RAISED CHILDREN WITHOUT SOCIETY

Diposkan pada oleh Skeptical Inquirer

As an experiment, if i bring a new born baby, and lock him up in a blank room, and create an environment where he can’t learn a word, or even see anything, but at the same time provide him the basic needs for survival. If i let him out after 20 years. Do you think he will be self conscious? Aware of his own existence as a separate identity? With no knowledge inside his mind, he doesn’t know what language and words mean, words such as self or life or love, etc.

For him these words will be an automatic response from his body aka feeling.
Will he know if he is alive or not?

In this case he will function naturally like any animal.

And any action or movement he takes is born out of the natural self expression of the body. Uneffected by society or culture or anything else. Since he has no knowledge like you.
And if i think about it , who is more alive? Or closer to the reality of life? In my opinion is him.
It doesn’t matter if he can’t function probably in the society, because society it self is something artificial that requires only knowledge. And I think the more knowledge you have, the more self conscious you become, because knowledge is only empowering your identity aka ego. And it will be a completely different reality than him. Completely different perceptions.

What do you think?

Also ignore some details, dont focus on shit like the baby will die because there is no communication , etc

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioglossia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiosyncrasy

Nope, he’ll probably be a severely impeded cripple with emotional, psychological and behavioral problems that would probably never allow him to fit in or adapt to any social milieu in a functional manner. Not to mention his eyesight would be underdeveloped, he’d probably be slightly retarded and potentially psychopathic altogether.

We don’t really “know” anything. Society is based on feelings: “This makes me feel good, therefore it is right. This makes me feel bad, therefore it is wrong.”

I think a person who matured in the way you describe would have a basic sense of this just because they could still feel. Even if you gave them food and water through tubes directly into their body. As long as there were things to become aware of like the tubes, the feeling of being fed or being hungry, the blank room itself, the person would still develop feelings and have a very basic understanding of the world.

I think it rather depends on the definition of consciousness. It’s expression such person would be severely lacking in. Therefore you wouldn’t be able to tell if he’s conscious or not. Nevertheless the person could still have some specific sense of identity, however I don’t think we would be able to comprehend it, it would be the same as him trying to comprehend our society. Also what makes you think society is in any way artificial? Society is a product of humans trying to satisfy their biological needs. With consciousness we have a new way of managing information, which leads to faster evolution and new structures. But we never transcended our biology, it still governs major part of our behavior and in turn creates societal systems. We are still animals, albeit quite unique in some aspects.

There are cases of young children who survive for years in the jungle and without getting any previous communication skill. Once they are discovered, they never get integrated.

http://theweek.com/articles/471164/6-cases-children-being-raised-by-animals

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/06/young-girl-found-living-monkeys-northern-india/

Anyone who digs deep into the reality becomes insane. so i don’t think being insane is something bad

Thanks that was interesting, so the cure is pointless, her state is beyond mental repair.

Feral or severely isolated children tend to be functionally retarded as adults. Your “self-knowledge” is, overwhelmingly, driven by culture. No culture, no self-identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair

There was a similar experiment conducted – not by scientists of course, by some king if I remember correctly – to prove that if you don’t talk to babies, they will speak in the tongue of God which was thought to be Latin.

So they took some babies, and the nurses weren’t allowed to speak to them and show them affection. They all died. Of course it’s questionable if they really died because if neglect, or due to other circumstances like hygiene, but I believe that the baby in your experiment would simply die.

Anyone who digs deep into the reality becomes insane. so i don’t think being insane is something bad

 

Tinggalkan komentar

Diterbitkan oleh Skeptical Inquirer

• Central For Inquiry (CFI) • Skeptical Inquirer • Free Inquiry • Point of Inquiry ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Yang nyata ialah manusia itu sendiri bukan tuhan, bukan manusia pikiran tuhan, tetapi tuhan adalah pikiran manusia, agama tidak merubah kenyataan dan mengukir sejarah, tetapi manusia itu sendiri yang merubah dan mengukirnya. Bukan tuhan yang menciptakan manusia tetapi tuhan adalah angan-angan manusia. Agama tidak merubah kenyataan tetapi menusia bisa merubah kenyataan. 2. Agama ialah proyeksi manusia : tuhan, neraka, surga, malaikat. Kenapa? Karena manusia butuh tempat untuk mencurahkan keluhan karena dunia tanpa hati, jadi penderitaan tempat lahirnya tuhan. Dengan demikian agama disebut keterasingan manusia dari kehidupan karena struktur masyarakat tidak mengizinkan secara penuh perealisasian diri sendiri, sehingga manusia membangun kerajaan angan-angan (agama). Dalam kenyataan manusia menderita lalu ia mengharapkan surga 3. kenapa agama khayalan, karena agama tidak inderawi, sedangkan manusia inderawi, manusia penuh dengan kepastian sedangkan agama berbau unsur spekulatif, unsur yang tidak bisa diterima secara ilmiah 4. Jadi agama dan tuhan ialah ciptaan manusia itu sendiri, tetapi manusia itu sendiri lupa dengan ciptaanya (seperti pada zaman jahiliyah dahulu sebelum nabi muhamad dating : orang-orang kafir zaman dahulu mengukir tuhan dari kayu dan batu, yang kemudian disembahnya, sama seperti kita kini yang memproyeksikan tuhan lalu menyembahnya). Agama penyembahan tuhan terhadap dirinya sendiri. Agama penyembahan manusia terhadap ciptaanya sendiri 5. Sehingga khayalan atau angan-angan itu mempunyai eksistensi realitas yang membuat manusia takut dan harus menyembahnya dan tuhan mempunyai hakikat lain yang manusia harus sembah. Sifat-sifat itu yang membuat manusia egois. 6. Penderitaan manusia ialah tempat lahirnya tuhan, penderitaan yang memaksa manusia mengasingkan diri ke dalam agama, itulah dasar yang menyebabkan manusia merasa butuh agama dan tuhan 7. Teologi harus diganti menjadi antropologi dan agama ialah candu rakyat. 8. Kritik agama hanya meruska bunga khayalan pada rantai, bukan bunganya yang harus dipatahkan tetapi rantai itu sendiri. Rantai (factor yang menyebabkan manusia mengasingkan diri ke dalam agama) 9. Kita seperti wayang dengan penuh kesadaran dan kemauan tetapi kita tidak bisa lepas dari tangan sang dalang. 10. Kalau semua ini benar, maka manusia bukan merealisasikan keinginanya tetapi mengharapkan berkah dariNYA (proyeksi manusia itu sendiri/perubahan pasif) 11. agama ialah keterbatasan: agama melarang kita bergaul dengan duniawi, sehingga kita hanya memikirkan surgawi Tanpa agama kita bisa hidup lebih baik, tanpa mengaharapkan hibah/welas asih dariNYA, hanya mengandalkan kenyataan dan diri sendiri. 12. Kepasrahan adalah kelemahan agama 13. Tuhan seperti halnya dengan setan, bila ia terus diyakini dengan adanya exsistensinya maka semakin berkuasalah ia, kita seperti member roh kepadanya dengan keyakinan kita. GROUP : https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientistsecularist