Implications of empty consciousness

CasKev

Today I was imagining what would happen if a human were born disconnected from all of its senses, but with all vital processes functioning.

Theoretically, if you kept this person alive via intravenous, consciousness would still arise, though it would remain completely empty. When awake, there would be some kind of awareness of existence.

If hearing, sight, or touch were restored at some point, the person would start to learn, and start to experience a more human existence.

Does this scenario have any implications in terms of the more controversial areas of philosophy of the mind, such as where consciousness resides; consciousness of plants; existence of a soul; OBEs/NDEs; reincarnation; reality being illusion; life being a simulation; or any other area?

SpacedOut

I'd be interested to explore this from a more developmental science angle. I wonder if the person would even be able to learn once they connected with the senses. There has been evidence, although cases are rare and experiments are unethical, that children deprived of human contact and human language become developmentally damaged and are not able to learn normally afterward. Not being able to use any of the senses is a more extreme case, and I wonder if the person would find themselves in a permanent state of being bombarded with unintelligible phenomena, such as supposedly a newborn child, or if there is some mental structure even after the developmental years are passed that would allow for some sense-making in the world.

fdrake

If they had any kind of awareness, I think it's likely that they would be dreaming, or something like dreaming. Being aware in the usual way we are requires sensorimotor constraints - doing/feeling stuff, in the absence of those we dream.

I'm not sure that the presence of awareness makes sense without having had any of the constitutive experiences of awareness ever. I think it's likely that the thoughts of such a person would be much different from a typical person, if they did have thoughts. They couldn't have learned any language, they probably wouldn't have memories...

unenlightened

Give or take, it's the condition of being in the womb, which we're all familiar with. One is not exactly disconnected from all senses, but there is nothing distinctive such as to identify internal and external, and nothing to form a sequence or narrative and give a sense of time.

I'm not sure that the presence of awareness makes sense without having had any of the constitutive experiences of awareness ever. — fdrake

That seems right to me; to be aware of nothing at all is the same as being unaware, in the same way that being married to no one is the same as being single. Sensory deprivation tends to lead to hallucination, but hallucination sans memory of the real would be mere 'static' - indistinguishable.

So I don't think consciousness would arise without contents, without a world to be conscious of. Consciousness is relational. In the beginning, the world created God.

T Clark

If hearing, sight, or touch were restored at some point, the person would start to learn, and start to experience a more human existence. — CasKev

An interesting question. Babies are not just little jugs that get filled up with knowledge once they are born, or even before. Their brains and nervous systems are not fully developed. In a normal, health baby, the development takes place in an environment of intense sensory and social interaction. It is my understanding you just get once chance at that.

As I was writing this, Helen Keller came to mind. She was deaf and blind and became a very articulate and outspoken adult. Wikipedia says she became deaf and blind when she was 19 months old. Of course, after that, she still had input from her other senses. She started her education with Anne Sullivan, who taught her to communicate, when she was 16. Not sure what that means in relation to your question.

Implications of empty consciousness

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions