Seeing & Knowing

[attofishpi]

I do indeed believe that I'm almost certainly better at echolocation than you are, by a very great degree. Still, I could be wrong there, and I'd be interested to hear your results.

I don't think I've ignored your point, though, and have tried to answer it by analogy.

Good.

And i am standing by what I stated Maia. That if you analysed the shape of a cube via touch, and then had the extra qualia input of vision of a cube that you could indeed distinguish what a cube is (rather than other objects).

With practice, but it would no doubt take quite a while, and you'd have to learn not only cubes, but everything else, too.

It's definitely not something you could do straight away.

Under Stood.

[Belinda]

There is evidence that a once blind person can learn to see. The evidence is the newborn's learning to see. seeing is two processes. One process is the effect of light on the receptors, the other process is making conceptual sense of light effects.

The newborn mammalian brain is probably preconditioned to recognise and conceptualise a basic face in the form of two eyes that work in concert. The newborn mammal is probably preconditioned to recognise the smell of milk, and the sense of soft and gentle touch. Concerning the sense of touch there's that horrible experiment with baby monkeys who preferred the soft cloth 'mother' to the hard mesh 'mother'. Affect concerns how newborns learn to make sense of light , sound, and touch.

The newborn mammal is probably preconditioned to seek patterns. The bat baby seeks radar patterns through hearing: the human baby seeks light patterns through seeing.The newborn puppy, foal, or duck struggles towards whichever pattern and perception it is preconditioned to struggle towards; human baby language is universal to all known cultures.

It's usual for those who are born blind to have their visual cortex repurposed for processing other types of input, to a greater or lesser extent. This is not to say that it couldn't, under the right circumstances, also learn to process visual input, but the person would take quite a while to make any sort of sense of it, if they ever managed to, fully. It would also depend on their age, no doubt.

Recognising objects by touch, though, as the article also mentioned, gives one a completely different set of data. Sighted people simply learn to correlate this to what they can also see.

Yes Maia but every baby is born blind insofar as 'blind' refers to forming concepts from light impinging on rods and cones i.e. photo receptive cells in the eyes. Only some babies are born with defective receptors ,or indeed entirely minus eyes.

If a technique arose whereby anatomical defect could be put right including connection with the cerebral cortex then the two sets of data could be correlated . I understand Helen Keller did it without any surgical intervention.

[Maia]

There is evidence that a once blind person can learn to see. The evidence is the newborn's learning to see. seeing is two processes. One process is the effect of light on the receptors, the other process is making conceptual sense of light effects.

The newborn mammalian brain is probably preconditioned to recognise and conceptualise a basic face in the form of two eyes that work in concert. The newborn mammal is probably preconditioned to recognise the smell of milk, and the sense of soft and gentle touch. Concerning the sense of touch there's that horrible experiment with baby monkeys who preferred the soft cloth 'mother' to the hard mesh 'mother'. Affect concerns how newborns learn to make sense of light , sound, and touch.

The newborn mammal is probably preconditioned to seek patterns. The bat baby seeks radar patterns through hearing: the human baby seeks light patterns through seeing.The newborn puppy, foal, or duck struggles towards whichever pattern and perception it is preconditioned to struggle towards; human baby language is universal to all known cultures.

It's usual for those who are born blind to have their visual cortex repurposed for processing other types of input, to a greater or lesser extent. This is not to say that it couldn't, under the right circumstances, also learn to process visual input, but the person would take quite a while to make any sort of sense of it, if they ever managed to, fully. It would also depend on their age, no doubt.

Recognising objects by touch, though, as the article also mentioned, gives one a completely different set of data. Sighted people simply learn to correlate this to what they can also see.

Yes Maia but every baby is born blind insofar as 'blind' refers to forming concepts from light impinging on rods and cones i.e. photo receptive cells in the eyes. Only some babies are born with defective receptors ,or indeed entirely minus eyes.

If a technique arose whereby anatomical defect could be put right including connection with the cerebral cortex then the two sets of data could be correlated . I understand Helen Keller did it without any surgical intervention.

I don't think Helen Keller ever regained her sight, after losing it as a baby. But, having just checked, it seems that she had some light perception. This is actually quite common among blind people, though I don't have any.

