Free Consciousness

[AbnormallyHonest]

If a person were born with no attachment to any of their senses... basically completely without an ability to interpret the physical world, but alive and conscious, even if only in their own mind. How would that person's reality unfold to them. Would it be connected to this reality? If suddenly, after growing to adulthood connected to life support, they were somehow given their senses for the first time, how do you think their reality would compare to the one they've existed in and has been the whole of their understanding? As a free consciousness, do you think the inception of physical experience would be a delusion, or a sudden reality?

Edited April 18, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[iNow]

They would rapidly die, as without those senses there'd be no impetus to find food, water, shelter, avoid pain, or treat wounds. We have evolved those senses for good reason. They're helpful and aid survival.

[AbnormallyHonest]

They would rapidly die, as without those senses there'd be no impetus to find food, water, shelter, avoid pain, or treat wounds. We have evolved those senses for good reason. They're helpful and aid survival.

 

I suppose that would be why the mention of Life Support would be important.

[EdEarl]

Our brains continue to grow after birth, and the senses are crucial to its proper growth and mental development. Without senses, the brain would be adversely affected, and we would not recognize it as capable of human thought even after heroic medical intervention restored the senses.

[Itoero]

Which senses?

Without sensory nervous system the person would die at birth...probably sooner.

[Eise]

If a person were born with no attachment to any of their senses... basically completely without an ability to interpret the physical world, but alive and conscious, even if only in their own mind.

 

Would a mind exist, when it never was connected to the senses (which would include no dialogues with other people too...)?

 

We are the software of the brain, and without any input there would be no useful program running on the brain.

[Bender]

Genie is a girl that was deprived from human contact and locked in a room for 13 years, most of the time bound to her toilet or her bed. Obviously, her development was severely impaired.

[AbnormallyHonest]

Our brains continue to grow after birth, and the senses are crucial to its proper growth and mental development. Without senses, the brain would be adversely affected, and we would not recognize it as capable of human thought even after heroic medical intervention restored the senses.

I would think that our senses are only required to develop the brain the conventional understanding of reality that utilizes those senses. I would further argue, that their reality would probably be incompatible with ours and they would not be able to interpret physical experience as reality, but probably more of a life after death.

 

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is delusional.

Genie is a girl that was deprived from human contact and locked in a room for 13 years, most of the time bound to her toilet or her bed. Obviously, her development was severely impaired.

Yes, but that was the lack of stimulation and understanding of the same way we experience things, so her development was only impaired in relation to our level of understanding. If everyone were raised that way, we might all be the same. Kennel dogs usually are not house trained, but that does not seem like a violation to other kennel dogs. (that was an objective analogy, I'm not condoning the treatment described) Also, for this girl, or the person in a coma, once being welcomed into the common world of experience, would the ideas of "right" and "wrong" be innate or inherent? (in the classical sense, a disambiguation of "accurate" or "inaccurate")

Would a mind exist, when it never was connected to the senses (which would include no dialogues with other people too...)?

 

We are the software of the brain, and without any input there would be no useful program running on the brain.

Well that's the question, would you still have conscious thought? Is it possible to remember experience before the inception of language? I have heard of some Buddhists claiming to ascend to a level of meditation that transcends physical confinement and it is described as "pure consciousness". Could a person of this experience actually exist in this ascended state for their entire life? If brought back to our reality, what, if anything, would they be able to tell us of what they learned. Such a traumatic change in experience probably would not survive the transition though, perhaps comparable to being able to remember the womb? Edited April 19, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[goldglow]

If a person were born with no attachment to any of their senses... basically completely without an ability to interpret the physical world, but alive and conscious, even if only in their own mind. How would that person's reality unfold to them. Would it be connected to this reality? If suddenly, after growing to adulthood connected to life support, they were somehow given their senses for the first time, how do you think their reality would compare to the one they've existed in and has been the whole of their understanding? As a free consciousness, do you think the inception of physical experience would be a delusion, or a sudden reality?

May i ask, affectionally, have you not just described the birth of a baby? After all, the womb is a life-support system, and new-born babies " come to their senses " at birth. Their reality would, to our thinking, seemingly be very different outside the womb/life-support system but , as a baby has no awareness of it's existence, it cannot compare the old with the new- to it there is only the new, from which the baby learns everything through it's awakened senses. Someone who " comes to their senses " as an adult would just be a very big baby, and go through the same learning experiences from which consciousness arises. They would have no reality before being born; consciousness comes after, not before, birth. It may help us to know that the word "consciousness " comes from the Latin "conscire " or " scire " which means " to know " and we can only gain knowledge through our senses, and we cannot be conscious without our senses being awake, as the centre of consciousness ( the brain ) depends on sensual input in order to function at a normal level. As an example, ask yourself " How do i know the sky is blue ?", or " How do i know ice is cold ? ". Sorry if i sound condescending : i'm bringing you down to my level. Also for the words "own mind " i would substitute the words " own brain " - i think there is a difference. Would you,then, agree that " the inception of physical experience " is just another way of saying " birth " and all that that implies? Perhaps not, but i liked your question anyway.

