On 15 August 2014 12:24, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/14/2014 4:58 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 15 August 2014 06:51, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8/14/2014 6:45 AM, Pierz wrote: >> >> That is a weird assumption to me and completely contrary to my own >> intuition. Certainly a person born and kept alive in sensory deprivation >> will be extremely limited in the complexity of the mental states s/he can >> develop, but I would certainly expect that such a person would have >> consciousness, ie., that there is something it would be like to be such a >> person. Indeed I expect that such a person would suffer horribly. Such a >> conclusion requires no mystical view of consciousness. It is based purely >> on biology - we are programmed with biological expectations/predispositions >> which when not met, cause us to suffer. As much as the brain can't be >> separated completely from other matter, it *does* seem to house >> consciousness in a semi-autonomous fashion. >> >> So how did you suffer in the womb? >> > > But there's a lot of environmental interaction in the womb. You're > undercutting your own case! To do a 180 degree, it would make more sense to > claim that consciousness requires an environment because even before we're > born we're already getting plenty of stimuli. > > A fetus does get some environmental interaction, but I don't see how that > proves it is necessary. >
I imagine it could be used as part of a case for it being necessary (and your comments about kittens and wolf children indicate that you do, too). I haven't yet grasped the case for environmental interaction being necessary myself, so I may be missing the point, but FWIW there are a few points I can see here... You responded to Pierz's suggestion that a brain could be conscious without having experienced any external stimuli by saying "So how did you suffer in the womb?" To which I would say... First off, your comment is phrased as though it answers Pierz's point. That is, it appears to be a riposte, especially given that you start "So..." Your question is phrased to suggest that if Pierz *can't *tell you how he suffered in the womb, his suggestion is invalidated. The comments I made, and am about to make, are predicated on the assumption that my understanding of your comment (as I've outlined it here) is correct. In my opinion your comment fails to adequately answer, or even address, Pierz's point for two reasons. As I already mentioned, the womb isn't an environment involving sensory deprivation; and your (apparent) assumption that Peirz should be able to tell you how he suffered in the womb relies on him being able to remember his experiences in the womb. But as we know nowadays, the infant brain is more or less completely rewired during the first year or so of life, so it's unlikely that many memories of the womb survive to adulthood. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