Any correlation between visual input and input from other sources would have to be learnt, and would not be automatic for someone who had never experienced it.

[Belinda]

It's usual for those who are born blind to have their visual cortex repurposed for processing other types of input, to a greater or lesser extent. This is not to say that it couldn't, under the right circumstances, also learn to process visual input, but the person would take quite a while to make any sort of sense of it, if they ever managed to, fully. It would also depend on their age, no doubt.

Recognising objects by touch, though, as the article also mentioned, gives one a completely different set of data. Sighted people simply learn to correlate this to what they can also see.

Yes Maia but every baby is born blind insofar as 'blind' refers to forming concepts from light impinging on rods and cones i.e. photo receptive cells in the eyes. Only some babies are born with defective receptors ,or indeed entirely minus eyes.

If a technique arose whereby anatomical defect could be put right including connection with the cerebral cortex then the two sets of data could be correlated . I understand Helen Keller did it without any surgical intervention.

I don't think Helen Keller ever regained her sight, after losing it as a baby. But, having just checked, it seems that she had some light perception. This is actually quite common among blind people, though I don't have any.

Any correlation between visual input and input from other sources would have to be learnt, and would not be automatic for someone who had never experienced it.

Can you use a sense of sound waves reflecting back to you from solid objects like Radar does? I think this skill would allow you to perceive linear perspective and relative distances.

[Maia]

Yes Maia but every baby is born blind insofar as 'blind' refers to forming concepts from light impinging on rods and cones i.e. photo receptive cells in the eyes. Only some babies are born with defective receptors ,or indeed entirely minus eyes.

If a technique arose whereby anatomical defect could be put right including connection with the cerebral cortex then the two sets of data could be correlated . I understand Helen Keller did it without any surgical intervention.

I don't think Helen Keller ever regained her sight, after losing it as a baby. But, having just checked, it seems that she had some light perception. This is actually quite common among blind people, though I don't have any.

Any correlation between visual input and input from other sources would have to be learnt, and would not be automatic for someone who had never experienced it.

Can you use a sense of sound waves reflecting back to you from solid objects like Radar does? I think this skill would allow you to perceive linear perspective and relative distances.

Yes, I have very good echolocation, and I rely on it a lot, and I do, indeed, have very good spatial awareness.

[Age]

I suppose I don't know it for an absolute certainty, since I've never experienced gaining the ability to see, but I am, nevertheless, certain that this is the case.

I am unsure how when you know what some thing 'feels' like you can have no idea what it 'looks' like. Now, of course at the moment, you would, literally, have no idea at all what it looks like. However, surely if, and when, you could 'see' you would be able to relate some objects to what you know about how they 'feel' like.

For example, if I close my eyes, thus lose the ability to see, I can then walk around and 'feel' things, and then relate them to what I know they 'look' like, from 'sight'. So, I can not, yet, understand why this would not work the other way around. Now, of course, I have the absolutely advantage of already having 'seen' things, previously, which may well play a huge part, here.

If you were to gain sight, and you saw some objects, then maybe you would be able to relate them to what you had known what they 'felt' like, from previously, in one way or another. For example, if you may 'see' some thing and just know that 'that' is what a spoon or a fork 'feels' like.

And, yes, with every object. All you'd be getting would be a load of sensory data that you had absolutely no experience in being able to interpret.

What do you mean by 'getting sensory data that you had absolutely no experience in being able to interpret', when you have previously had the experience of 'feelings' in being able to interpret objects, previously?

It would probably, in fact, be quite unpleasant, at least at first.

This is quite a presumption, and a belief, you have, here.

I can't even imagine how or where such data would even manifest itself.

In the brain, when relating previous input information from one with another sense. Like, for example, you can know you are near a particular type of flower, before you have to actually 'feel' it, because you can 'smell' it.

Now, obviously, if, and when, one first gains 'sight', like at birth, then 'this one' has had absolutely no previous 'sensory input', at all, which it could then relate objects, and at 'this time' it probably is, in fact, quite unpleasant, or at least absolutely bewildering. However, you have the absolute advantage of possessing, and correct me if i am wrong, here, four other senses, and a much longer time of 'sensory input' from those four senses, as well.

Well, yes, that's the crux of the issue. I don't believe that if I suddenly gained the ability to see, that I would have any idea at all what I was seeing. It would be an utterly confusing mess, and I would have to learn, completely from scratch, what it all meant. I don't believe that being able to recognise objects by touch, smell, or anything else, would be of any help at all. You only think that it would, I suggest, because you are so used to associating them. A lifetime of experience, indeed.

Okay, so you and I both do not, yet, know what the actual Truth is, here.

Also, obviously you would have to learn from the start. But, you also do not yet know if it would be 'utterly confusing' or not.

Again, you might recognise some object almost instantaneously, while other objects might take longer to recognise, while some others you could never recognise without being informed by others.

The way you are talking it sounds like you believe that it would be an either/or situation.

[Age]

It's usual for those who are born blind to have their visual cortex repurposed for processing other types of input, to a greater or lesser extent. This is not to say that it couldn't, under the right circumstances, also learn to process visual input, but the person would take quite a while to make any sort of sense of it, if they ever managed to, fully. It would also depend on their age, no doubt.

Recognising objects by touch, though, as the article also mentioned, gives one a completely different set of data. Sighted people simply learn to correlate this to what they can also see.

Yes Maia but every baby is born blind insofar as 'blind' refers to forming concepts from light impinging on rods and cones i.e. photo receptive cells in the eyes. Only some babies are born with defective receptors ,or indeed entirely minus eyes.

If a technique arose whereby anatomical defect could be put right including connection with the cerebral cortex then the two sets of data could be correlated . I understand Helen Keller did it without any surgical intervention.

I don't think Helen Keller ever regained her sight, after losing it as a baby. But, having just checked, it seems that she had some light perception. This is actually quite common among blind people, though I don't have any.

Any correlation between visual input and input from other sources would have to be learnt, and would not be automatic for someone who had never experienced it.

How do you already know that visual input and recognition that a fork is a fork, for example, could never ever be automatic?

Maybe sight and seeing and recognition of objects is not some thing that is so hard nor complex at all.

[Maia]

Yes Maia but every baby is born blind insofar as 'blind' refers to forming concepts from light impinging on rods and cones i.e. photo receptive cells in the eyes. Only some babies are born with defective receptors ,or indeed entirely minus eyes.

If a technique arose whereby anatomical defect could be put right including connection with the cerebral cortex then the two sets of data could be correlated . I understand Helen Keller did it without any surgical intervention.

I don't think Helen Keller ever regained her sight, after losing it as a baby. But, having just checked, it seems that she had some light perception. This is actually quite common among blind people, though I don't have any.

Any correlation between visual input and input from other sources would have to be learnt, and would not be automatic for someone who had never experienced it.

How do you already know that visual input and recognition that a fork is a fork, for example, could never ever be automatic?

Maybe sight and seeing and recognition of objects is not some thing that is so hard nor complex at all.

Why would it be the case that we have some automatic knowledge of how things appear visually, without ever seeing them, or indeed, anything? Does this apply to other senses too, or is vision somehow more fundamental? It seems obvious, to me, that what something actually feels like is far more fundamental, but I'm happy to accept that I'm hardly in a position to say this objectively. But nor is anyone.

[Age]

I don't think Helen Keller ever regained her sight, after losing it as a baby. But, having just checked, it seems that she had some light perception. This is actually quite common among blind people, though I don't have any.

Any correlation between visual input and input from other sources would have to be learnt, and would not be automatic for someone who had never experienced it.

How do you already know that visual input and recognition that a fork is a fork, for example, could never ever be automatic?

Maybe sight and seeing and recognition of objects is not some thing that is so hard nor complex at all.

Why would it be the case that we have some automatic knowledge of how things appear visually, without ever seeing them, or indeed, anything?

What are you on about with the words, 'or indeed, anything'?

As I previously explained a human being gaining sight after being alive for a number of years is a lot different to a human being gaining sight, at birth.

you have had the experience of 'feeling' objects, through 'touch'. And, correct me if I am wrong, here, but you are able to differentiate between a spoon and a fork, for example.

Now, because you are already able to recognize, and 'see' or understand, the difference between a spoon from a fork, you already know what the actual difference is between them. So, if, and when, you were able to obtain sight it may well be extremely simple for you to recognize, 'see', and know which one is a fork and which one is a spoon, without having to be told which one is which. This is why it would be the case that you have some what you call 'automatic knowledge' of how things appear, visually, without ever seeing them, previously. Which is very, very different from every new born 'gaining sight' at birth, absolutely all of them has no 'prior experiences' at all, and therefore do not have any what you call 'automatic knowledge'.

If you believe, absolutely, that if you gained sight, after many, many years of recognizing and knowing a spoon from a fork, that you would not be able to recognize and know a spoon from a fork on sight only, then okay. But, as with all human beliefs they do not necessarily always nor have to align with what is actually True and Correct.

Look, you and i both do not yet know what would happen and occur, so we would have to, literally, wait, to see.

Does this apply to other senses too, or is vision somehow more fundamental?

Does what apply in regards to what, exactly?

It seems obvious, to me, that what something actually feels like is far more fundamental, but I'm happy to accept that I'm hardly in a position to say this objectively. But nor is anyone.

Okay, so, again, we both agree that we do not yet know what the actual Truth is, here, right?

[Maia]

How do you already know that visual input and recognition that a fork is a fork, for example, could never ever be automatic?

Maybe sight and seeing and recognition of objects is not some thing that is so hard nor complex at all.

Why would it be the case that we have some automatic knowledge of how things appear visually, without ever seeing them, or indeed, anything?

What are you on about with the words, 'or indeed, anything'?

As I previously explained a human being gaining sight after being alive for a number of years is a lot different to a human being gaining sight, at birth.

you have had the experience of 'feeling' objects, through 'touch'. And, correct me if I am wrong, here, but you are able to differentiate between a spoon and a fork, for example.

Now, because you are already able to recognize, and 'see' or understand, the difference between a spoon from a fork, you already know what the actual difference is between them. So, if, and when, you were able to obtain sight it may well be extremely simple for you to recognize, 'see', and know which one is a fork and which one is a spoon, without having to be told which one is which. This is why it would be the case that you have some what you call 'automatic knowledge' of how things appear, visually, without ever seeing them, previously. Which is very, very different from every new born 'gaining sight' at birth, absolutely all of them has no 'prior experiences' at all, and therefore do not have any what you call 'automatic knowledge'.

If you believe, absolutely, that if you gained sight, after many, many years of recognizing and knowing a spoon from a fork, that you would not be able to recognize and know a spoon from a fork on sight only, then okay. But, as with all human beliefs they do not necessarily always nor have to align with what is actually True and Correct.

Look, you and i both do not yet know what would happen and occur, so we would have to, literally, wait, to see.

Does this apply to other senses too, or is vision somehow more fundamental?

Does what apply in regards to what, exactly?

It seems obvious, to me, that what something actually feels like is far more fundamental, but I'm happy to accept that I'm hardly in a position to say this objectively. But nor is anyone.

Okay, so, again, we both agree that we do not yet know what the actual Truth is, here, right?

Here's a link to something called Project Prakash in India, when individuals who had been blind from birth gained the ability to see after surgery.

https://www.nei.nih.gov/about/goals-and ... ing-vision

Within the first 48 hours after gaining vision, when tested:

+++They would only correctly identify the object about half the time, indicating that they were basically guessing the identity of the object they were seeing. This result suggested the answer to Molyneux’s question is no, our senses do not share an innate knowledge of objects. The information the subjects obtained about an object by touch was not used by the part of the brain that receives visual information.+++

But they gradually improved, after that, with practice, in interesting ways, such as, for example, finding moving objects easier to recognise. And most of them were children, too, which probably helped when picking up new skills.

