The nature of the self?

[.Shadows.]

I have a question for you chaps which I was recently asked as part of a wider discussion about scientific methodology and philosophy. I thought it was one that many of you might have an interesting opinion and theory on. Before I offer my theory I will post the question for responses –

Imagine an 18 year old man devoid of all senses, he can’t talk, hear, and see or feel (basically having no external information entering his brain), he has been like that for 18 years, does he have thoughts?


I look forward to the responses.

[Ummon]

He may have thoughts, he won't have a self.

[The Walrus]

He will have thoughts. He will think, "I'm hungry" or "I gotta take a leak" etc
So yes he will have some thoughts. Just not thoughts like "that smells good" and etc

[Fenris]

He is not conscious. And since he has never been he is not unconscious either. He just is without being, his mind is a black hole.

[Tostig]

Even if he does he would be unable to show that he does or exchange information, so I would argue that they aren't a person, even if they think.

Perhaps a scan is in order to track brain activity?

[Ummon]

Many "persons" do not have a fully organized self.

[Ragabash]

Of course he have toughts unless he does not have natural human instict to question his own mind and what it produces.

[Tostig]

Many "persons" do not have a fully organized self.

And? I never even mentioned organisation, so I'm rather confused as to wear that came from. I'm merely taking Peter Singer's view on the value of human life (that is has no intrinsic value, and that any value we have for it comes from its role within the community), and applying it to the example given.

[Ummon]

The self is an organization of parts which predate it: sensation, controlling functions of underlying physiology, thought, etc.

[Fenris]

Simply by the fact that he is completly isolated from the world and that he is impermeable to the world, he is nothing but a human trapped in oblivion. Because we are not something by ourself, we are something by our relation to the world, if his brain never had any stimulus, he doesn't even think because our brain is driven by stimulus.

[Silver Guard]

I disagree with many in this thread.
The chief disagreement is that a man, despite his inabiltiy to feel, would still be capable of thought, and as such has self.
I had an interesting experience a year ago, I had a holiday to france, returned, and spoke to my cat...in french! I had thought the sentance in french, I had thought of the cat in french.
This interchange of how I thought had neer happened, within the week I was back to thinking in english, and in this tounge I was thinking: As I thought in French, my capability of thinking in words was limited, as my French vocabluary is. As such, my thought turned less from language and more to abstract sequences, which are nigh impossible to describe.
This abstract thought is the same kind which seems to cause words to slip off the tounge, or thoughts when you cannot remember the word, you know what it means, but are unable to describe it. A person without exterior sensations should still be able to think in such a fashion, as it requires no images or memory to create.

[Fenris]

I disagree with many in this thread.
The chief disagreement is that a man, despite his inabiltiy to feel, would still be capable of thought, and as such has self.
I had an interesting experience a year ago, I had a holiday to france, returned, and spoke to my cat...in french! I had thought the sentance in french, I had thought of the cat in french.
This interchange of how I thought had neer happened, within the week I was back to thinking in english, and in this tounge I was thinking: As I thought in French, my capability of thinking in words was limited, as my French vocabluary is. As such, my thought turned less from language and more to abstract sequences, which are nigh impossible to describe.
This abstract thought is the same kind which seems to cause words to slip off the tounge, or thoughts when you cannot remember the word, you know what it means, but are unable to describe it. A person without exterior sensations should still be able to think in such a fashion, as it requires no images or memory to create.

But what are the toughts of someone who has never seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted, loved, lived, laughed, talked, sang, read, walked, ran, jumped,...?

[Katrina]

But what are the toughts of someone who has never seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted, loved, lived, laughed, talked, sang, read, walked, ran, jumped,...?

If the mind develops off of sensory relations to itself and all external forces, than the mind cannot develop at all. Even in the wee stages of fetus-hood, the mind cannot develop. The mind starts from stage one to develop from external forces and instances, it does not automatically come into existance with previous knowledge. Thus, one who cannot feel anything, cannot think.

Anyway, I am no scientist, I cannot predict brain activity, but it seems to me that this person would be in some sort of a comatic state.

[Silver Guard]

I disagree Kat, the brain does not need to develop, it already has done by the time someone reaches adulthood. Physicly it is the same as the brain of any other adult.
Mentaly it would be very different, having no memories of any form to drw upon, its thoughts would be purely abstract and purely philosophical, having no evidence to draw upon for any of its thoughts to come to being, it would have no sence of 'I' to 'to be' but it might well, in its own abstract way, think, 'Am I'. From that step onwards the mind can think many things without external input. When Democrites thought of the atom, he had no proof, indeed, he had nothing around him that he could draw from the idea of the atom, as such it was very much an abstract idea draw from his mind rather then external influence.

[Fenris]

I disagree Kat, the brain does not need to develop, it already has done by the time someone reaches adulthood.

Buy his brain might be "physically" developped but he has never even received a stimulus therefore his mental state is not more advanced than nil, except for his vital functions.

Physicly it is the same as the brain of any other adult.

But mentally it's oblivion.

Mentaly it would be very different, having no memories of any form to drw upon, its thoughts would be purely abstract and purely philosophical

Even abstract thoughts have bases on reality. A thought is based on the stimulus and experience received in your life.

having no evidence to draw upon for any of its thoughts to come to being, it would have no sence of 'I' to 'to be' but it might well, in its own abstract way, think, 'Am I'. From that step onwards the mind can think many things without external input. When Democrites thought of the atom, he had no proof, indeed, he had nothing around him that he could draw from the idea of the atom, as such it was very much an abstract idea draw from his mind rather then external influence.

Someone in that state would not even be able tot hink. Did you know that when you have no more external stimulus (like in an isolation box, for example, or when you reach high level of meditation skills and I believe also when you dream), your mind auto-stimulate itself, through hallucinations, for example. Well when your mind cannot even stimulate itself because it doesn't even KNOW what it is feel, hear, see,... And someone will not think either, because the faculty of thinking comes from the external world, you see something, you are intrigued by it, "what purpose does it serve,..." but when there is nothing, you can't learn to ask yourself questions.

Animals including humans have insticts and feelings built upon their DNA code and that alone is enough to stimulate mind to have thoughts, even if they might not be complex as ours.

But these instincts and feeling are based on external stimulus. You don't come with feelings, thoughts and knowledge. You are born with certain ways to react to certain stimulus.

[Ragabash]

But these instincts and feeling are based on external stimulus. You don't come with feelings, thoughts and knowledge. You are born with certain ways to react to certain stimulus.

Insticts that are built upon our DNA code does not require outside stimilants always and can be activated by the DNA code itself rather then outside stimulant.

Human mind is always connected to body and that is enough to activate certain insticts what can cause certain changes inside the subconscious and activate otherwise "blank" mind.

Example:

Human mind is able to feel certain changes that happen inside the body once it reaches adulthood and activate certain DNA codes to send messages to the human subconscious that is able to create stimulants for toughts.

[Fenris]

Insticts that are built upon our DNA code does not require outside stimilants always and can be activated by the DNA code itself rather then outside stimulant.

Human mind is always connected to body and that is enough to activate certain insticts what can cause certain changes inside the subconscious and activate otherwise "blank" mind.

Example:

Human mind is able to feel certain changes that happen inside the body once it reaches adulthood and activate certain DNA codes to send messages to the human subconscious that is able to create stimulants for toughts.

What are you talking about? Send message to subcounscious that is able to create stimulants for thoughts? This is no scientific notions at all at least, because 1) the subconscious is not a scientific notion and 2) create stimulants for thoughts? Explain what you mean by that?

I think yes he will have thoughts, he will wonder why he has to take a leak, he will wonder why he is alive, he will wonder about many things, his hunger, etc. He just will not care about, or know I should say, more human things in life such as marriage, sex, etc etc.

But feeling to have to take a leak falls in the sense of feeling. He doesn'T even know he has to take a leak, it just flows down without him noticing. Same thing for hunger, people would feed him without him being even aware of it. He wouldn't even know there is people around him.

[MasterAdnin]

But feeling to have to take a leak falls in the sense of feeling. He doesn'T even know he has to take a leak, it just flows down without him noticing. Same thing for hunger, people would feed him without him being even aware of it. He wouldn't even know there is people around him.

True, but his brain would still be functioning, and he would still realize he exists. Even if he cannot feel the outside, he still is aware of his own existence and would question himself in his mind. Just because he cannot feel externally, does not mean his mind is not functioning.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Katrina]

Just because a brain physically develops does not mean that it mentally develops. Anyway, there are three (I beleive) ways that the brain receives information. One, through the spinal cord, which I suppose is internal information to the brain, which, is not received since this person cannot feel. Two, information is received through external influence and senses, which as we have discovered, cannot be perceived by this person. And three, is the information that is extracted from your brain to your body to perform certain movements, etc. This cannot be completed because the messages sent by the spinal cord cannot be felt, thus are not sent to the brain, and thus no external information is there to be sent out.

Sure a mind can physically develop, but, if I am correct, brain cells can be in either a resting state or a 'on' state which triggers activity. Wouldn't this person have all of their cells in this resting state, since mentally they cannot develop?

[Amorphos]

Self is a relative term, i would say that the actual 'you' is present previous to and from birth then also after death, there is no difference. Transience surrounds it yet 'it' remains the same as a baby a child and an adult.

Let us say then that we have taken away as many of the brains functions as is possible to do before one dies... [the brain has to have a certain amount of functionality to live]

The being would remain the same! just because one is without the functionalities of the brain that are not present or have been lost, this doesnt mean that we do not have the quality of 'mind'! When we sleep we loose much of our functionality and are largely not connected to the memory, which is why we do not remember our dreams. Yet are we really not present during any part of sleep? And are we lesser i.e. does the actual 'you' become lesser according to how awake or aware you are! It seams to me that one kind of awareness changes to another and that is all, it is the same with meditation techniques, we become more aware of our senses and apparently this means that our consciousness is increased until the point when we 'reach' enlightenment or total awareness. But awareness and its opposite are simply different sides of the same coin. A baby is only aware of its immediacy whereas the enlightened mind is aware of the full array of sensual experience. But think of the senses as like a hand; the sixth sense is actually the primary sense looped through a given sense usually sight – as in second sight. Dogs and many animals have a sixth sense in the form of second smelling [cant think of a better way to say it]. At birth the hand of the senses is only slightly open and we can only sense our immediate surroundings, our sight is blurred to the point of blindness etc. at death the hand of the senses is fully closed and we cannot sense anything – that is to say we cannot distinguish between things and there is not differentiation of the singular sense. The senses are simply expressions of that one sense, if we are deprived of any of these expressions [just as with aspects of the mind] then the others are usually enhanced, as like blind people can perceive their environment more acutely, if not then the base sense [the one, the whole and primary sense – base of the hand] will be enhanced and we will attain 'pure thought' which is another kind of enlightenment at the other end of the scale. The mind, the observer, perception and the senses are natures of the actual 'you' and this is not an inner self nor is it an outer self it is simply that which remains so throughout time and its ever changing environment of which thought and the senses are expressions. In the egyptian book of the dead, after death there is described a process of the opening of the hand such as the ritual and spell of 'the opening of the mouth' and of the eyes ect, this is showing us how the cycle of life [and afterlife {primarily}] is a process of the opening and closing of the hand.

This mirrors – as one would expect – the very nature of reality, for if there were not the singular the whole and the transient; the one and the multiple, then there would only be chaos as transience needs a stream of unity to bind it. The self or whatever else you wish to call it must match these basic universal 'values' or be condemned to an extraneous existence. In other words it is impossible to consider the nature of what we are without considering the nature of reality itself, as we are not outside of it and nothing else can be.

.