Seeing & Knowing

[Maia]

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 what apply in regards to what, exactly?



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'.

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

Maybe you should have read the article. 50% was the result expected by chance, in the tests that they ran.

+++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'.+++

I've never seen a fork, so I have no memory of what one looks like. Indeed, I have no idea what anything looks like, and can't even imagine it. I don't have a "mind's eye" in other words. How could I possibly, if suddenly able to see, be expected to recognise anything? Yes, I know exactly what a fork is shaped like, and as soon as you say it, the thought of it pops into my head, but this thought has no visual component to it.

[Maia]

Incidentally, I should thank Biggs for bringing that project in India to my attention, some months ago, which I hadn't been aware of before, and couldn't remember the name of.

[Belinda]

Maia wrote:

I've never seen a fork, so I have no memory of what one looks like. Indeed, I have no idea what anything looks like, and can't even imagine it. I don't have a "mind's eye" in other words. How could I possibly, if suddenly able to see, be expected to recognise anything? Yes, I know exactly what a fork is shaped like, and as soon as you say it, the thought of it pops into my head, but this thought has no visual component to it.

That fact as described by Maia demonstrates how a child acquires its native language and with that native language a concept(of fork in this example).

The whole social situations of the child in the loving presence of a parent adds up to e.g. fork experience and what one says about it and what it's for and so forth E.g. "Clever wee Belinda / Maia can hold her fork ". "Put your fork back on the plate Maia., good girl. "If the young child has functioning light and touch receptors she will associate these receptions with the fork-experience.

[Maia]

Maia wrote:

I've never seen a fork, so I have no memory of what one looks like. Indeed, I have no idea what anything looks like, and can't even imagine it. I don't have a "mind's eye" in other words. How could I possibly, if suddenly able to see, be expected to recognise anything? Yes, I know exactly what a fork is shaped like, and as soon as you say it, the thought of it pops into my head, but this thought has no visual component to it.

That fact as described by Maia demonstrates how a child acquires its native language and with that native language a concept(of fork in this example).

The whole social situations of the child in the loving presence of a parent adds up to e.g. fork experience and what one says about it and what it's for and so forth E.g. "Clever wee Belinda / Maia can hold her fork ". "Put your fork back on the plate Maia., good girl. "If the young child has functioning light and touch receptors she will associate these receptions with the fork-experience.

Yes, exactly, that's how we all learn, and everything seems perfectly natural and normal. We don't even have to think about it.

[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,

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 do is because children 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'.

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

Maybe you should have read the article. 50% was the result expected by chance, in the tests that they ran.

Expecting particular or certain results has an influence on how one 'looks at' and 'sees' 'the results', which then has a flow on effect on 'the findings', which is a continually point out and mention that it always best to remain open, instead.

+++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'.+++

I've never seen a fork, so I have no memory of what one looks like.

Obviously you have seen a fork, and thus obviously.you have no memory of what one looks like.

Indeed, I have no idea what anything looks like, and can't even imagine it.

Obviously.

Why do you not answer the actual clarifying questions, only, that I asked you, and instead you also inform us of things that are blatantly obvious?

I don't have a "mind's eye" in other words.

Within that body there is a Mind's eye.

'We' can discuss 'this' also if you would like to.

How could I possibly, if suddenly able to see, be expected to recognise anything?

Why are you not reading and listening to what I am actually writing and saying, here?

Instead of focusing on what I am not saying and meaning I suggest you concentrate on and listen to what I am actually saying, writing, meaning, and asking, here.

How you could possibly, if suddenly able to see, recognise any thing, you more or less answered "yourself" in you following paragraph, when you answered the actual clarifying question I asked you.

Yes, I know exactly what a fork is shaped like, and as soon as you say it, the thought of it pops into my head, but this thought has no visual component to it.

Of course 'the thought' of a fork, to you, would have no visual component to it.

But, as you already admit you know, exactly, what a fork is shaped like, what I have been considering is that if, and when, you gain sight, after already knowing what the shape of things are, you might might know what 'that object', fork, is when you see 'that shape', which you admit you already know, and which already pops into that head when one says the word 'fork'.

As I alluded to earlier, if I closed the eyes on this body, and I felt some objects, through touching them alone, I would also come to know the shape of these objects. If I was given specific names for those objects, then when I opened the eyes and saw the different shaped objects, then by sight alone I most likely could distinguish them apart. The degrees of which I could do this, and do this 100% accurately, would depend on how much difference in shape the objects are, and/or the subtleties in the difference/s, exactly.