[Alexiev]

[

Here's a link to something called Project Prakash in India, when individuals who had been blind from birth gained the ability to see after surgery.

https://www.nei.nih.gov/about/goals-and ... ing-vision

Within the first 48 hours after gaining vision, when tested:

+++They would only correctly identify the object about half the time, indicating that they were basically guessing the identity of the object they were seeing. This result suggested the answer to Molyneux’s question is no, our senses do not share an innate knowledge of objects. The information the subjects obtained about an object by touch was not used by the part of the brain that receives visual information.+++

But they gradually improved, after that, with practice, in interesting ways, such as, for example, finding moving objects easier to recognise. And most of them were children, too, which probably helped when picking up new skills.

In Oliver Sacks' book An Anthropologist on Mars there is a long chapter on blind people who recover sight. They can learn to see eventually, but three dimensionality is difficult and the learning process takes months. The same is doubtless true for babies, but we don't remember batting those mobiles around.

In the gospel acc to Mark, when Jesus touches the blind man's eyes, he can see but "men looked like trees walking." So Jesus touched his eyes again and he could see like you and me." It's interesting that Mark and the scientific reports seem to agree.

[Age]

Why would it be the case that we have some automatic knowledge of how things appear visually, without ever seeing them, or indeed, anything?

What are you on about with the words, 'or indeed, anything'?

As I previously explained a human being gaining sight after being alive for a number of years is a lot different to a human being gaining sight, at birth.

you have had the experience of 'feeling' objects, through 'touch'. And, correct me if I am wrong, here, but you are able to differentiate between a spoon and a fork, for example.

Now, because you are already able to recognize, and 'see' or understand, the difference between a spoon from a fork, you already know what the actual difference is between them. So, if, and when, you were able to obtain sight it may well be extremely simple for you to recognize, 'see', and know which one is a fork and which one is a spoon, without having to be told which one is which. This is why it would be the case that you have some what you call 'automatic knowledge' of how things appear, visually, without ever seeing them, previously. Which is very, very different from every new born 'gaining sight' at birth, absolutely all of them has no 'prior experiences' at all, and therefore do not have any what you call 'automatic knowledge'.

If you believe, absolutely, that if you gained sight, after many, many years of recognizing and knowing a spoon from a fork, that you would not be able to recognize and know a spoon from a fork on sight only, then okay. But, as with all human beliefs they do not necessarily always nor have to align with what is actually True and Correct.

Look, you and i both do not yet know what would happen and occur, so we would have to, literally, wait, to see.

Does this apply to other senses too, or is vision somehow more fundamental?

Does what apply in regards to what, exactly?

It seems obvious, to me, that what something actually feels like is far more fundamental, but I'm happy to accept that I'm hardly in a position to say this objectively. But nor is anyone.

Okay, so, again, we both agree that we do not yet know what the actual Truth is, here, right?

Here's a link to something called Project Prakash in India, when individuals who had been blind from birth gained the ability to see after surgery.

https://www.nei.nih.gov/about/goals-and ... ing-vision

Within the first 48 hours after gaining vision, when tested:

+++They would only correctly identify the object about half the time,

So, 'they' COULD Correctly identify some objects, right?

And, if OTHER objects were introduced, then the percentage of Correctly identifying could have CHANGED considerably.

indicating that they were basically guessing the identity of the object they were seeing.

LOL
LOL
LOL

HOW and WHY does 'Correctly identifying', then, TO mean, that 'they' were, so-called, 'basically guessing'?

This result suggested the answer to Molyneux’s question is no, our senses do not share an innate knowledge of objects. The information the subjects obtained about an object by touch was not used by the part of the brain that receives visual information.+++

I will, still, suggest that if some one has been able to differentiate and know the difference between a fork and a spoon, for example, for say 50 or 60 years, without sight, and then suddenly gained sight, then they might, still, be able to differentiate, recognize, and know the difference between a fork and a spoon with a newly obtained ability to see, only.

But they gradually improved, after that, with practice, in interesting ways, such as, for example, finding moving objects easier to recognise.

you, still, appear to be completely missing and misunderstanding what I have been saying, and showing, here.

And most of them were children, too, which probably helped when picking up new skills.

Children ONLY so-call 'pick up new skills better and/or quicker' than you adult human beings is, solely, because they are not as closed as you human beings ARE.

Can you recognize and know what a fork is "maia"?

If yes, then if you were suddenly able to see, and there was a fork in front of you, which you could see, then why believe that ONLY after you 'touched' that object, then, and only then, you would be able to recognize and know what it is?

