and actions would be on an internal level. and perhaps this child could be the link we need to another realm, and that would be the realm that exists inside us all that none of us can see or live in. if a child like that were born it would be a true breakthrough.

the problem with some of your examples is that you make references to people who lack one or two senses (like helen keller), but they have senses. if something were to be born with a complete lack of senses (as in no senses whatsoever) there is no possible way it can be alive...

which is why the existance of such a child would open up so many unthought of doors, because it is impossible for such a child to be born. The idea of this child is a parable.

If it is our brain that creates our consciousness then that person will be alive, he will just not have senses, but a working brain. If our brain just connect our consciouness to our body, then that person will still have consciousness, but no interaction with the physical world. Like in another plane of existence.

But the human in question would still have intuition, instincts, and imagination. He would be conscious, although he would live in his own world, of his own mind.

He would also be able to make decisions.

your brain is considered conscious when it's aware or stimulated. stimulation and awareness comes from your senses. our senses are how we gather everything we know. to not have them would be to not know anything, to not exist mentally, and not existing mentally means that they are unconscious.

but we will never know. if a child like this was born we would have no possible way of communication






they would have nothing to imagine or make decisions about. they couldn't because they aren't aware of any existance they wouldn't even be aware of their own existance

The brain has distinct processes for everything, not all activity from brain comes from the senses. Visual, auditive cortex, or any parts related to the senses will not need to work, but cognitive, motor parts will work. A blind person can think, a deaf person too, people in comatose too, some are even aware of what is happening around them.

Comatose people still have sense faculties, however they are unconscious. This person would have none to reference with whatsoever. What can you imagine if you've never seen, heard, tasted, smelt or felt? What decisions can you possibly make?

The brain is only an organ that can stimulate some senses...The mind on the other hand is outside the brain...and the brain is a receiver of it...and with the mind comes other senses you can access.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Someone who is completely blind has no awareness of light?
Someone who is completely deaf has no awareness of sound?

So I'm wondering if someone was born with no sense of smell, taste, vision, hearing, balance and none of the four components of touch (pain, temperature, touch and proprioception) then would they even have a consciousness?


while you seem to think of it as not being able to use any paths of getting knowledge, i tend to think of that as not having any of the limitations all humans are born with.

Atlantis is propably right.

Don't tell em....He already has a book out.....Gotta keep him humble.

The child would be like a computer without any data on its hard drive, blank. It would not have conciousness, because it would not have ANYTHING to think about.

My old thread is back! Just had a couple of lectures on consciousness in my neuropsych paper. Apparently some research suggests that consciousness may in fact be reactive rather than proactive.

Yup... back from the dead ! How can it be reactive ?

I'll get back to you on that. Haven't done the readings yet.

Wow... I completely forgot about this thread. So 2.5 years later, while I've now done the readings, I completely forgot what they entailed. Sorry Atlantis.

I think it was to do with EEG studies and the latency between brain activity (reactive to the sensory phenomenon) and the actual sensory perception though.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Wow... I completely forgot about this thread. So 2.5 years later, while I've now done the readings, I completely forgot what they entailed. Sorry Atlantis.

I think it was to do with EEG studies and the latency between brain activity (reactive to the sensory phenomenon) and the actual sensory perception though.

The closest thing I have heard of to this is some experiments in voluntary motor control.

If you hook up someone to an EEG, and tell them to move their finger whenever they want, only to inform the experimenter when they consciously decide to move.

Commonly, EEG readings associated with planning and preparation of action begin ~500ms prior to the subject reporting their choice to move.

I'm sure they have fleshed the research since, but that is my knowledge on it

EDIT: The perception of stimuli is even weirder, because the body can react to stimuli that the mind is never conscious of.

What's your take on the initial premise of my thread?

Would any semblance of consciousness be present in the absence of ever having had external sensory phenomenal stimuli in your opinion?

I don't necessarily believe in consciousness even with sensory input

less semantical, I'd say yes, but not in any sense that we would understand. In the absence of any input, the brain would reorganize in a weird way. I guess I mean conscious as in there would be some internal mental state, probably undefinable and unimaginable at this point.

