Submitted 10 hours ago by zriUyt@lemmy.world to [deleted]
You die and your consciousness wakes up in a void. You have none of the 5 senses - no external stimuli at all. Do you think it would be possible to learn anything new just by rehashing things from memory or does learning require external stimuli?
You need to read Asimov’s The Last Answer.
Thanks! Longtime Asimov fan but this is the first time I’ve ever read this story. Good one.
There’s that idea that your thoughts are determined by quantum particles interacting with your brain. So if you still have a body, even without your senses, you might still be able to just pull information out of the aether through this process.
I think you could make a case that you could learn new forms of pure math if you had a method of storing information in your brain.
Depends on what “You” is.
If:
You = Universe (as in Pantheism), then yes, you learn from yourself.
You’re asking the unknowable.
Not that we can’t play along and have some fun, but that’s all it is.
I think the important part of your question comes down to what you could learn, rather than if.
Consciousness, in part, requires a progression of thought. Meaning that you have one thought, it resolves, the next thought arises, and so on. There’s an arrow of time to it. So, each thought along the way is a form of learning. It is, however, a limited form because you’re limited in scope. If the only perception possible is self perception, you can learn as much about your self as there is self to learn.
Without stimuli, a perception of external things, you can’t learn anything other than the self. There might as well not be anything but the self when you have no way of interacting with it.
Now, if you want to play woowoo with it, you might think, in this formless state, and by thinking discover that you have new ways of perceiving things, new senses in a sense. Or perhaps that you have to learn how to perceive whatever state surrounds you with your previously existing senses in a similar way to how someone that goes blind has to relearn how to use their other senses in the absence of sight. It isn’t so much that the senses no longer exist, but that the mind has to adapt to entirely new signals that it hasn’t figured out yet.
Past memory isn’t necessary to learn new things in your hypothetical state, only the ability to form new memories.
Sitting wherever you are now, close your eyes, swaddle yourself up in a quiet space. Let yourself think with as little stimulation as possible by partially blocking your senses and making what’s left as uniform as possible. In that state, the only changing stimulus (as a thought experiment) is your mind so long as you stay still.
We still learn in a state like that. Sensory deprivation as a form of meditation and inner exploration exists. And you can learn in that state. Simply learning how to exist in that state is the first thing you learn. Learning to lean into it without trying to generate sound or touch is part of the process. You kinda have to learn that to be able to explore your mind.
I would say that, within this scenario, death would serve to reduce or eliminate the “need” to crave, to chase, stimulation. Without a body providing non stop sensory signals, the mind that was once tethered to a bundle of perception via a brain would no longer be a slave to that brain. That craving for stimulation is part of why people have trouble with sensory deprivation. It’s why, in a perfect silence, we’ll hear things anyway, that humming or ringing of the ears, nerves, and brain trying to process something that isn’t there.
Our brains expect to “hear” things, so it generates a “ghost” sound akin to a dial tone.
But without the brain, maybe we would be free of that, and exist in a state where thought is the only thing that is.
Requires external stimuli. The human brain is kind of designed to take in lots of information and process it. Interact with things etc.
If I remember that correctly, the brain mostly interacts with itself and only a little part is new “outside” information
The work we experience is just a construct of our brain and it wouldn’t be stable, if it only relied on external stimuli.
As for example our eyes don’t really take in a full picture, but only small parts, and the brain uses existing models to adapt to the new inputs.
So we’re mostly living in our heads anyway.
As far as I remember, these experiments have been done. Like letting people float in luke warm water in complete darkness and depriving them of any sensory input. And that seems to lead to hallucinations, anxiety... And is more a turture method than anything else. I'm not sure if the brain takes permanent damage from that. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't like it.
But sure, the brain is more tightly interconnected within itself, than it is coupled to the outside world. But I think that holds true for lots of complex systems other than the brain. Their thing is to be tightly coupled on the inside and more loosely to the outside. But the whole point of the brain is to be a computer which forms models about the world. That's why evolution gave us a (more advanced) brain. It's kind of pointless without an interactive connection to the world. And not designed for that.
One would go crazy. This would be an extreme verion on solitary confinement.
To the question. One may learn lots if untrue things.
neidu3@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
In theory, but that would be more in the realm of philosophy. You can think hard about something you already know and deduce knew knowledge from there, but you would have no way of confirming that knowledge through putting it to a test.
In short, you end up like the ancient Greeks who could come up with a bunch of hypothetical statements, and could only assume that they were correct.
naeap@sopuli.xyz 6 hours ago
Well, math is a thing.
You can deduce basic logic and build up on it to not complex structures.
There are quite some worlds to explored in that realm, that are only build up on basic logic