Ok, here is a scenario for you guys. Suppose a boy is born without any senses, no sight, sound, touch, taste or smell. Let us say this boy is raised and kept alive for eighteen years. By that time, does he have a thought in his head?

I would say yes. He may not have any knowledge of the outside world, but he would still be thinking. It would be very primitive compaired to ours since he doesn't know anything. But suppose he felt happy when he was eating and getting full. He wouldn't be able to taste the food and wouldn't tell that he's happy, but it would caus a reaction of somesort that would generate brain activity. Thus, on one level or another, he would be thinking.

But what do you think?

Interesting question. This idea had never occurred to me.

I tend to believe that yes, he can think, even without any knowledge of the world (not even the most basic sensations). But as you say, his thoughts would be extremely primitive.

I think you are confusing neuronic activity with sentient thoughts. There is no way thinking could exist within that mind. Thoughts require knowledge no matter how primitive. And knowledge must come from source, it must be learned.

I think of the conscience parts of the mind like a physical machine of neurons. If nothing is ever learned through the senses then the machine is essentially non-functional, because, it is in a permanent state of potentiality which is never realized. Think of this state of like the REVERSE of being in a coma, or in a vegetable state. I doubt any living thing without senses (ie a nervous system) could live for very long. Even sensations such as hunger or pleasure which create mental perceptions (phenomena: categories of perception) require some sensory information from the para-/sympthatetic nervouse system, touch, taste, smell, hearing and sight.

He could still sense tht he's hungry. He wouldn't know what that ment, and he wouldn't know what food is let alone have the means to get some on his own, but it would create an emotional response of some sort, thus linking to the brain and thus having a thought, primitive and bland, but a thought none the less.

If he can't feel anything, how could he feel if he's starving or full?

This is my point. Even the "feeling" of hunger, is based on para-sympathetic neuro sensations in the body. These sensations create the mental perception we identify as hunger or satiation. Without access to the outside world, the brain is a machine with no response catalysts from the senses. The concsiousness is just empty and passive locked in a body. Thoughts cannot exists even on the most fundemental levels, in this state; presuming thoughts can be tested as neurological activity in the sensory and processing parts of the brain.

However one might ponder, an existential arguement of Existence preceding essence. In the purest state of existence, "pure being" as they say. Might this be processed as a "thought" in the mind? That is to say, does the mind have thoughts in of itself. The logical positivism arguement I have made cannot address this, becuase such a theory lies beyond the empirical evidence which is currently available, and therefore joins the rhelm of mystical philosophy. The best case is that it is "possible" one "thought" exists, that is the feeling of "Existing in/for itself" but this thought is not linguistic, or identifiable to the lonely mind which may experience it. TO simplify what I am saying:

"Pure being," the feeling of existing-for-itself, (or in-of-itself) might be considered a thought, in a mind with no senses. However, such a mind would have no recognition of this feeling, it would merely "be." Again, this could never be empirically discovered, but it is an interesting theory.

Good thoughts. You could also say that possibly information could be inserted into the brain's memory. Of course I doubt that technology that would make that possible is around, but I believe it is possible.

A brain inside a human such as the one we're discussing, let's call him Tom, still has the same potential as all other brains. Therefor, let's assume the technology I described above does exist. Let's assume we could create a virtual world that we could quite literally manufacture and then insert into his mind. It could either obey the law of existence, or exceed it. Of course, this wouldn't give him any of his senses back, but it would put him in a prolonged, permanent state of dream, until, of course, he dies.

My point is, is that a brain will do what it does with whatever information it receives. If it receives nothing, it will simply exist. If it receives information in the form of sight, touch, taste, smell or sound, it will advance. If it receives artificial intelligence, despite the inability for senses to provide it information, it will still advance using that intelligence, but it will do so basically in a dream.

Of course I can't prove any of this. It's simply what I think would happen. I've put much thought into this ever since I was very young. I don't know why, this question has always fascinated me, and I've never heard anyone else ask it before.

The brain will think, even without input. It might become the highest level thinker in intuitive reasoning as the person (Tom) ages. It will be a person unable to communicate those ideas, those thoughts it had processed and evolved through in more simplistic ways than most of us would consider. Even though there wouldn't be words, there would be some recognition by the brain that the body "exists", even though it can't recognize it. Kind of like having a faith that there is God, perhaps. You believe it's true while having nothing concrete to point to in order to prove/disprove.