Now, because I can do this, then I think you could also do this. However, and as I pointed out earlier, I do have the advantage of having sight previously, or already, which may well affect the outcome some what, or absolutely.

But, because it is an already pre-existing 'thought' or 'knowing' of 'the shape', already, 'within the head', and not by the very process of just seeing, itself, how I could link 'the shape' in 'this head' with 'an already known name' given to 'the object', which is 'now' being seen, why I think you would have the exact same ability to do the same thing.

Again, as you already know 'the shape' of different objects, in 'thought', itself, is why I think you could do 'the same', as me, here, with obviously ary degrees of accuracy, whereas as a new born human beings does not have the advantage you nor I do

[Maia]

Arguing with a blind person about what it's like to be... checks notes... blind, is probably not the best look, to be honest. You're lucky I'm the indulgent sort.

Ok, let's try and plough through this. Please bear in mind that while I'm always happy to answer any sort of respectful question, what I won't do is keep answering the same questions over and over again. That's just boring.

+++Expecting particular or certain results has an influence on how one 'looks at' and 'sees' 'the results', which then has a flow on effect on 'the findings', which is a continually point out and mention that it always best to remain open, instead.+++

So you still haven't read the article, then?

+++Obviously you have seen a fork, and thus obviously.you have no memory of what one looks like.+++

Was that a typo?

+++Obviously.

Why do you not answer the actual clarifying questions, only, that I asked you, and instead you also inform us of things that are blatantly obvious?+++

After hanging around here, and ILP, for well over a decade, I've noticed that sometimes, stating the obvious is all too necessary.

+++Within that body there is a Mind's eye.

'We' can discuss 'this' also if you would like to.+++

Isn't that exactly what we're doing, namely, discussing it?

I don't have a mind's eye. Sighted people do, indeed, find this difficult to believe, or at least imagine, I've found, but it's true, nevertheless.

+++Of course 'the thought' of a fork, to you, would have no visual component to it.

But, as you already admit you know, exactly, what a fork is shaped like, what I have been considering is that if, and when, you gain sight, after already knowing what the shape of things are, you might might know what 'that object', fork, is when you see 'that shape', which you admit you already know, and which already pops into that head when one says the word 'fork'.

As I alluded to earlier, if I closed the eyes on this body, and I felt some objects, through touching them alone, I would also come to know the shape of these objects. If I was given specific names for those objects, then when I opened the eyes and saw the different shaped objects, then by sight alone I most likely could distinguish them apart. The degrees of which I could do this, and do this 100% accurately, would depend on how much difference in shape the objects are, and/or the subtleties in the difference/s, exactly.

Now, because I can do this, then I think you could also do this. However, and as I pointed out earlier, I do have the advantage of having sight previously, or already, which may well affect the outcome some what, or absolutely.+++

And here, you've answered your own question. You can feel an object, and later recognise it by sight, because your brain knows how sight works, and has had a lifetime's practice at processing visual input, and correlating it with other sources of input.

+++But, because it is an already pre-existing 'thought' or 'knowing' of 'the shape', already, 'within the head', and not by the very process of just seeing, itself, how I could link 'the shape' in 'this head' with 'an already known name' given to 'the object', which is 'now' being seen, why I think you would have the exact same ability to do the same thing.

Again, as you already know 'the shape' of different objects, in 'thought', itself, is why I think you could do 'the same', as me, here, with obviously ary degrees of accuracy, whereas as a new born human beings does not have the advantage you nor I do+++

The data you get from feeling something, or hearing something, smelling something, or whatever, has no intrinsic connection with the data you get from seeing something. Indeed, it's very different, and is a completely distinct physical process. It's only practice and experience that enables you to put them together.

Surely this is obvious, right?

[Belinda]

Age, the so -called "mind's eye" is not an anatomical THING. What is popularly called "the mind's eye" is a poetic term for a special ABILITY to remember as a visual image what one has seen. It follows if you, Age, never saw a horse (for instance )you may be able to feel a horse with your hand, smell a horse, hear a horse, be bitten by a horse, and remember these sensations . You would then have mind's ear, mind's smell, mind's touch, and mind 's pain but you would lack mind's eye.

If one never had met a horse nor seen a picture of a horse, perhaps lived where there were no horses nor pictures of horses one would have a faulty idea of what a horse looked like. Something of that sort actually happened in European art when the only news about giraffes was word of mouth. An animal image was made by an artist from word of mouth ; an image the artist called a "cameleopard."

Then again native Americans before Spanish horsemen arrived had never seen or heard of horsemen, and were vastly surprised at the sight.

I imagine a teacher of blind people would introduce blind students to tactile images such as lifelike models, or sculptures, and on occasion ask the students to scale up or down as appropriate from the tactile image presented .

