We can imagine what it may be like for a newborn baby without any sensory perceptions. Even if he or she does not have any capacity to see, hear, smell, touch and taste he or she could still have proprioception. It's possible that his or her brain would hallucinate to fill the sensory gap. — Truth Seeker

What type of hallucination might be possible? It couldn't be visual, auditory, tactile, or dealing with taste or smell.

"[The self] is the being that exists in the mind prior to any sense perception", but "there is no self without sense perception of the world". That seems contradictory.

It couldn't be visual, auditory, tactile, or dealing with taste or smell. — Patterner

Couldn't it?

It couldn't be visual, auditory, tactile, or dealing with taste or smell.
— Patterner

Couldn't it? — Lionino

How could a being that never had a sense of sight have a visual hallucination? If that was possible, would we not be able to describe vision to people who were born blind? We cannot do that, even with people who are very intelligent, and have always had all their other senses. The scenario under discussion is even more difficult, since the infant never had any amount of sensory input of any kind.

How could a being that never had a sense of sight have a visual hallucination? — Patterner

Like this:

While people who have been blind since birth do indeed dream in visual images, [...] — https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2020/02/11/do-blind-people-dream-in-visual-images/

If that was possible, would we not be able to describe vision to people who were born blind? — Patterner

Not necessarily because they can't communicate images and we can't communicate it to them, as they have no outside object to reference with a given word. They could make a language to label the things they see but it would be a sort of private language.

Like this:

While people who have been blind since birth do indeed dream in visual images, [...]
— https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2020/02/11/do-blind-people-dream-in-visual-images/ — Lionino

Seems rather weak. As best I can tell from that article, the claim is based on detecting activity in the occipital lobe of people born blind. (As well as what may be spurious eye movements.) However - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/24498-occipital-lobe:

Occipital lobe activity in those blind from birth or early in life
In those with early or congenital blindness, their occipital lobe is still very active. However, that activity happens when they use their other senses, such as smell, hearing and touch. The occipital lobe of a person with blindness also becomes more active when they’re speaking or listening to others talking.

This reassignment of the occipital lobe is a form of neuroplasticity. That’s the term for the brain’s ability to adapt itself to an unusual circumstance or condition.

Thanks for the responses, very valid indeed. I accede to the point that the self concerns reflective thought in addition to that which interprets sensory input. Thus, the scope of the self is expanded to include thought and emotion. Now the point I was making as to its illusory nature or non-existence remains, especially in regard to technology. The human self appears to be mediated by technology, in other words without technology, the self can be potentially subsumed by mechanism or AI. Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides the greatest challenge that the human self has encountered and that - as far as I know - has only emerged in the last couple of years, since 2020.

The article is an example. The majority opinion seems to be that people born blind can indeed "see".

Not necessarily because they can't communicate images and we can't communicate it to them, as they have no outside object to reference with a given word. They could make a language to label the things they see but it would be a sort of private language. — Lionino

I quite agree with about it being weak. Assuming the brain at birth is as it would be if eyes had been present, sure, there could be electrical activity in the visual areas. I can produce phosphenes by pressing on my eyes. Maybe phosphenes take place for those born blind. But what the activity they're talking about would "look" like to the person is unknown. They can't know if there are blobs of color.

Regarding the current conversation, the question is, would an infant born without any senses develop a self/mind from the visual, and presumably other, hallucinations? There would not be any reason to suspect phosphenes and whatever corresponding phenomenon might be associated with hearing would match up, as in the siren and hypothetical blob of color moving together. What thoughts, emotions, personality, or values might we expect to develop?

Descartes’ Meditations question whether we can trust any of our senses when it comes to determining our own consciousness, such that ultimately, it is only our faculty of thinking itself that we can rely on to indubitably ground our existence. The self is the progenitor of thought, but cannot exist without it and is in this sense illusory. There must however be an unconscious dynamic at work, a biological metabolism, a dialectical interplay between the two sides of the brain, for example, to sustain thinking.

I imagine the hallucination would involve proprioception. I don't know. I am spitballing here.

I agree.

As they won't be able to learn any language, we are not going to know what kind of thoughts or values the hypothetical baby will develop - if any. If they make up their own unique language, we won't be able to translate it. We can try to infer emotions based on facial expressions and body language but I don't know if that would be accurate. We can try to infer values based on actions but again I don't know if that would be accurate.