I guess it also depends on what you define as sense, sure you can take away the 5 we know of, but who is to say some other form of sensory input wouldn't take over the cortical area formerly devoted to them. Hypothetically, that would be a sense, so whether it counts in this discussion is another issue completely.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't necessarily believe in consciousness even with sensory input

less semantical, I'd say yes, but not in any sense that we would understand. In the absence of any input, the brain would reorganize in a weird way. I guess I mean conscious as in there would be some internal mental state, probably undefinable and unimaginable at this point.

I guess it also depends on what you define as sense, sure you can take away the 5 we know of, but who is to say some other form of sensory input wouldn't take over the cortical area formerly devoted to them. Hypothetically, that would be a sense, so whether it counts in this discussion is another issue completely.

I think you are correct (tho your first point is semantics in the extreme I believe). I think that, with no conventional language, and no sensory input, this person (would this term still apply?) would likely develop a type of consciouness- one which we could scarcely relate to or with. The brain WOULD do massive re-programing, and turn within. The Body and mind would become the known universe of this person, and he/she would achieve a mind/body connection far beyond any that a full sensed person has ever achieved. It would be a terrible predicament (I think) for a human being to be in, but fascinating to study.

interesting note:

people who are blind from birth will show activation in their visual cortex when they read braile

Similar activation is seen in normal sighted humans after say a day blindfolded, though this is more controversial.

Go neuroplasticity

and I would argue that consciousness not existing is much more than a semantic argument. But that is a totally different thread.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
if someone was born with no sense of smell, taste, vision, hearing, balance and none of the four components of touch (pain, temperature, touch and proprioception) then would they even have a consciousness?

Would any semblance of consciousness be present in the absence of ever having had external sensory phenomenal stimuli?
What is meant by 'consciousness' in this thread? Awareness of any kind (eg, bacterial consciousness), or specifically, egoic self-awareness (apparently unique to human beings)?

If the former, then yes: some semblance of consciousness will be present because there will always be internal bodily stimuli.

If the latter, then no: there would be no egoic self-awareness because the ego is a verbal-symbolic creation, defined in large part by a social context involving other egoic beings.

Would this person be self-aware in some other way? Depends what you mean by "some other way."

Too lazy to quote.

Mindship: Could you elaborate on internal body stimuli, the premise is that this person lacks sensory input, even internal sensory input...

Although I was more interested in the latter anyway, self-awareness (which imo is not confined to humans, but that's for a different topic).

Cap'n: I don't see how one would achieve a greater mind/body connection while lacking any sensory input from the body.

inamilist: Would such neuroplasticity in your opinion occur if there was no alternative sensory input?

---

Essentially this is a brain without any inputs. This is sort of a question of dualist vs materialist cognitive theories. (Regarding which I personally favor the latter.)

Any consciousness that would form in a senseless environment (or non-environment I suppose) would probably be so alien to us as to be impossible to recognize. Personally I think consciousness can exist without senses but it cannot develop beyond the most basic concept of existence, though even that would be distorted as it would have no concept of space time or other creatures.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Too lazy to quote.

Mindship: Could you elaborate on internal body stimuli, the premise is that this person lacks sensory input, even internal sensory input...

Although I was more interested in the latter anyway, self-awareness (which imo is not confined to humans, but that's for a different topic).

Cap'n: I don't see how one would achieve a greater mind/body connection while lacking any sensory input from the body.

inamilist: Would such neuroplasticity in your opinion occur if there was no alternative sensory input?

****
The Cap'n here,,, OK, if there were NO sensory imput, internal organs included, this does indeed become a different matter. I still maintain that the brain would undergo massive reprograming, and turn in upon itself... the result COULD be a mind more intune with itself and its functions that any mind has ever achieved. Of course, you could likely just und up with a vegitative brain, but lets assume the former. I think such a brain might possibly tap into a conscious awarness (so to speak) of the limbic system, and begin to merge autonomic, brain stem functions with the higher breain functions. The plastisictity of the brain might allow for such a thing. I think, even without the benifit of even internal sensory imput, such a brain could achieve a remarkable mind body connection... who knows, a kind of sentience might be achieved unlike anything we can possible relate to.
---

Essentially this is a brain without any inputs. This is sort of a question of dualist vs materialist cognitive theories. (Regarding which I personally favor the latter.)