Edited April 19, 2017 by goldglow

[AbnormallyHonest]

May i ask, affectionally, have you not just described the birth of a baby? After all, the womb is a life-support system, and new-born babies " come to their senses " at birth. Their reality would, to our thinking, seemingly be very different outside the womb/life-support system but , as a baby has no awareness of it's existence, it cannot compare the old with the new- to it there is only the new, from which the baby learns everything through it's awakened senses. Someone who " comes to their senses " as an adult would just be a very big baby, and go through the same learning experiences from which consciousness arises. They would have no reality before being born; consciousness comes after, not before, birth. It may help us to know that the word "consciousness " comes from the Latin "conscire " or " scire " which means " to know " and we can only gain knowledge through our senses, and we cannot be conscious without our senses being awake, as the centre of consciousness ( the brain ) depends on sensual input in order to function at a normal level. As an example, ask yourself " How do i know the sky is blue ?", or " How do i know ice is cold ? ". Sorry if i sound condescending : i'm bringing you down to my level. Also for the words "own mind " i would substitute the words " own brain " - i think there is a difference. Would you,then, agree that " the inception of physical experience " is just another way of saying " birth " and all that that implies? Perhaps not, but i liked your question anyway.

 

I might ask you, is there no experience free of sensory input? Would you not consider the act of dreaming a free consciousness--free of experience. Although it could be argued that a dream is just an extrapolation of the way we experience, but perhaps that is because it is the way our minds have adapted to "awareness". Would the mind not dream just because it doesn't have the same sensory input as everyone else?

 

I would agree with your statement that a person that has just been brought into awareness would be nothing more that a big baby, but I would argue that it is because there was no consciousness prior. It would be like switching operating systems on a computer. In order to install OSx on a PC, you have to change the entire filing system of the hard drive, but the processor would still be able to process the information with respect to the program. The computer would not be a modified version of the former, nor would it even have an awareness of it. (I am aware that if the scenario were reversed, there could be a counter argument for software like parallels or boot camp, but I'm hoping that this discussion does not wander into the realm of superficial semantics.)

 

Also, if someone suffers from some type of amnesia, are we to assume that prior to the incident that caused the amnesia, that the person must not have been conscious or aware because they have been reduced the equivalent of an infant? I would say that there is only a separation of awareness that cannot be reconciled at that time. (Again we could use the operating system analogy to say a reinstall of the same operating system as opposed to a completely different one, which even provides the possibility of recovering some of the files from original installation.)

 

Basically, a disconnected awareness cannot be completely dismissed as the absence of it.

[goldglow]

 

I might ask you, is there no experience free of sensory input?

 

 

 

 

I would have to say there is no experience free of sensory input. As i see it, the only physical organ we have to assimilate our experiences is the brain ,which depends on the senses to receive and assimilate information. The experience is then stored in the brain as knowledge.

 

 

Would you not consider the act of dreaming a free consciousness--free of experience. we experience, but perhaps that is because it is the way our minds have adapted to "awareness". Would the mind not dream just because it doesn't have the same sensory input as everyone else?

 

 

Again, i would say that dreaming is not a free consciousness , in the sense of a separate consciousness, as dreaming is a part of the whole mechanism of consciousness, and is based on waking experiences. ( DrmDoc in the Medical Science - Anatomy , Physiology and Neuroscience forums is more of an expert than me in this. )

As far as i am aware , there is no part of " me ",( my consciousness), separate from the rest. It is a whole movement, including dreaming. Also, i think there is a difference between the mind and the brain, but this is obviously debatable.

 

 

 

 

 

I would agree with your statement that a person that has just been brought into awareness would be nothing more that a big baby, but I would argue that it is because there was no consciousness prior. camp, but I'm hoping that this discussion does not wander into the realm of superficial semantics.

 

 

 

Yes- i think i said that in my post : " ...consciousness comes after, not before, birth. "

 

 

Also, if someone suffers from some type of amnesia, are we to assume that prior to the incident that caused the amnesia, that the person must not have been conscious or aware because they have been reduced the equivalent of an infant? I would say that there is only a separation of awareness that cannot be reconciled at that time. (Again we could use the operating system analogy to say a reinstall of the same operating system as opposed to a completely different one, which even provides the possibility of recovering some of the files from original installation.)

 

Basically, a disconnected awareness cannot be completely dismissed as the absence of it.

I'm not an expert on amnesia, but i would say that the person must have had something to forget before that thing was forgotten,( I hope that isn't just semantics ), so there must have been some awareness/ consciousness prior to the event that caused the amnesia, so, with regard to amnesia, i agree with your last sentence. I don't know if amnesia reduces the older anmesiac to the state of an infant - motor skills and language seem to be retained. I would be interested to know how a sudden and permanent loss of memory would affect consciousness.

Edited May 4, 2017 by goldglow

[goldglow]

 

 

 

 

I would be interested to know how a sudden and permanent loss of memory would affect consciousness.

 

 

Apologies for quoting myself but, on re-reading this thread, i recalled learning of several incidents where a person emerging from a coma, or after some brain injury like severe concussion, suddenly develops the ability to speak another language, or exhibits musical skills, for example, of which they had no conscious knowledge beforehand - much to everyone's surprise.Does this imply that, during the absence of conscious activity, the shared unconscious, the storehouse of all human experience, has somehow physically altered the structure of the brain by imprinting new knowledge on brain cells which was previously absent? Would a loss of conscious memory, permanent or otherwise, prompt the shared, or even individual unconscious, to attempt to fill the void of personal memory loss? Perhaps this also relates to the debatable experiences some people claim to have had of remembering " past lives " under hypnosis, when, if they do, i think they are not actually reliving a past life of their own, but, if it is possible, accessing memories of other lives stored, perhaps even quite recently, in the shared unconscious.

[Bender]

No. As you said, it is debatable.

 

Our brains are very good at making stuff up and fooling us. I expect more of the making up and fooling takes place in damaged brains.

[goldglow]

Good answer. Thanks.