Yes, it does seem contradictory, but the self is elusive and what I am getting at now is a precursor to selfhood or a dialectical interplay that occurs in the mind, a residual dynamic that is accessible and can be sensed through meditation, for instance. What I mean by this is that the human organism generates some sort of polarity, an opposition that is constantly trying to resolve itself like a dialectic (thesis, anthesis and synthesis). In other words, our intelligence is the formation of our ability to resolve seemingly impossible oppositions and contradictions. No, I do agree, there was an apparent contradiction there, but not one that couldn't be resolved. The true nature of the self is, therefore, to bear witness to this dialectic of the mind. Thanks for pointing this out, I acknowledge the earlier contradiction.

Thank you. The key problem with AI is how would we know if the AI is conscious given the fact that we can't tell which human is conscious and which human is a philosophical zombie - if any.

I quite agree with ↪wonderer1 about it being weak. — Patterner

Which is peripheral to the question. People born blind are still capable of the brain activity which sets up visual perception, because people born blind in most cases have issues in their eye apparatus, not in their brain. It is not a matter of whether they do, but that they can; and the scholarly opinion is it is likely that they do. As the article says:

In the vast majority of cases, blindness results from problems in the eyes and in the optic nerves, and not in the brain. In the few cases where blindness results from problems in the brain, the person usually regains some amount of vision due to brain plasticity (i.e. the ability of the brain to rewire itself). Therefore, people who have been blind since birth still technically have the ability to experience visual sensations in the brain. They just have nothing sending electrical impulses with visual information to the brain. In other words, they are still capable of having visual experiences. It's just that these experiences cannot originate from the outside world.

Rather, the visual sensations must arise from the electrical fluctuations that originate within the brain.

Regarding the current conversation, the question is, would an infant born without any senses develop a self/mind from the visual, and presumably other, hallucinations? — Patterner

Kant says in the preface (I don't recall whether A or B) of his Kritik der reinen Vernunft that all knowledge starts with experience. That seems to be a fact of life, we do have senses before we form knowledge in our heads. But I am not sure whether he also meant that experience is counterfactual to knowledge. I think it is the debate whether the mind is a blank slate or whether it has innate ideas. If it has innate ideas, perhaps it would be able to think and therefore know, but I am skeptical of whether even then it would have an idea of self, as someone like that would essentially live in a solipsistic world.

That's sounding like word salad to me.

With AI, I've been trying them out recently, there is a level of intelligence there as it pushes on the discussion and it also claims to reason. The AI doesn't claim to be conscious.

Sorry, there are a lot of ideas there that are compressed into a short paragraph, because of the nature of the topic. In short, I think there are unconscious dynamics involved in thought.

I know that the Artificial Intelligence we currently have e.g. Chat GPT 4 are not and don't claim to be conscious. I am talking about Artificial General Intelligence and Artificial Super Intelligence that may exist in the future which may become conscious. How would we tell if they are truly conscious given the fact that we can't truly know if another human is actually conscious or is actually a philosophical zombie?

I think there are unconscious dynamics involved in thought. — Nemo2124

Thoughts occur in the brain through a complex interaction of neurons and their networks, involving various brain regions, neurotransmitters, and biological processes. The exact mechanisms are still a subject of ongoing research and debate, but here’s a general overview of how thoughts are believed to be generated:

1. Neural Activity
Thought processes are primarily associated with the activity of neurons, the brain's nerve cells. Neurons communicate with each other through electrical impulses and chemical signals (neurotransmitters). Each neuron connects to thousands of other neurons, forming extensive networks that are the basis for all brain functions, including thinking.

2. Brain Regions Involved
Prefrontal Cortex: This front part of the brain is highly involved in complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behavior. It plays a critical role in planning complex cognitive behavior and in the expression of thoughts.
Temporal Lobes: These areas of the brain are involved in processing sensory input and are important for understanding language, forming memories, and connecting emotions and senses.
Parietal Lobes: These help in processing sensory information and are key to spatial orientation and navigation, which are important for abstract thinking and reasoning.
Occipital Lobes: Primarily associated with visual processing, these areas are also linked with visual aspects of thought, like imagining or recalling images.
Cerebellum and Basal Ganglia: These structures contribute to coordination and smoothing of thought processes, akin to their roles in smoothing and coordinating motor activity.
3. Role of Neurotransmitters
Neurotransmitters are chemicals in the brain that transmit signals from one neuron to another. Different neurotransmitters are associated with different aspects of thought:

Dopamine: Often linked with motivation and reward feelings, influencing focus and attention.
Serotonin: Plays roles in mood regulation, which can affect the overall tone and quality of thoughts.
Acetylcholine: Important for attention and arousal, influencing learning and short-term memory.
Glutamate and GABA: Primary excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters in the brain, crucial for balancing activation and relaxation necessary for smooth thought processes.
4. Cognitive Processes
Thinking involves several cognitive processes, including perception, memory, language understanding, and problem-solving. Thoughts can be triggered by external sensory stimuli or internal cues such as emotions or memories. The integration of information from these various sources allows for the formation of thoughts.

