Existence after loss of senses

[Deepak Kapur]

We have often heard about people who cannot see, hear and taste.

 

Where would a person who cannot see, hear, taste, smell and touch ( an imaginary one, of course) find himself to exist?

Edited June 15, 2014 by Deepak Kapur

[Fred Champion]

A child born like that wouldn't survive. Failure to thrive is known. An adult thrust into that state would likely be considered brain dead and "allowed" to die. Detected brain waves with no correlation to stimuli would probably be considered random, not conscious activity. Even if brain waves were observed to correlate with movements, how could anyone hope to prove the movements were intentional and not caused by random brain activity? With no feedback the individual wouldn't be able to know how much he was moving a limb or even if he was moving it. Any such movements would likely appear to be spasms. I suppose we could debate whether such an adult would go insane or just think he was asleep and dreaming.

[KenBrace]

Very interesting question. I've often pondered this myself. The only conclusion I've come to is that there is no conscious existence without senses. Without at least some way to sense something, then you a aren't even aware.

[Fred Champion]

Very interesting question. I've often pondered this myself. The only conclusion I've come to is that there is no conscious existence without senses. Without at least some way to sense something, then you a aren't even aware.

Depends on how you define "conscious existence" doesn't it? Even in the state posited, there could be consciousness and there would be existence. The problem for those around such an individual would be determining if there was consciousness.

 

Certainly we would not be aware of our surroundings in that state. I suggest that we cannot know whether we would be "aware" of our self without senses. Thinking, in general, doesn't seem to be dependent upon external influences; external influences seem to disrupt thinking. There are those who say self-awareness is enhanced by denying the senses, through meditation or something similar.

[Deepak Kapur]

I think such a person would be fully aware and his thinking capacity would be fully intact, even if he is not able to contact with the outside world with his senses.

 

If he is fed intravenously, he would even lead a long life....

[KenBrace]

Depends on how you define "conscious existence" doesn't it? Even in the state posited, there could be consciousness and there would be existence. The problem for those around such an individual would be determining if there was consciousness.

 

Certainly we would not be aware of our surroundings in that state. I suggest that we cannot know whether we would be "aware" of our self without senses. Thinking, in general, doesn't seem to be dependent upon external influences; external influences seem to disrupt thinking. There are those who say self-awareness is enhanced by denying the senses, through meditation or something similar.

 

Meditation can make you more aware of your internal self because you are able to quiet your mind and focus but you still have senses. It's just that they're focussed internally rather than on the outside world.

I think such a person would be fully aware and his thinking capacity would be fully intact, even if he is not able to contact with the outside world with his senses.

 

If he is fed intravenously, he would even lead a long life....

 

Aware of what?

[Deepak Kapur]

aware of what?

 

aware of his thoughts.....

[KenBrace]

aware of what?

 

aware of his thoughts.....

 

Here's the thing. Without some way to sense something, then you wouldn't be aware of anything. He must have a way to sense his thoughts and what he imagines. You must remember that the root of all senses is the brain. There is a section in the brain for each sense. Even when you are dreaming or daydreaming, you are still using the parts of your brain that interpret senses, regardless of whether the info is coming from stored up memory or external senses.

 

I suppose we should clairify whether the OP is referring to not having eyes, a nose, ears, nerves, and taste buds or not having the parts of the brain that interpret the five senses. Big difference. If the five external input organs were removed, a person could still sense and think because of the stored up info in his memory. If the very sections of his brain that created senses were removed then you have a different story altogether.

[Deepak Kapur]

@ ken

 

it's very common sensical to find out that the OP is talking about the loss of external sense organs.

 

moreover, the point here is not about the parts of the brain that link to external sense organs but about the thinking process.

 

in fact, if a theoretical physicist is in such a position, he would be able to formulate complete theories from the knowledge that he had accumulated prior to this state.

[KenBrace]

@ ken

 

it's very common sensical to find out that the OP is talking about the loss of external sense organs.

 

moreover, the point here is not about the parts of the brain that link to external sense organs but about the thinking process.

 

in fact, if a theoretical physicist is in such a position, he would be able to formulate complete theories from the knowledge that he had accumulated prior to this state.

 

If the OP is talking about external senses then you guys are correct. I person would still be a completely aware, conscious, thinking individual that could imagine things and think.