suppose you had absolutely no use of any of your senses

[Bob]

you're born without any of your senses. you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel anything, you're 100% completely numb. for some ungodly reason, you're kept alive on feeding tubes. you're not unconscious, you just completely lack the facutly of your senses.

how different is this from being dead? the only thing you're able to do is think, only you can't hear or read, so you probably have no faculty of language. besides, it's not like you have much to think about. but you can still think, your brain still works.

i don't know what made me think of this but it struck me on the way back from class, i guess i was thinking about descartes. what are we without our senses? thinking things, i guess. what does that mean, though?

[kll]

I guess if you are born like this, you wouldn't know any different and therefore would never have the "Why Me?" syndrome. You'd just be existing. BUT, if you were to live many years, THEN have that happen... woah... worst nightmare!

[ms.peachy]

I don't know that you'd be able to "think", as you'd have nothing to process.

[Bob]

I don't know that you'd be able to "think", as you'd have nothing to process.

yeah, that's what puzzles me too. what would you think about?

this isn't so much a "why are we here" question as it is a sort of pondering about...i don't know, the nature of existence, the nature of being alive. philosophy doesn't give a lot of credit to our senses, it seems to hold reason above that, but really, what are we without our senses? what is being "alive" independent of any perception of it?

that last sentence was very poorly worded, but i hope it made sense.

[Freebasser]

A saw a programme on discovery a year or two ago where some guy in his 40s got bone cancer in his face, and lost all his facial bones from his ears forward to his forehead and his bottom lip.

They reconstructed his top lip so he could talk, but he can't see, smell or hear anything. He has to wear a prosthetic face so that you can't see inside his skull 24/7.

:(

[Echewta]

I would never have to worry about the elusive dutchoven.

[kll]

I would never have to worry about the elusive dutchoven.
I thought Cosmo quit that!

[Kid Presentable]

You'd be one up from a vegetable: A Plant.

[ms.peachy]

yeah, that's what puzzles me too. what would you think about?

this isn't so much a "why are we here" question as it is a sort of pondering about...i don't know, the nature of existence, the nature of being alive. philosophy doesn't give a lot of credit to our senses, it seems to hold reason above that, but really, what are we without our senses? what is being "alive" independent of any perception of it?

that last sentence was very poorly worded, but i hope it made sense.

Well I dunno. It seems to me that if you've got no sensory input at all, and haven't had any ever, then it must be that there's no functioning of the nervous system, other than the most basic autonomic functions controlled by the brain stem, and nothing involving the cerebellum or cerebrum. And therefore, nothing to move along those neurons and synaptic passageways of the brain. So you'd just be kind of an organ bag, essentially.

[Bob]

I would never have to worry about the elusive dutchoven.

there's always a silver lining

[Bob]

Well I dunno. It seems to me that if you've got no sensory input at all, and haven't had any ever, then it must be that there's no functioning of the nervous system, other than the most basic autonomic functions controlled by the brain stem, and nothing involving the cerebellum or cerebrum. And therefore, nothing to move along those neurons and synaptic passageways of the brain. So you'd just be kind of an organ bag, essentially.

i suppose so. i admit, i know very little about biology, i don't know HOW the brain works, i don't know how "thinking" works as a biological process, i guess i'm just making assumptions about it.

it's just i'm studying modern (well, enlightenment, but modern compared to, say, plato) philosophy and they give such a minor role to what we percieve through our senses. but i'm wondering what we'd be without them, really.

[alexandra]

being alive and not living is horrible...

[Echewta]

zombies aren't so bad.

[mickill]

Do you experiment with a lot of different drugs, Bob?

[Bob]

Do you experiment with a lot of different drugs, Bob?

philosophy is my anti-drug

really though, i don't. i drink (not as much or as often as i used to), and that's about it. i like pot, but i don't get around to smoking it as often as i'd like. maybe a couple times a year if i'm lucky. no access to it, no place to smoke it, too scared to get caught, etc etc.

i did mushrooms once, that was fun and i'd like to do it again sometime, but that has nothing to do with anything i believe in now

[ms.peachy]

i suppose so. i admit, i know very little about biology, i don't know HOW the brain works, i don't know how "thinking" works as a biological process, i guess i'm just making assumptions about it.

it's just i'm studying modern (well, enlightenment, but modern compared to, say, plato) philosophy and they give such a minor role to what we percieve through our senses. but i'm wondering what we'd be without them, really.

Once upon a time, I was contemplating the idea of pursuing neurology as a career. I ended up not doing so (obviously), but I'm still quite fascinated by the workings of the brain, and do a fair amount of reading on the subject.

The thing with sensory perception (or lack thereof) is that it can either be a problem with the recieving organ (the eyes, the ears, etc) or with the part of the brain that processes the information. In other words you could have perfectly functional eyes, but if the optic nerve then plugs into defective occipital lobes, the result is the same as if you had no eyes at all.

In your hypothetical situation, it seems likely to me the only way this could possibly occur would be as a result of seriously defective brain function, as it seems impossible that ALL of your sensory organs would possess individual defects!

So yeah, your situation works much better as a philosophical propostion than a physiological one. I think the thing is that although they may seem to be giving short shrift to the physical senses (the objective), it's just they are more concerned with HOW we interpret input based on experience (the subjective).

[mickill]

philosophy is my anti-drug

really though, i don't. i drink (not as much or as often as i used to), and that's about it. i like pot, but i don't get around to smoking it as often as i'd like. maybe a couple times a year if i'm lucky. no access to it, no place to smoke it, too scared to get caught, etc etc.

i did mushrooms once, that was fun and i'd like to do it again sometime, but that has nothing to do with anything i believe in now
How about in the last half hour, 45 minutes? Anything? No? Just wondering.

[Bob]

Once upon a time, I was contemplating the idea of pursuing neurology as a career. I ended up not doing so (obviously), but I'm still quite fascinated by the workings of the brain, and do a fair amount of reading on the subject.

The thing with sensory perception (or lack thereof) is that it can either be a problem with the recieving organ (the eyes, the ears, etc) or with the part of the brain that processes the information. In other words you could have perfectly functional eyes, but if the optic nerve then plugs into defective occipital lobes, the result is the same as if you had no eyes at all.

In your hypothetical situation, it seems likely to me the only way this could possibly occur would be as a result of seriously defective brain function, as it seems impossible that ALL of your sensory organs would possess individual defects!

So yeah, your situation works much better as a philosophical propostion than a physiological one. I think the thing is that although they may seem to be giving short shrift to the physical senses (the objective), it's just they are more concerned with HOW we interpret input based on experience (the subjective).

oh, i see. yeah, i'm saying that the brain works fine, but all of your sense organs are defective. i realize that's about as likely as...something really really unlikely, but i'm just using it as a purely hypothetical case, where your brain/mind works at its normal capacity, you're just unable to sense anything. i think my biggest question about that kind of case is "how different is that from being dead?". i don't know what, if any, philosophical ramifications this question has, i haven't thought that deeply about it, it's just something that occurred to me while i was walking and i felt the need to post it. it's one of those things that sort of tickles your brain when you think about it.

[Bob]

How about in the last half hour, 45 minutes? Anything? No? Just wondering.

nope! i'm high on life, baby!

i had a cup of coffee this morning but only enough to wake me up. i'm actually still pretty drowsy

[mickill]

The thing with sensory perception (or lack thereof) is that it can either be a problem with the recieving organ (the eyes, the ears, etc) or with the part of the brain that processes the information. In other words you could have perfectly functional eyes, but if the optic nerve then plugs into defective occipital lobes, the result is the same as if you had no eyes at all.

In your hypothetical situation, it seems likely to me the only way this could possibly occur would be as a result of seriously defective brain function, as it seems impossible that ALL of your sensory organs would possess individual defects!

So yeah, your situation works much better as a philosophical propostion than a physiological one. I think the thing is that although they may seem to be giving short shrift to the physical senses (the objective), it's just they are more concerned with HOW we interpret input based on experience (the subjective).
Yeah, I was gonna say that.

[ToucanSpam]

You may have no senses, but you have cognitive thought. You are still able to think and feel emotionally. That's the immediate difference between being dead and having no use of any of your senses.

However, it all comes down to a philosophical choice on the matter, as someone else alluded to. Why would you keep someone alive if they are completely helpless, without the ability of keeping themself alive? Should it be the survival of the fittest?


People without their senses are simply thinking machines. We are computers without our senses, in a way. Although a computer cannot feel.

[Bob]

You may have no senses, but you have cognitive thought. You are still able to think and feel emotionally. That's the immediate difference between being dead and having no use of any of your senses.

yeah, but what do you think about? you have absolutely no perception of the external world, i don't even know that you could be aware of your own existence. you'd certainly have a hard time seriously contemplating your own existence, because you have no language. what form of expression would your thoughts take?

or something like that. we're thinking things, but we're also sensual things.

[ms.peachy]

You may have no senses, but you have cognitive thought. You are still able to think and feel emotionally. That's the immediate difference between being dead and having no use of any of your senses.
I disagree. By this definition of cognition:

1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.
2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.


it would not be possible to have cognitive thought, because there is no perception.

[ToucanSpam]

yeah, but what do you think about? you have absolutely no perception of the external world, i don't even know that you could be aware of your own existence. you'd certainly have a hard time seriously contemplating your own existence, because you have no language. what form of expression would your thoughts take?

or something like that. we're thinking things, but we're also sensual things.
It is likely that the person would spend a lot of time thinking about what might be out there. The person would likely live in constant fear and there's a 100% chance they would develop a mental illness, for fear of what they cannot see, hear, smell, touch. You wouldn't even know that you are alive, other than the fact that you can think. Some people believe that is the state after death.

