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?

__________________
Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Rocky: But that trick never works!

I think she can be conscious, to some degree or nature, as long as there is some existing thought or instinct in her mind. You say she's born, so I guess we're to believe that she has a body, and isn't just a dimensionless consciousness existing in space?

I believe we are all born with instinct; it's not something we learn from the outside world, but something we already have in us. She may not know of her instinct to sleep, in fact she would probably have a hard time separating reality and dream because there is brain activity in both, but her instinct to eat would stimulate some amount of thought. If she has instinct and is aware of it, then I think that would be enough for her to know that she exists in some form. I'm not saying her thought-process would be elegant, but if she has some awareness of her thoughts, then she ought to have some awareness of her existence, even if "existence" to her is simply the ability to conceive a thought. She likely won't know the difference between alive and dead, but existence is something she has a chance of being sure about.

Is this girl a vegetable? If so, then I don't think she has any way to communicate with the outside world. In fact I don't think she could even be aware of the existence of an outside world. I believe our senses are our window to the outer world, and without *ever* having senses, our whole universe is our own mind.

Acknowledging her own existence, and requirement of experience, are two different arguments, in fact in this case they can be thought of opposites of each other. She may acknowledge her own existence simply by knowing or being aware to the fact that she is capable of thought (manifested by instinct), but I don't think that always requires outside experience. In this case, some amount of knowledge (instinct) can exist in the mind without requiring stimulus from the outside world.

On the other hand, some knowledge does require a real world stimulus. The requirement of experience can be applied to a person completely aware of their surroundings, but lacking in at least one major experience, like the ability to see colors (Mary the super-scientist). They can devote their whole life to learning what colors are, but it won't be the same as experiencing colors, because knowledge itself does not stimulate the brain in the same way as senses. If they suddenly gained the ability to perceive colors, they would have "learned" something new, something that their whole life of knowledge could not teach them.

__________________

That was well said. My hypothesis is similar to your sleep argument - that she would detect the difference between sleep and awareness.

(For the sake of argument, assume she isn't a vegetable.)

__________________
Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Rocky: But that trick never works!

But Jack said she (probably) wouldn't be able to tell the difference

Which is something I agree with, although not having any senses and experiences I wonder what you'd dream of

I pretty much agree with Jackstick

I also don't think it's possible to learn anything if you can't experience anything, also unless she is being fed through a tube or IV, she'd probably die as she couldn't possibly chew or know when to swallow (not that it has anything to do with your questions, but I just wanted to mention it)

__________________

Please define "no senses" are we talking only the 5 classical senses?

If so, the child wouldn't be able to respond to the outside world at all. She wouldn't really have any thought pattern at all other than knowing hunger/thirst... They probably wouldn't understand it, but would simply feel a sensation. I doubt they would truly be aware of their existence or what they are. From a biological standpoint the child isn't truly alive since it has no way to respond to outside stimuli.

If we're talking the 5 classical senses and internal senses (hunger, pain, balance, thirst) then the child would basically be living tissue and nothing else.

It would be like a child with anecephaly (born with no higher brain) who are stillborn, or die within a day or two and nature is left to run it's course since the child has no way of becoming sentient in any fashion whatsoever.

__________________




"Civil disobedience is still disobience."

What are you defining as a response to stimuli, though? If you shine a light in her eye and her pupils contract, would that count?

Response to stimuli is kind of a tough one, I don't think a clear response is absolutely necessary to be considered "alive", though. There are more important requirements, like having homeostatic and metabolic characteristics, and of course being composed of cells. Growth is also important; will this girl go through puberty? I don't believe puberty requires senses, it's more of an internal process that becomes expressed externally, not the other way around. Can this girl reproduce? If you fertilize one of her eggs, will it grow into a fetus? I can't see why it wouldn't. Not that it would be easy, but I'm sure the possibility is there.

I believe, even from a biological standpoint, this girl is certainly alive. You have to lack quite a few very important characteristics to be considered non-living. Viruses and prions, for example, are considered non-living.


Right, but is sentience required to be considered alive? You won't find much sentience in in an E. coli bacteria for example, but it is still living.

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?

__________________

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.

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".

__________________




"Civil disobedience is still disobience."

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.

__________________

Interested in playing Dungeons and Dragons playtesting paper and pencil rpgs playing Dungeons and Dragons with your fellow villagers? Drop me Eadwulf me a pm!

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.


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.

__________________

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.

__________________

Interested in playing Dungeons and Dragons playtesting paper and pencil rpgs playing Dungeons and Dragons with your fellow villagers? Drop me Eadwulf me a pm!

The anecephaly comparison was if she lacked the 5 classical senses as well as internal senses. Just to clear that up.

__________________




"Civil disobedience is still disobience."

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.

__________________

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.

__________________
Quit calling me names.

You fail at trolling

__________________


"What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."- The last words of General John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in the American civil war

Why, because his view is controversial? Maybe his wording came across as being a bit harsh, but he's still right.

bartoron

__________________

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.

__________________


"What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."- The last words of General John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in the American civil war

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.

__________________

Anime-Planet.com - anime | manga | reviews

Furthermore Bartoron, explain exactly how his points have been 'good'? Most people would find his last post disgusting, if you lived somewhere with plenty of food like the USA, and you became unable to feed yourself, would you not feel hard done by if no- one felt it necessary to look out for you? If you think his last point was good, you have a problem

__________________


"What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."- The last words of General John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in the American civil war