5. Formation and Flow of Thoughts
Thoughts can arise from conscious attention or unconscious processes. The brain continuously processes sensory information and internal states even without conscious focus, contributing to spontaneous or background thought generation.
Thoughts are not isolated but are part of a continuous stream of consciousness, influenced by past experiences, knowledge, current goals, and future anticipations.
6. Neuroplasticity
The brain's ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections throughout life, known as neuroplasticity, allows for the continuous development and refinement of thought patterns. Learning and experience lead to changes in these connections, affecting how thoughts are generated and processed.

In summary, thoughts are the result of highly complex and dynamic interactions within the brain's neural networks. They are influenced by various factors, including biological, environmental, and experiential elements. The ongoing research in neuroscience continues to unravel the intricacies of how thoughts are formed and manifest in the brain. — ChatGPT 4

I agree with ChatGPT 4.

As they won't be able to learn any language, we are not going to know what kind of thoughts or values the hypothetical baby will develop - if any. If they make up their own unique language, we won't be able to translate it. We can try to infer emotions based on facial expressions and body language but I don't know if that would be accurate. We can try to infer values based on actions but again I don't know if that would be accurate. — Truth Seeker

I imagine there would be extremely few circumstances where we would have any confidence of our accuracy.

But language? Out of the question. If such a person ever came to think at all, they could not interact with anyone else. Wouldn't even know there was anyone else. There would be no need for language, and no need to ever contemplate such a thing.

I am glad no such person actually exists. It would be very hard for them to live.

Patterner I am glad no such person actually exists. It would be very hard for them to live. — Truth Seeker

True. But this is just a thought experiment, to see if we can come to any conclusions about the self/mind that we can be reasonably sure of. Imo, we can. At least in regards to human minds.

Patterner I am glad no such person actually exists. It would be very hard for them to live.
— Truth Seeker
True. But this is just a thought experiment, to see if we can come to any conclusions about the self/mind that we can be reasonably sure of. Imo, we can. At least in regards to human minds. — Patterner

No doubt I share your sentiment above. But it shows how much--for us--life is valued in what our minds do. Because your hypothetical human's life is being assessed from our perspective, that of a conceited ape, we cannot imagine that her life has value. Yet, on a balance there is likely far more life on earth that meets that description, I.e., no sensation, thoughts about past and future, just being.

Mind is great. But is life without mind nothing? Or is life nature's "greatness," the essence, and our mind and its constructions (including the topic of this discussion, the so called self) incidental?

Mind is great. But is life without mind nothing? Or is life nature's "greatness," the essence, and our mind and its constructions (including the topic of this discussion, the so called self) incidental? — ENOAH

I don't know how much greater awareness/consciousness/minds can be than ours. I assume there is plenty of room for growth. And I don't know what the least degree of complexity awareness/consciousness/minds can have and still feel greatness, or value, or joy in themselves or anything else. But without that minimal degree giving value, there is nothing. There is no value in anything without something to judge it to be of value. The incomprehensibly, indescribably huge, complex universe would be nothing without something to note the fact of existence. Maybe a fruit fly has what it takes, and feels its own existence.

Because your hypothetical human's life is being assessed from our perspective, that of a conceited ape, we cannot imagine that her life has value. — ENOAH

On the contrary. I imagine that her life has value. It is she that does not value it, or imagine, or understand these, or any other, concepts, because she does not have the capacity to do so. My consolation is that she does not suffer from her condition, not having any more capacity for suffering than she does for valuing. But I will help keep her alive.

I agree.

we cannot imagine that her life has value. — ENOAH

I have never said that. I have never even thought that. What I said is that it would be very difficult for them to live if they lacked the capacity to see, hear, taste, touch and smell from the womb to adulthood.

I think the life of all living things has value. I became a vegan 18 years ago because I didn't want to cause suffering and death to sentient organisms.

Deep apologies for that misstatement

Thank you for your apology - I was not blaming you. Could anyone really have made a different choice in the past than the choice they made? I don't think so. I think our choices arise out of the interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences and we are not truly praiseworthy or blameworthy.

I think so too. It is difficult not to agree with that. Interestingly, as I'm finding to be common, we may arrive at that belief following (at least slightly) divergent paths.

I think so too. It is difficult not to agree with that. Interestingly, as I'm finding to be common, we may arrive at that belief following (at least slightly) divergent paths. — ENOAH

That's interesting. Which path led you to this conclusion?

In conclusion, I think that the true nature of the self concerns a dialectical process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, whereby the self persists towards achieving a state of inner-peace and tranquility for the whole mind.