[ToucanSpam]

I disagree. By this definition of cognition:



it would not be possible to have cognitive thought, because there is no perception.
That's a bit too cut and dry. Just because there is no perception doesn't mean that there would be none of the other things that make up cognition. You can't really just take a definition of a word and say "Oh, well that's not there, therefore it is completely impossible that this is not cognition." That's kind of an extreme.


But, you are entitled to your opinions. I can see where you are coming from, however I don't see it as so cut and dry.

[fucktopgirl]

well ,i guess it depend if you are born like this or it happen during life in a freak accident.IF you are born without sensory perception at all,you like dead because you did not learn how to read,talk,listen,smell....its close to be dead.
but if it happen in the middle of the life,you know how to think and that all that is left ,you have half of your life (live with perception)to go trought the rest of your life.Pretty pathetic.And that to its close to be dead,what is life without experiencing it through perception?!

[mickill]

That's a bit too cut and dry. Just because there is no perception doesn't mean that there would be none of the other things that make up cognition.
You mean like the ability to recognize things, use your imagination, comprehend, judge, reason, create and imagine?

[ms.peachy]

That's a bit too cut and dry. Just because there is no perception doesn't mean that there would be none of the other things that make up cognition. You can't really just take a definition of a word and say "Oh, well that's not there, therefore it is completely impossible that this is not cognition." That's kind of an extreme.


But, you are entitled to your opinions. I can see where you are coming from, however I don't see it as so cut and dry.

I just thought I'd use that definition because it was concise. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see how you can isolate any of those elements listed, because to me it seems that they must be interdependent. In other words, I don't think it's possible to say "well, there's no perception, but there's still reasoning, awareness and judgement, so we've still got cognitive function." If there's no perception, of what would one have awareness? what is there to reason? upon what would you exercise judgement? I guess I can't see it as a matter of opinion in terms of physiological/neurological response.

[Bob]

It is likely that the person would spend a lot of time thinking about what might be out there. The person would likely live in constant fear and there's a 100% chance they would develop a mental illness, for fear of what they cannot see, hear, smell, touch. You wouldn't even know that you are alive, other than the fact that you can think. Some people believe that is the state after death.

that's certainly possible, but how would you even be aware that there IS an "out there"? they wouldn't even know that there could be anything to be afraid of, it would just be such a bizarre state of existence.

and yeah, i'm talking strictly about somebody who was born in this state, not someone who developed it later in life somehow. in the latter case, that would be absolute hell, surely. or purgatory. i don't know.

[Bob]

If there's no perception, of what would one have awareness? what is there to reason? upon what would you exercise judgement?

yeah, that's pretty much what i'm aiming at here. perhaps we'd still be "thinking things", but what is there to think about?

i think, therefore i am, ok, but what do i think about if i can't sense anything?

i don't know, i just like asking questions that are impossible to answer correctly

[fucktopgirl]

well if it about somebody who is born like this,unplugged the tubes!

cognitif perception is acquired trought aprocess of learning,it in it?

so therefore,somebody born in a state of absolute inexistence of perception is like dead!It's like a motor that works but if you dont have a body,wheel,transmission,differential, to make it work,the motor is useless!

[ToucanSpam]

It's such a bizarre situation, it's hard to analyze without your own philiosophical ideas pouring out.


Good thread though, makes you think.

[Schmeltz]

I HAVE NO MOUTH YET I MUST SCREAM

You'd go insane.

[Bob]

I HAVE NO MOUTH YET I MUST SCREAM

You'd go insane.

i've read that story, it's nuts

[voltanapricot]

you're born without any of your senses. you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel anything, you're 100% completely numb. for some ungodly reason, you're kept alive on feeding tubes. you're not unconscious, you just completely lack the facutly of your senses.
This makes me think of those fetus in fetu thingies. Basically, twins begin to seperate and one twin ceases to develop further and the "body" becomes enveloped by the healthier twin. It looks like a single pregnancy, and the child grows with the fetus feeding from the fetu's [healthy child's] blood supply. Now imagine if this was the feeding tubes you were talking about.

Another thing, these things are "born" sans eyes, a brain, a nose, a voice, techically the same thing as what peach was talking about the organ bag thing. If like you said you were born without any senses at all you wouldn't know any different and a brain would be useless without stimuli (sight, smell and whatnot). I can't imagine it being possible with a brain, they'd still be vegetables.

I think without any of our senses we aren't really anything.

waffle waffle waffle.

[dave790]

you're born without any of your senses. you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel anything, you're 100% completely numb. for some ungodly reason, you're kept alive on feeding tubes. you're not unconscious, you just completely lack the facutly of your senses.

how different is this from being dead? the only thing you're able to do is think, only you can't hear or read, so you probably have no faculty of language. besides, it's not like you have much to think about. but you can still think, your brain still works.

i don't know what made me think of this but it struck me on the way back from class, i guess i was thinking about descartes. what are we without our senses? thinking things, i guess. what does that mean, though?

Bloody hell Bob!!