Would she know she was alive? that concept wouldn't exist, would it? if you're taking it as a given that humans are the only animal that know they are mortal, well, i've never seen enough proof of that idea.
She would know the difference between alseep and not, since they are different (awake probably would hurt more) but that doesn't mean she would designate them, or anything else she encountered, as we think of them.
The wacky sensory deprivation stuff like dreams is stimulus wholly manufactured by the person; and memory too in modern thought is part of imagination-- most of what we 'remember' is a tiny bit of real memory, and a lot of filling in the blanks.
I am reminded though of the aboriginal belief in dreams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamtime
To sum that up badly, the dream world is also a real world.
I can't imagine at all what you would dream without a memory bank of experience, but the brain would take care of doing just that.
(And that some creatures have memory, but not brains, and that gets things into a whole different topic.. so i won't go there.)
Comapre it to insanity, though, and the glib phrase "insanity might be a sane reaction to an insane world."
She may not be able to control what she perceives, and what she feels, but her reaction to it could be completely appropriate *for her situation*
So, whatever state she would be in, and so long as no one adds martians to the scenario, she would be as conscious and existing as anyone else, for her situation. That's my answer.
I'm sorry I can't be more clear, i suck at this, and this is so complex it's making me tired.
LondonLooter wrote:
The real question would be what to do with the girl. Who would be expected to shoulder the burden of dealing with her? The world may be better off without her, depending on your point of view.
LondonLooter wrote:
... If she is unable to care for herself, who will? Would you force her family to do so? If not, the taxpayer?
Statistics: Posted by Redrum Frank — October 28th, 2011, 5:52 am
]]>
Wolfwood, the point I'm trying to make is that even if there was no-one volunteering to do it, someone should, even if the state has to pay for it.
Yeah, let's make everybody else subsidize one family's bad decision. The thing should have been aborted if there was any prior knowledge whatsoever, and if there wasn't and it can't become a productive member of society, it should be left to die. It's different if the family wants to - and has the means - to take care of it, because that's their decision. I sure as hell don't want to spend my tax dollars on what amounts to a living carcass, though.
Statistics: Posted by LondonLooter — October 16th, 2011, 12:48 am
]]>
]]>
Now, I know it's not as drastic as a person completely devoid of sentience, but it's still close. Their daughter cannot support herself in any case, whether is be financially (cannot work a job), nutritionally (cannot eat by herself), or any other situation requiring hand-eye coordination.
Statistics: Posted by Wolfwood — August 15th, 2011, 3:04 am
]]>
]]>
These questions aren't pleasant. Of course they're not; the world is not a pleasant place. They do need to be answered to fully explore this issue, however.
Statistics: Posted by LondonLooter — August 12th, 2011, 2:10 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Nate — August 12th, 2011, 12:25 pm
]]>
Nate wrote:
Read his posts on other threads. This guy is out to be as controversial as possible, his name says it all. My guess is that it's someone already from RV.
Yes, I realize he joined just to be controversial, but he has been raising a lot of good points.
bartoron Good point or not, this topic is about the girl and her senses, not how a third party may deal with her.
Statistics: Posted by Wolfwood — August 10th, 2011, 10:29 pm
]]>
Read his posts on other threads. This guy is out to be as controversial as possible, his name says it all. My guess is that it's someone already from RV.
Yes, I realize he joined just to be controversial, but he has been raising a lot of good points.
bartoron Statistics: Posted by bartoron — August 10th, 2011, 5:50 pm
]]>
]]>
LondonLooter wrote:
The real question would be what to do with the girl. Who would be expected to shoulder the burden of dealing with her? The world may be better off without her, depending on your point of view.
You fail at trolling
Why, because his view is controversial? Maybe his wording came across as being a bit harsh, but he's still right.
bartoron Statistics: Posted by bartoron — August 10th, 2011, 8:17 am
]]>
The real question would be what to do with the girl. Who would be expected to shoulder the burden of dealing with her? The world may be better off without her, depending on your point of view.
You fail at trolling
Statistics: Posted by Nate — August 10th, 2011, 5:44 am
]]>
]]>
Here's a thought experiment I've been playing around with for a while:
A person is born with no senses or ways of acknowledging the outside world. For the sake of argument, let's say her consciousness does exist, but that there is no possible way she can know about anything else. How does she know she's alive? How does she interact with the outside world? Is it possible for her to acknowledge her existence without outside stimuli, or is the requirement of experience just a fallacy?
If the question is: "can she acknowledge her existence without outside stimuli?" , then the answer is yes.
Theoretically Descartes argues there is only one proven way to know that you actually exist: Cogito, Ergo, Sum. If she is capable of sentient thought (consciousness exists) then she exists. It is impossible for both of the following to be true:
1.) I know that I am thinking.
2.) It is possible that I am mistaken about whether or not I am.
Therefore, whenever I am thinking that I am something, it must be true, for even if I think that I am nothing I cannot not be thinking.
Statistics: Posted by Proletariat — July 17th, 2011, 2:09 am
]]>
]]>
Suicide Messiah wrote:
With no real thought process I still maintain that she would be comparable to someone with anecephaly, or someone in a persistent vegetative state... I'm surprised that child lived, certain an exception to the norm... Then again so was Mike the Headless Chicken... I find that video very depressing, not "touching" or "amazing".