The brain would question, would test, would try to sense, would continue to control involuntary bodily functions that may ultimately be fully voluntary at some point. The mind is a very powerful thing. It can increase blood-pressure, pulse rate, body temperature, etc.

Yes, "he/she" would still think... still reason things out (albeit not using a spoken language).

How can that be? What would it reason about? It has no information, except possibly minimal awareness of its "Being-for-itself." The highest level thinker in intuitive reasoning? What would it be intuiting? How would a brain with no access to a world outside it, even its own body be able to make use of intuition?

If you can't recognize something, how do you know its there?

I see what you're getting at. But in this case even faith would not be possible, in my opinion. "Faith" is a learned concept, and since Tom has never learned anything, how would he know what faith is?

How would tom compose questions without language? How would he test anything, and where would he collect data? He NO SENSES... Yes ofcourse he will breathe and his heart would beat, but all of those are involuntaryn actions, as in they do not require thinking to perform them.


Ok Ok...I see where you're trying to go. Rationalism might support Tom's thinking ability. However, not Cartesian rationalism, because his first meditations, requires lingual abilities, ie "the great trickster" and unviseral doubt....are all Learned!

At best, we might suppose that Tom, before being "born" glimpsed Plato's eternal "Forms" and somewhere has knowledge of them in his mind. But again, I mean, that's a mystical assumption, you have no way to determine that.

As for Apriori thoughts, (thoughts prior to experience) such as those discussed by Kant, are actually phenomenal mental processing structures, like "Cause-Effect." Our minds are capable of categorizing sensory information with these categories of perception. But inorder to make use of these apriori categories, one or Tom would need a perception to begin with. But poor Tom is a man, without a perception. Tom simply "is." He is in a state of "pure being." If anything, we might say he is in Nirvana?

The boy would still be able to think. You see, the original statement said nothing about blocking hormones, enzymes, inner neural receptors, and all of "that gunk" inside the body that notifies the brain if something is wrong. An example of a similar situation to this: fetuses and embryos inside the mother's womb. The small combination of cells can produce thoughts as soon as 10 weeks into pregnancy, if not sooner. That thing is still stuck inside of the mother's womb and can't see, hardly has a developed brain and limbs, the neural receptors and brain won't be fully functioning until the age of 2 or 3 years old. The fetus can recognize its mother's voice at about this 10 week period and have a preset preference to this sound (yes I know that involves the sense of sound, which Tom does not have present, but this is a similar situation, not exact replica). The brain, even in this prenatal time period, can still produce thoughts. These thoughts are referenced by experiences that are not the same as experiences that others would experience. In my opinion it would be close to impossible for anyone that lacks so many senses to survive in the first place, but I do think that it would still have cognitive processes.

Anyways with what you were saying about everything that is learned, this is a classic example of the Nature vs. Nurture debate. There are many things in life that are learned and many things that innate, an automatic biological reflex. This is not only the typical "hit your kneecap and your leg jerks" reflex, but a cognitive reflex as well. People naturally develop thoughts, granted these thoughts may be enhanced by physical experiences through life, but they are thoughts nonetheless.

We named this 18 year old male, Tom, for practical reasons.

Maerceci, I see what your're getting at. But by your own admission, the example of the
"thinking fetus" is not applicable here. A) Tom is not a fetus B) A fetus has minimal sensory sensations, and thus does have some minor cognition. Tom has none. A reflex is non-voluntary, and therefore does not require thoughts. Assuming Human beings are the only species capable of sentience, then we can say that abilities shared amonst animals such as built in responses, or "instincts" such as "Fight or Flight" are not part of the thinking capabilities of the brain, these reactions are regulated by homeostatic feedback-loops in the body. The concious part of the brain, by its very nature, of being neuronic, requires that thoughts be reactions to stimuli, but since Tom never experiences external stimuli, outside the "Mind in of itself" he never "thinks." Tom is asleep.

Of the several arguements of I have compiled, I tried to examine this from several angels: empirically, rationally, and existentially. The one possible out, might be an eastern perspective. Nirvana might be considered the cessation of attachment to temporal reality, thus the cessation of suffering. We might conclude that Tom is in this sort of state. Are their thoughts within Nirvana?