First of all, it would be something if someone was born with out any of their sense. If someone was, then they would be a walking shell, who probably does not know that they are alive. People who are born blind and deaf (take Helen Keller for an example) know they are alive, because they can feel, taste and smell.

It's impossible for us to imagine such a state, though possible to conjecture about.

Presuming we could keep such a body alive, some synaptic activity would occur naturally, if only because of regulated responses of the body (breathing, heartbeat, etc.). Therefore, something would be experienced. We just don't know what that experience would be like, or if it would be complex enough to term as consciousness (which, of course, has been defined various ways).

My own thought is that the mind wouldn't develop a "self-symbol" (the "I" that we think of when we refer to ourselves, or more succinctly "self-awareness) merely because there is no frame of reference from which to assign such a symbol, nor enough sensory input to develop it into a meaningful concept. Thus, it would be on par with very simple forms of life...I'm trying to think of a good analogue, but fear making an inept analogy. Perhaps like a starfish. In other words, nothing that we could properly deem consciousness, by any definition proposed in this thread so far.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Mindship: Could you elaborate on internal body stimuli, the premise is that this person lacks sensory input, even internal sensory input... By "sensory input," I assume you mean stimuli taken in via a metacellular, differentiated nervous system. However, stimulus-response activity also occurs at subtler levels, eg, cellular activity. Given the utter absence of gross sensory input, a brain could become aware of these subtler levels (like how one can see the stars once the sun goes down). Indeed, I would say the brain would become aware, given its "data-seeking/data-hungry" nature.

Essentially this is a brain without any inputs.
What you seem to be asking then is, How would an information-processing system respond in an absolute stimulus-vacuum? Given the hierarchical nature of living systems, I would imagine this would be a virtually impossible set-up.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thus, it would be on par with very simple forms of life...I'm trying to think of a good analogue, but fear making an inept analogy. Perhaps like a starfish. In other words, nothing that we could properly deem consciousness, by any definition proposed in this thread so far. I'm not sure if it would be simpler, given the brain's own complexity (and what I posted above), but it would certainly be utterly unlike anything we can imagine.

Originally posted by Mindship
(1) By "sensory input," I assume you mean stimuli taken in via a metacellular, differentiated nervous system.

(2) However, stimulus-response activity also occurs at subtler levels, eg, cellular activity. Given the utter absence of gross sensory input, a brain could become aware of these subtler levels (like how one can see the stars once the sun goes down). Indeed, I would say the brain would become aware, given its "data-seeking/data-hungry" nature.

(3) What you seem to be asking then is, How would an information-processing system respond in an absolute stimulus-vacuum? Given the hierarchical nature of living systems, I would imagine this would be a virtually impossible set-up. Too lazy to divide the quote so I numbered segments.

(1) You assume correct.

(2) Could you perhaps elaborate on this a bit further, if possible? Or give an example of a particular cellular-level stimulus that could elicit some form or neurological response.

(3) Hmm, well maybe I should have proposed something more along the lines of imagining a brain essentially in a vessel essentially doing nothing more than being kept alive... maybe something akin to this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Martha.PNG

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
inamilist: Would such neuroplasticity in your opinion occur if there was no alternative sensory input?

I have to say no, and also note that I am not very confident there are other modalities aside from our normal "senses" that we could use (depending on how well we understand our sensory systems at this point) in place of the 5 major ones (or that wouldn't be so similar to the 5 main ones that it is sort of a cheat).

No input means no plasticity, or put another way, the plasticity that occurs will be the dying off of the neurons that would eventually form the sensory cortices. Surely some of the neurons would differentiate and stay, giving some difference between the organization of the sense-less brain vs a normal brain, but plasticity is based off of the strength of input. No input, no reason for the areas to grow in the first place.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Too lazy to divide the quote so I numbered segments.Been there, done that...definitely easier.

Could you perhaps elaborate on this a bit further, if possible? Or give an example of a particular cellular-level stimulus that could elicit some form or neurological response. That's just it: there wouldn't be a neurological response. Stimulus and response are happening on a pre-neuro level, a level we as big organisms are completely oblivious to. However, it seems to work fine as far as, say, antibodies in our blood locating germs. This is a much simpler level of biological existence. This is why I asked earlier, what is meant by 'consciousness' in this thread.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Martha.PNG So that's what happened to Whirly...