There is a reason for people having consciousness even if they do not received any sensorial information, or external information.
Analyzing the way our mind works we will see that first, the information need to be transported to the brain, and then that information must be interpreted to be understood. What interprets the information ? I say that it would be a consciousness that we already have.
In the case that consciousness depended on external information to exist, we would have to argue that no consciousness existed before, and the information will have to generate our consciousness in someway. How does the information(visual, auditive,etc) generates our consciousness ? I don´t think this question makes sense, information is not alive, it can´t generate something which is alive, like consciousness. But information is something that arises when a consciousness interpret something.
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.
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 inputless 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?
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 xmarksthespotBy "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.
Mindship: Could you elaborate on internal body stimuli, the premise is that this person lacks sensory input, even internal sensory input...
Essentially this is a brain without any inputs.
Originally posted by DigiMark007I'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.
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.