Molyneux Problem

[Philosophy Explorer]

The Molyneux problem dates back to the following question posed by William Molyneux to John Locke in the 17th century: if a man born blind, and able to distinguish by touch between a cube and a globe, were made to see, could he now tell by sight which was the cube and which was the globe before he touched them? The problem raises fundamental issues in the philosophy of mind.

PhilX

[WanderingLands]

I believe this ties into the art of memory, which I have created a thread pondering on that subject. It's because the blind man can actually remember not only the feel of those two shapes, but possibly the feel of direction of where those two objects are (by intuition).

[Philosophy Explorer]

I believe this ties into the art of memory, which I have created a thread pondering on that subject. It's because the blind man can actually remember not only the feel of those two shapes, but possibly the feel of direction of where those two objects are (by intuition).

What if this blind man were sitting and the objects were brought over to him?

PhilX

[WanderingLands]

I believe this ties into the art of memory, which I have created a thread pondering on that subject. It's because the blind man can actually remember not only the feel of those two shapes, but possibly the feel of direction of where those two objects are (by intuition).

What if this blind man were sitting and the objects were brought over to him?

PhilX

Perhaps at least he would be able to feel them or recall. It would be obvious, of course, that he could not be able to see these shapes, but maybe he could use other means such as what I have described.

[Greylorn Ell]

The Molyneux problem dates back to the following question posed by William Molyneux to John Locke in the 17th century: if a man born blind, and able to distinguish by touch between a cube and a globe, were made to see, could he now tell by sight which was the cube and which was the globe before he touched them? The problem raises fundamental issues in the philosophy of mind.

PhilX

He would immediately know which was which. And let's do an experiment to prove it, by taking a test child and raising him in pitch darkness for about 8 years, exposing him to various geometric objects, then turning on a very dim light.

The experiment will never be performed unless the Nazis or their ilk rise to power. Why not? It is not relevant. Its answer makes no difference, one way or another.

This kind of question exposes the irrelevancy of philosophy. The idea that someone would regard such a question relevant enough to give it a name, after the nitwit who proposed it, shows how irrelevant relevance is to philosophy.

The answer to your question is either yes or no. What difference would either answer make to other irrelevant philosophers, or to your irrelevant little philosophical life?

What is the point of even posing a question unless the answer makes a difference?

Greylorn

[HexHammer]

He would immediately know which was which. And let's do an experiment to prove it, by taking a test child and raising him in pitch darkness for about 8 years, exposing him to various geometric objects, then turning on a very dim light.

The experiment will never be performed unless the Nazis or their ilk rise to power. Why not? It is not relevant. Its answer makes no difference, one way or another.

This kind of question exposes the irrelevancy of philosophy. The idea that someone would regard such a question relevant enough to give it a name, after the nitwit who proposed it, shows how irrelevant relevance is to philosophy.

The answer to your question is either yes or no. What difference would either answer make to other irrelevant philosophers, or to your irrelevant little philosophical life?

What is the point of even posing a question unless the answer makes a difference

Well spoken! If you notice in some of his early threads, he says he copy the topics from another philosophy site, which I have googled, and indeed he gets many satisfying answers there, so what's the point of posting the very same topic if one already have the answer? That leaves me to conclude that PhilX only seeks excessive attentionwhoring AND he can't comprehend the answer, because he lacks very basic cognitive abilities ..in other words, he's a complete retard!

[Philosophy Explorer]

He would immediately know which was which. And let's do an experiment to prove it, by taking a test child and raising him in pitch darkness for about 8 years, exposing him to various geometric objects, then turning on a very dim light.

The experiment will never be performed unless the Nazis or their ilk rise to power. Why not? It is not relevant. Its answer makes no difference, one way or another.

This kind of question exposes the irrelevancy of philosophy. The idea that someone would regard such a question relevant enough to give it a name, after the nitwit who proposed it, shows how irrelevant relevance is to philosophy.

The answer to your question is either yes or no. What difference would either answer make to other irrelevant philosophers, or to your irrelevant little philosophical life?

What is the point of even posing a question unless the answer makes a difference

Well spoken! If you notice in some of his early threads, he says he copy the topics from another philosophy site, which I have googled, and indeed he gets many satisfying answers there, so what's the point of posting the very same topic if one already have the answer? That leaves me to conclude that PhilX only seeks excessive attentionwhoring AND he can't comprehend the answer, because he lacks very basic cognitive abilities ..in other words, he's a complete retard!

You're the complete retard. I would give someone else a response if they want to know why, but you're going to be denied, troll. If you really want to know why, first I expect to see you individually apologize to each person on this forum who you abused with your name calling. If you think you're such a big shot, then you can honor this request.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

The Molyneux problem dates back to the following question posed by William Molyneux to John Locke in the 17th century: if a man born blind, and able to distinguish by touch between a cube and a globe, were made to see, could he now tell by sight which was the cube and which was the globe before he touched them? The problem raises fundamental issues in the philosophy of mind.

PhilX

He would immediately know which was which. And let's do an experiment to prove it, by taking a test child and raising him in pitch darkness for about 8 years, exposing him to various geometric objects, then turning on a very dim light.

The experiment will never be performed unless the Nazis or their ilk rise to power. Why not? It is not relevant. Its answer makes no difference, one way or another.

This kind of question exposes the irrelevancy of philosophy. The idea that someone would regard such a question relevant enough to give it a name, after the nitwit who proposed it, shows how irrelevant relevance is to philosophy.

The answer to your question is either yes or no. What difference would either answer make to other irrelevant philosophers, or to your irrelevant little philosophical life?

What is the point of even posing a question unless the answer makes a difference?

Greylorn

GE, YOUR experiment is irrelevant with respect to the Molyneux problem. You're trying to derail this thread with your absurd distortion of the problem. The problem is highly relevant with respect to the mind. Your answer of yes and no is not responsive to the problem as you're trying to walk on both sides of the road simultaneously. The problem asks for one answer, either a yes or a no, not both. You have failed to answer the problem.

PhilX