Okay, how's this for a philosophy question?

Question

Suppose a child is born devoid of all senses; he has no sight, no hearing, no touch, no smell, no taste...nothing. There's no way whatsoever for him to receive any sensations from the outside world. And suppose this child is fed intravenously and otherwise attended to and kept alive for eighteen years in this state of existence.

The question is then asked:

Does this eighteen-year-old person have a thought in his head? If so, where does it come from? How does he get it?

Answer 1

It's true - the absence of memory can provide no thought, and the absence of stimulus can provide no memory. There is no language, aural or visual, with which to think. The only thing that comes to mind that would have any impression at all would be the birth of this child, when his lungs turn on and his body temperature lessened by a hit from a blast of the cold outside world. This event would probably replay endlessly on a loop the entire time, and the child probably would have no means of controlling it.

However, coherent thought and self-awareness do not necessarily coincide. But I think that self-awareness as we know it cannot be formed without knowledge of other people and things to compare ourselves to.

Great question.

Answer 2

The eighteen-year-old would still be able to stimulate his own brain without the influence of outside stimuli. Walking, talking, thinking - all these is a product of the will of the individual and is rarely dependent on outside stimuli.

Throughout time, the kid would learn to produce his own thoughts via sight, sound, taste, touch, smell - in a sense it would be like a dream, but the kid would have complete control over it.

Outside stimuli of the brain is random. Many times, one does not know what brain part will be stimulated next. But since the kid will grow up with stimulating his own brain, it will not be random and everything that the eighteen-year-old experiences would be created by him - according to his own will. In a sense, he would become 'god' of his reality, controlling everything he experiences and creating his own destiny.

Answer 3

No. If a person cannot hear, they cannot put together a verbal thought, if they cannot see a visual perception of an image will not develop, without the sense of touch they could not decipher hot, cold, hard, soft, etc. The body would just exist and operate, so to speak, as a machine.

The brain will function as a control center to keep the vital parts operating, but the sensory part of the brain would not develop.

Answer 4

I don't see how without ever having any sort of stimulation from any of the known senses that a human could have any sort of mental event. It would be like being born in a coma or in a vegetative state. I wonder if an EEG would pick up any brain waves? In a brain-dead patient an EEG shows electrocortical silence.
If an EEG was done and it showed brain-death then I would say there are no thoughts in his head. If it showed some sort of brain wave activity then it would just reinforce in my mind just how little I really know. As far as guessing where those "thoughts" would come from...well that is one of the most beautiful mysteries of life.

Answer 5

I doubt it. Without input, no processing, ergo no output - in form of thought or anything else, I think. I understand people have emerged from a similar coma after many years, but personally I think keeping such an individual alive at great expense is both an assault on the individual concerned, and a tragic waste of resources - especially when there are so many individuals deprived of resources which could allow them to live significant lives, affecting others. Euthenasia may be a "slippery slope" in the hands of the unethical, but with reasonable control and supervision it makes more sense to me than our cultural morbid anxiety over death(especially as I grow old!).

Answer 6

That question is an elusive but appropriate illustration of the inherent futility of human philosophy; The self contradiction of it's own existence. What philosophy seeks essentially is it's own antithesis. You could just as easily ask if that person really exists.

It's a good question though almost too improbable to be applicable as a point of debate. I suspect discussion of this question would inevitably converge on the matter of human existence. What does it mean to be human? Are we merely the sum of our experience? (the interesting thing is that all we have are memories.)

Consider that even the present is recognized by our brain as stimulus which, because time is a constant progression, result in memories. Therefore, are we just a constant reaction to a fluid intake of experience? having theoretically eliminated the senses, (means of input) your question alludes to the very nature of self awareness. Consider too that the senses are only forms of stimulus to which we react. The origin of that reaction is the key but since it exists before and apart from the stimulus I would have to conclude that, while there would not be an established thought process (based on the logical algorithms we learn) there would still be an awareness.

The awareness that humans posses, I suspect, is not based on the inconsequence of thought structure. The human spirit exists apart from what the mind learns (we each only receive a portion of understanding in our lifetimes). It is therefore not the sum of them but rather we, through experience are merely given the means through which to manifest what we inherently possess.

The problem with philosophy it that it seeks to understand human nature, with human reasoning. Humans cannot understand themselves anymore that the eye can see itself. Self examination in its most intense forms is an infinite spiral endlessly pursuing an oblivion of reason.

It's an interesting question none the less. To answer it would require a definition of thought itself and that is beyond us. I would say, though, that such a person would not have thoughts, not ones in the way we are taught to understand them. Then again our perception of what a thought is, is governed by our own experiences and are therefore prejudice. As with all philosophy there are no answers by the rules thereof. Truth exists outside the limited machinations of our understanding. Your question challenges our established ideas about the nature of the human mind and our own perception of reality. Kudos friend.

Answer 7

Surely he has some thoughts. Some sort of activity will happen in his brain. But as far as we're concerned, that child's inner world would be completely alien to us, and vice-versa.
Sometimes, we have ideas at night while we sleep. We wake up and try to remember those ideas. They make absolutely no sense and don't relate to the world. Yet, during sleep, those thoughts made perfect sense. I would assume such a child would permanently live in that kind of inner world.

Answer 8

You didnt say he was an imbecile / couldnt walk, run, skip or jump / could feel "internal" pain / or in a comatose state / or in a tetraplegic state

so of course he has thoughts

He can experience sensations "internally" therefore things like pain, hunger pangs, hormones or even a fart will stimulate his thought processes.

Also eighteen years of hospital routine would certainly give plenty of stimulation i.e. being rolled over everyday to change the bed, being bathed or propped up for a sponge bath, changing the cathiter etc

Answer 9

The answer to the question is easy. But that's if you are not a bi-polar thinker...meaning you don't see Life as black or white, on or off, one or zero, for and against, up or down, yes or no...you get the idea?.

So your question implies that their are two acceptable answers: yes or no. But the true answer is: we really don't know. Only the mind of the beholder would know.

Now the question you need to ask is why are we not comfortable with not knowing and is important for the answers to be yes or no? Can there be no answer? Now that's a philosophy question.

Answer 10

If this child's sensory apparatus is totally non-existent, then it seems likely that the entire brain is damaged. Without the "brain food" of sensory impressions, there would be no more thought present, than there is in a foetus, floating in amniotic fluid. No language, no imaginined pictures, no music, just some kind of unenlightened satori. Like in a coma.