Touching things to identify them is not always a possibility. I wonder if blind people learn to use sound echoes to test for distance and shape., and maybe texture too.

[Maia]

Age, the so -called "mind's eye" is not an anatomical THING. What is popularly called "the mind's eye" is a poetic term for a special ABILITY to remember as a visual image what one has seen. It follows if you, Age, never saw a horse (for instance )you may be able to feel a horse with your hand, smell a horse, hear a horse, be bitten by a horse, and remember these sensations . You would then have mind's ear, mind's smell, mind's touch, and mind 's pain but you would lack mind's eye.

If one never had met a horse nor seen a picture of a horse, perhaps lived where there were no horses nor pictures of horses one would have a faulty idea of what a horse looked like. Something of that sort actually happened in European art when the only news about giraffes was word of mouth. An animal image was made by an artist from word of mouth ; an image the artist called a "cameleopard."

Then again native Americans before Spanish horsemen arrived had never seen or heard of horsemen, and were vastly surprised at the sight.

I imagine a teacher of blind people would introduce blind students to tactile images such as lifelike models, or sculptures, and on occasion ask the students to scale up or down as appropriate from the tactile image presented .

Touching things to identify them is not always a possibility. I wonder if blind people learn to use sound echoes to test for distance and shape., and maybe texture too.

+++I imagine a teacher of blind people would introduce blind students to tactile images such as lifelike models, or sculptures, and on occasion ask the students to scale up or down as appropriate from the tactile image presented .+++

Yes, that's right. We had all sorts of models and things at school, including, for example, tactile atlases, which were particular favourites of mine.

+++Touching things to identify them is not always a possibility. I wonder if blind people learn to use sound echoes to test for distance and shape., and maybe texture too.+++

Yes, with echolocation I can tell the size and shape of a room I'm in, position of furniture, and so on, or, if I'm outside, walls, fences, lampposts, trees, cars, etc. And people. I can also recognise textures, such as wood, glass, brick. wallpaper, for example. Not all blind people can do this, though, and it's usually only those who were born blind who can do it well.

With regard to the mind's eye, or internal visual field, or however we wish to describe it, it's just not there. I do, of course, have equivalents for the other senses, including echolocation, and have no difficulty recalling such things and thinking about them. Indeed, I can't help doing so, and my mind is always full of stuff like that.

[Belinda]

Thanks so much Maia for the information. We must surely love the capabilities of the human brain!

[Maia]

Thanks so much Maia for the information. We must surely love the capabilities of the human brain!

You're welcome!

[Age]

Age, the so -called "mind's eye" is not an anatomical THING.

I never even thought It was, let alone ever suggested or said that It was "belinda".

What is popularly called "the mind's eye" is a poetic term for a special ABILITY to remember as a visual image what one has seen.

Since when has 'this' been 'the case', EXACTLY?

To some, the 'Mind's Eye's is a poetic term for the ABILITY of 'seeing', and/or understanding, through knowing or thought, instead, among other things.

Also, how many does the word 'popularly' refer to, and how much Accuracy is held in the 'popularly' word.

It follows if you, Age, never saw a horse (for instance )you may be able to feel a horse with your hand, smell a horse, hear a horse, be bitten by a horse, and remember these sensations . You would then have mind's ear, mind's smell, mind's touch, and mind 's pain but you would lack mind's eye.

If 'this' is what you want to believe is true, then okay.

If one never had met a horse nor seen a picture of a horse, perhaps lived where there were no horses nor pictures of horses one would have a faulty idea of what a horse looked like.

Are you not able to have things described, to you, through words?

Something of that sort actually happened in European art when the only news about giraffes was word of mouth. An animal image was made by an artist from word of mouth ; an image the artist called a "cameleopard."

Why, exactly, did the "artist" give a new and different name to the 'very thing' that the "artist" had been told about, through what is called 'word of mouth'?

Then again native Americans before Spanish horsemen arrived had never seen or heard of horsemen, and were vastly surprised at the sight.

I am not sure if any connection, here.

I imagine a teacher of blind people would introduce blind students to tactile images such as lifelike models, or sculptures, and on occasion ask the students to scale up or down as appropriate from the tactile image presented

.

Okay, but again I do not see any connection, here.

Touching things to identify them is not always a possibility.

Okay. Did any one, here, presume otherwise?

I wonder if blind people learn to use sound echoes to test for distance and shape., and maybe texture too.

Okay.

Have you ever thought about asking any of them, to find out, for sure?