Anencephaly leaves you with literally no (or extremely, extremely little... I only include this because I'm not an expert in the field) hope of developing sentience and consciousness. But this girl has a brain, and in that brain she has instinct (hunger/thirst as you said). I'm sure no one here is expecting her thought-process to be complex or sophisticated, but do you really think her chances of acknowledging her own existence are comparable to an anencephalic infant? There's having a tool and not having a clear idea of how to use it, and there's not having the tool at all.
To clear up this whole "anencephally vs. the girl" thing (because I think we're getting a little off topic), there are a few major areas of the brain involved in thought that are known, and a few that have been implicated in consciousness (neuroscience is just starting to study this). None of them exist in the brainstem and the girl would be assumed to have all of them. I won't include a list but if anyone wants I can throw one together.
Statistics: Posted by bluecoat — May 2nd, 2011, 1:25 pm
]]>
I believe sentience is required in a human being to be considered truly alive and functioning (hence my stance on several other things). This child would basically be living tissue and that's it... She would never have any true knowledge or experience of true life. She would more or less by a human doll if you ask me.
Well, to us she may indeed appear not too different from a doll, but the original question is if she is capable of acknowledging her own existence. Just because she can't confirm her existence to us doesn't mean she can't at least be sure of it to herself.
Suicide Messiah wrote:
With no real thought process I still maintain that she would be comparable to someone with anecephaly, or someone in a persistent vegetative state... I'm surprised that child lived, certain an exception to the norm... Then again so was Mike the Headless Chicken... I find that video very depressing, not "touching" or "amazing".
Anencephaly leaves you with literally no (or extremely, extremely little... I only include this because I'm not an expert in the field) hope of developing sentience and consciousness. But this girl has a brain, and in that brain she has instinct (hunger/thirst as you said). I'm sure no one here is expecting her thought-process to be complex or sophisticated, but do you really think her chances of acknowledging her own existence are comparable to an anencephalic infant? There's having a tool and not having a clear idea of how to use it, and there's not having the tool at all.
I agree with you about the vid. I have a hard time finding these sort of stories touching/amazing/miraculous. It's tragic is what it is. Maybe I would know better if that were my child, but even then I'm sure that, no matter how much I try to convince myself, deep down I would know it is no "miracle". Far from it.
In fact, our girl's situation is pretty tragic too. Even if she does develop awareness, what comes next? This is worse than Plato's cave, at least those folks can apply their thought process to something (even if it's mostly meaningless). This is existing only to be trapped in a void with your own minimal (if that) self-awareness, and the occasional instinctual thought, at most. Even if she is somehow capable of interacting with the outside world (through some sci-fi brain scans that can read thoughts or something like that), it would only be a one-way method communication.
Statistics: Posted by Jackstick — May 2nd, 2011, 9:34 am
]]>
Jackstick wrote:
This is an interesting video. A baby born with anencephaly has survived for 2 years:
[youtube]WMlVNFpzKNI[/youtube]
[youtube]WMlVNFpzKNI[/youtube]
Damn... that's pretty incredible, I guess he had enough of a brain stem to at least support vital functions? Or something like that, I'm not a doctor
Although it does seem to me that he gets nothing at all out of living, it doesn't hurt him, but that's the only upside of his life isn't it?
The brainstem is sometimes called "the primative brain" because it almost exclusively does life functions, as well as managing a lot of the cranial nerves. It's really all you need to be alive.
On the actual thought experiment, I think she would know she was alive as long as she was capable of actual thought. Sensation is only the first step in experience; the second step being perception. Depending on who you talk to or whose stuff you read there's a few more steps involved, but most psychologists and philosophers will argue that you have to apply your subjective view to any incoming stimulus. That subjective view comes from both you and your life experience; even if you don't have experience, you still have your innate self awareness (it supposedly crops up at around 15 months), your self image (heavily influenced by experience, and thus somewhat moot here), and your personality traits (you're born with those). Even without experience, you still can understand that you're alive, or at least be capable of sentient thought.
There's also some evidence that if you don't have any sensory stimuli, your brain takes the liberty of making them for you. I haven't read too much into it aside from a teacher briefly mentioning it, but here's wikipedia's take on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_de ... ve_effects
Thus, the girl in the thought experiment is not only capable of thought, but she's capable of experiencing some of the craziest hallucinations this side of THC. Oh, and she'll never be able to grasp language syntax.
Statistics: Posted by bluecoat — May 1st, 2011, 6:30 pm
]]>
With no real thought process I still maintain that she would be comparable to someone with anecephaly, or someone in a persistent vegetative state... I'm surprised that child lived, certain an exception to the norm... Then again so was Mike the Headless Chicken... I find that video very depressing, not "touching" or "amazing".
Statistics: Posted by Suicide Messiah — May 1st, 2011, 6:00 pm
]]>
This is an interesting video. A baby born with anencephaly has survived for 2 years:
[youtube]WMlVNFpzKNI[/youtube]
Damn... that's pretty incredible, I guess he had enough of a brain stem to at least support vital functions? Or something like that, I'm not a doctor
Although it does seem to me that he gets nothing at all out of living, it doesn't hurt him, but that's the only upside of his life isn't it?
Statistics: Posted by Jeroen — May 1st, 2011, 3:47 pm
]]>