If you were just a brain; what would life be like?
I need to get someone else's perspective on this.
What would life be like without a body i.e. you are just a brain/mind/consciousness.
You might find this easier to visualise as;
You are born in a body without any senses. You are kept alive by artificial means, but you don't know it.
No external stimulus, no language, nothing. What do you think life would be like?
Empty white space devoid of anything?
Or perhaps you would build a universe in your mind, develop language, and eventually end up reading posts on a philosophy forum?
Curious to get some insight. If you're not a figment of my imagination of course.
What would life be like without a body i.e. you are just a brain/mind/consciousness.
You might find this easier to visualise as;
You are born in a body without any senses. You are kept alive by artificial means, but you don't know it.
No external stimulus, no language, nothing. What do you think life would be like?
Empty white space devoid of anything?
Or perhaps you would build a universe in your mind, develop language, and eventually end up reading posts on a philosophy forum?
Curious to get some insight. If you're not a figment of my imagination of course.
Comments (26)
Then you could refute Witty's private language argument, except nobody else would know.
I don't think a brain cut off from the senses would amount to anything coherent in thought or experience.
Pretty sure - read sometime ago in a scientific paper - that if this brain had the life, the existence that an human normaly has, it would eventually adapt - if the consciouness didn't go mad in the process - to this new kind of existence of only perceiving the world with the "power" of psyche. This is one of the problems of future body transplant. What if we constructed a artificial body - not organic - and just putted the still alive brain of a person in it, and then connected the nervous sistem to this encase. It would eventually learn to live again like a child learns when it is growing up, or it would break completely?
Quoting JoeyB
Every mind is already its own world. We pick information from the physical world, and process it to our own "conscious world".
In this respect, perhaps an insight might be to recall Helen Keller’s words in her essay “Before the Soul Dawn”:
“Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was a no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of nothingness.
I did not know that I knew aught, or that I lived or acted or desired. I had neither will nor intellect. I was carried along to objects and acts by a certain blind natural impetus. I had a mind which caused me to feel anger, satisfaction, desire. These two facts led those about me to suppose that I willed and thought. I can remember all this, not because I knew that it was so, but because I have tactual memory. It enables me to remember that I never contracted my forehead in the act of thinking. I never viewed anything beforehand or chose it. I also recall tactually the fact that never in a start of the body or a heart-beat did I feel that I loved or cared for anything. My inner life, then, was a blank without past, present, or future, without hope or anticipation, without wonder or joy or faith.”
And her awakening upon beginning to know language, when she first appreciated the relationship between a finger-movement against her palm and the idea of ‘water’:
“That word startled my soul, and it awoke, full of the spirit of the morning, full of joyous, exultant song. Until that day my mind had been like a darkened chamber, waiting for words to enter and light the lamp, which is thought”.
(As an aside, notice here the striking contrast between the non-world of conscious unconsciousness first described and the bounding, fulsome world of metaphor that springs forth in that final paragraph, metaphor enabled by language).
And this from someone lacking but sound and sight and not the other inputs of sensation such as touch and feel and taste and internal body states.
I imagine there would be no organized thoughts - it would be a life more similar to a lower life form.
Basically this. Born meaning with the brain of an infant. There'd be no way to progress. Hence a controversial political arguement I seek to avoid.
Now as an adult... could be different. Not to say better. By far. Not hard to imagine really. Just casually lay in bed and keep your eyes closed for a few hours. Of course, you couldn't say anything. Or hear anyone. Sounds like a future dystopian jail honestly.
You would hover above ground via some special simulation effect, or by some other means.
Any news would be a information deposit, and you unconsciously react, tensing, growing.
When you say "you", you're referring to me, and I am a body, which very importantly includes a brain. Are you presuming, without argument, that I and you are brains or minds first, and only bodies by a lucky accident of evolution?
You picked up on some bias' in my question that I had not :)
However;
How can you be so sure you are a body "which very importantly includes a brain"?
Everything speaks for it, and nothing against it.
I personally downloaded your consciousness into a computer, after you died (in the traditional sense) on May 24th 2020.
The technology to do so has not yet become apparent to the mainstream, but I am a pioneer.
You think nothing has changed, but you are living in an exact simulation of your life before death.
Everything you ever were, or will be, is in my code.
Now you have something that speaks against it. Please prove me otherwise.
No, I think what you've given me is a popular idea from science fiction, which some "pioneers" think might be actually possible, but which we have no reason to think actually is.
I could choose a less popular idea if you prefer?
The point was that you cannot be sure you are "a body, which very importantly includes a brain."
I think I can, and I am. And I answered this already.
I don't want to fall out as you provided me insight into my own bias and I am grateful for that.
However, the question was "how" do you know?
You have not answered this already.
I think I did answer it. If nothing speaks for your hypothesis, and everything against it, then why am I the one who's gotta do all the proving?
I'm a benevolent caretaker. Carry on.
EDIT: Welcome to the forum :-)
So we're just deflecting at each other now.
One way you could go is to argue that because it's possible, as far as I know, that I am just a brain in a vat hooked up to some cables, or just an encoded consciousness in your computer, as you described, then there's always some doubt about the reality of reality. There is nothing I can point to that proves definitively that this is not the case.
But in my view, that unfalsifiability is not a strength.
Brain activity would be severely limited because the brain requires input from the getgo to function--not just normally, but to function at all. Well, the brainstem features would maintain your respiration and heartbeat, stuff like that, but otherwise, you'd be a non-entity.
Quoting JoeyB
This is the "brains in a vat" deal. Much discussed. It gets at various topics, like solipsism -- I am the only being, others exist in my imagination, etc.
Brains have to be accomplished by consciousness. And it would be the consciousness that feels like something.
Brains are just patterns of matter.