Also, if I am not mistaken, I thought "maia" had already made it clear that 'sound echoes' were already being used for distance, and/or spatial awareness.

[Age]

Age, the so -called "mind's eye" is not an anatomical THING. What is popularly called "the mind's eye" is a poetic term for a special ABILITY to remember as a visual image what one has seen. It follows if you, Age, never saw a horse (for instance )you may be able to feel a horse with your hand, smell a horse, hear a horse, be bitten by a horse, and remember these sensations . You would then have mind's ear, mind's smell, mind's touch, and mind 's pain but you would lack mind's eye.

If one never had met a horse nor seen a picture of a horse, perhaps lived where there were no horses nor pictures of horses one would have a faulty idea of what a horse looked like. Something of that sort actually happened in European art when the only news about giraffes was word of mouth. An animal image was made by an artist from word of mouth ; an image the artist called a "cameleopard."

Then again native Americans before Spanish horsemen arrived had never seen or heard of horsemen, and were vastly surprised at the sight.

I imagine a teacher of blind people would introduce blind students to tactile images such as lifelike models, or sculptures, and on occasion ask the students to scale up or down as appropriate from the tactile image presented .

Touching things to identify them is not always a possibility. I wonder if blind people learn to use sound echoes to test for distance and shape., and maybe texture too.

+++I imagine a teacher of blind people would introduce blind students to tactile images such as lifelike models, or sculptures, and on occasion ask the students to scale up or down as appropriate from the tactile image presented .+++

Yes, that's right. We had all sorts of models and things at school, including, for example, tactile atlases, which were particular favourites of mine.

+++Touching things to identify them is not always a possibility. I wonder if blind people learn to use sound echoes to test for distance and shape., and maybe texture too.+++

Yes, with echolocation I can tell the size and shape of a room I'm in, position of furniture, and so on, or, if I'm outside, walls, fences, lampposts, trees, cars, etc. And people. I can also recognise textures, such as wood, glass, brick. wallpaper, for example. Not all blind people can do this, though, and it's usually only those who were born blind who can do it well.

With regard to the mind's eye, or internal visual field, or however we wish to describe it, it's just not there. I do, of course, have equivalents for the other senses, including echolocation, and have no difficulty recalling such things and thinking about them. Indeed, I can't help doing so, and my mind is always full of stuff like that.

I am also pretty sure that within that head there is the ability to imagine, and so to imagine what living a 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world' would be like.

Now, if this ability does not exist within that head, then so be it, but for the rest with the ability to imagine, and thus be able to see and/or understand, 'this world' and what it would be like to live in 'that world', then some say that this is because of the ability of the 'Mind's Eye'.

[Maia]

Age, the so -called "mind's eye" is not an anatomical THING. What is popularly called "the mind's eye" is a poetic term for a special ABILITY to remember as a visual image what one has seen. It follows if you, Age, never saw a horse (for instance )you may be able to feel a horse with your hand, smell a horse, hear a horse, be bitten by a horse, and remember these sensations . You would then have mind's ear, mind's smell, mind's touch, and mind 's pain but you would lack mind's eye.

If one never had met a horse nor seen a picture of a horse, perhaps lived where there were no horses nor pictures of horses one would have a faulty idea of what a horse looked like. Something of that sort actually happened in European art when the only news about giraffes was word of mouth. An animal image was made by an artist from word of mouth ; an image the artist called a "cameleopard."

Then again native Americans before Spanish horsemen arrived had never seen or heard of horsemen, and were vastly surprised at the sight.

I imagine a teacher of blind people would introduce blind students to tactile images such as lifelike models, or sculptures, and on occasion ask the students to scale up or down as appropriate from the tactile image presented .

Touching things to identify them is not always a possibility. I wonder if blind people learn to use sound echoes to test for distance and shape., and maybe texture too.

+++I imagine a teacher of blind people would introduce blind students to tactile images such as lifelike models, or sculptures, and on occasion ask the students to scale up or down as appropriate from the tactile image presented .+++

Yes, that's right. We had all sorts of models and things at school, including, for example, tactile atlases, which were particular favourites of mine.

+++Touching things to identify them is not always a possibility. I wonder if blind people learn to use sound echoes to test for distance and shape., and maybe texture too.+++

Yes, with echolocation I can tell the size and shape of a room I'm in, position of furniture, and so on, or, if I'm outside, walls, fences, lampposts, trees, cars, etc. And people. I can also recognise textures, such as wood, glass, brick. wallpaper, for example. Not all blind people can do this, though, and it's usually only those who were born blind who can do it well.