Is there absolutely nothing at all existing, in imagination, that places a memory of 'the shape' of 'that object'?

If you have a 'memorized shape' of 'the object', 'fork', then just maybe if and when you were able to see, then when you saw 'an object', then 'that seeing of that object' might trigger a memory of the 'memorized shape' of 'the object' you recognize and know as 'fork'.

[Age]

[

Here's a link to something called Project Prakash in India, when individuals who had been blind from birth gained the ability to see after surgery.

https://www.nei.nih.gov/about/goals-and ... ing-vision

Within the first 48 hours after gaining vision, when tested:

+++They would only correctly identify the object about half the time, indicating that they were basically guessing the identity of the object they were seeing. This result suggested the answer to Molyneux’s question is no, our senses do not share an innate knowledge of objects. The information the subjects obtained about an object by touch was not used by the part of the brain that receives visual information.+++

But they gradually improved, after that, with practice, in interesting ways, such as, for example, finding moving objects easier to recognise. And most of them were children, too, which probably helped when picking up new skills.

In Oliver Sacks' book An Anthropologist on Mars there is a long chapter on blind people who recover sight. They can learn to see eventually, but three dimensionality is difficult and the learning process takes months.

Has there ever been any human being who has thought or believe otherwise, or differently, here?

Does any one believe or expect new born babies see, perfectly, with pure 20/20 vision, and/or in three dimensions, exactly, how things are?

The same is doubtless true for babies, but we don't remember batting those mobiles around.

In the gospel acc to Mark, when Jesus touches the blind man's eyes, he can see but "men looked like trees walking." So Jesus touched his eyes again and he could see like you and me." It's interesting that Mark and the scientific reports seem to agree.

Were you thinking or believing that any one, here, was saying and/or meaning that if and when one gains sight, after many years without sight that they could, on first glance, see and/or recognize every thing, exactly, as 'what they are'?

[puto]

In epistemology the justification, ‘true belief’ is independent of S and does not imply that q is true. A JTB is not sufficient conditions for the grounds of adequacy, in the truth of the proposition. The argument does not seem adequate and infallible of the truth, no certainty is disproved and only the burden of proof is reinforced in an infinite regress of a dogmatic assumption that argues in circles.

[Maia]

[

Here's a link to something called Project Prakash in India, when individuals who had been blind from birth gained the ability to see after surgery.

https://www.nei.nih.gov/about/goals-and ... ing-vision

Within the first 48 hours after gaining vision, when tested:

+++They would only correctly identify the object about half the time, indicating that they were basically guessing the identity of the object they were seeing. This result suggested the answer to Molyneux’s question is no, our senses do not share an innate knowledge of objects. The information the subjects obtained about an object by touch was not used by the part of the brain that receives visual information.+++

But they gradually improved, after that, with practice, in interesting ways, such as, for example, finding moving objects easier to recognise. And most of them were children, too, which probably helped when picking up new skills.

In Oliver Sacks' book An Anthropologist on Mars there is a long chapter on blind people who recover sight. They can learn to see eventually, but three dimensionality is difficult and the learning process takes months. The same is doubtless true for babies, but we don't remember batting those mobiles around.

In the gospel acc to Mark, when Jesus touches the blind man's eyes, he can see but "men looked like trees walking." So Jesus touched his eyes again and he could see like you and me." It's interesting that Mark and the scientific reports seem to agree.

And it's just common sense, too, I think. Babies clearly have to learn how to see properly, just like they have to learn how to do everything else, including think. The alternative assumes that there's something intrinsically superior about vision, against which all other senses can be defined. It may well seem like that, for those who have it, but that is undoubtedly just an illusion.

It's true that the brain is hard wired to process vision, and that it gives over a huge proportion of its processing power to do so. But, when no visual input is available, that processing capacity is used for other input. That's how brains work. And it also goes without saying that what a sighted person is seeing, in their mind's eye, is not what is actually out there, which is a load of electromagnetic radiation and stuff, but rather, the brain's way of making sense of it, and by no means perfect sense, either, but only to the minimum level required, and sometimes, not even that.