With regard to the mind's eye, or internal visual field, or however we wish to describe it, it's just not there. I do, of course, have equivalents for the other senses, including echolocation, and have no difficulty recalling such things and thinking about them. Indeed, I can't help doing so, and my mind is always full of stuff like that.

I am also pretty sure that within that head there is the ability to imagine, and so to imagine what living a 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world' would be like.

Now, if this ability does not exist within that head, then so be it, but for the rest with the ability to imagine, and thus be able to see and/or understand, 'this world' and what it would be like to live in 'that world', then some say that this is because of the ability of the 'Mind's Eye'.

I can, indeed, imagine all sorts of things, however fantastical or unlikely, such as a "truly peaceful and harmonious world" for example. Maybe the human race has been completely replaced by aliens, or everyone on earth has been lobotomised, or any number of other impossible scenarios. But imagining such things is definitely not the same as seeing them in one's mind's eye, which is simply not necessary, to be able to imagine them.

Unless you're using the term "mind's eye" in a purely figurative sense. That's perfectly fine, of course. I use visual terminology all the time myself, when talking, as in, I see what you mean. But if you're just using it in a figurative sense, why all the stuff about forks, earlier, and what they look like?

[Age]

+++I imagine a teacher of blind people would introduce blind students to tactile images such as lifelike models, or sculptures, and on occasion ask the students to scale up or down as appropriate from the tactile image presented .+++

Yes, that's right. We had all sorts of models and things at school, including, for example, tactile atlases, which were particular favourites of mine.

+++Touching things to identify them is not always a possibility. I wonder if blind people learn to use sound echoes to test for distance and shape., and maybe texture too.+++

Yes, with echolocation I can tell the size and shape of a room I'm in, position of furniture, and so on, or, if I'm outside, walls, fences, lampposts, trees, cars, etc. And people. I can also recognise textures, such as wood, glass, brick. wallpaper, for example. Not all blind people can do this, though, and it's usually only those who were born blind who can do it well.

With regard to the mind's eye, or internal visual field, or however we wish to describe it, it's just not there. I do, of course, have equivalents for the other senses, including echolocation, and have no difficulty recalling such things and thinking about them. Indeed, I can't help doing so, and my mind is always full of stuff like that.

I am also pretty sure that within that head there is the ability to imagine, and so to imagine what living a 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world' would be like.

Now, if this ability does not exist within that head, then so be it, but for the rest with the ability to imagine, and thus be able to see and/or understand, 'this world' and what it would be like to live in 'that world', then some say that this is because of the ability of the 'Mind's Eye'.

I can, indeed, imagine all sorts of things, however fantastical or unlikely, such as a "truly peaceful and harmonious world" for example.

Great, and also by the way, why do you think or believe that a 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world' is fantastical or unlikely, exactly?

Absolutely EVERY thing that you human beings have created and achieved was once also fantastical and/or unlikely, but as soon as every one of those 'unlikely' creations or achievements was created and achieved, the 'unlikeness' disappears, completely.

But anyway, as long as you can also imagine, and see, or understand, 'this world', then, as some say, 'this' exists in the 'Mind's Eye'.

Maybe the human race has been completely replaced by aliens, or everyone on earth has been lobotomised, or any number of other impossible scenarios.

I am not sure what you are getting at, here.

But imagining such things is definitely not the same as seeing them in one's mind's eye, which is simply not necessary, to be able to imagine them.

What are these so-called 'one's mind's eye', exactly?

Unless you're using the term "mind's eye" in a purely figurative sense.

What, literally, even is the 'mind's eye', exactly?

That's perfectly fine, of course. I use visual terminology all the time myself, when talking, as in, I see what you mean.

And, which all of you adult human beings do, as well.

But if you're just using it in a figurative sense, why all the stuff about forks, earlier, and what they look like?

I have absolutely no clue nor idea what 'it' is that you are even trying to get at, here.

Anyway, if one already knows 'the shape' of the 'very thing', which is called 'a fork', then this will be a huge advantage when one is able to finally see, with the physical eyes, for the first time, in maybe enabling to recognize 'a fork' when 'objects and shapes' are first seen and noticed, and obviously when one of 'those shapes and objects' is 'a fork'.

See, because one already knows 'the shape' of 'the object' 'fork', 'that one' might not need absolutely any help at all from any one else, nor from touch, in being able to place the label 'fork' with the newly seen fork object.

[Maia]

+++Great, and also by the way, why do you think or believe that a 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world' is fantastical or unlikely, exactly?+++

Human nature. But that, I'm afraid, is as far as I want to get into that here, since it's completely off topic.

+++But anyway, as long as you can also imagine, and see, or understand, 'this world', then, as some say, 'this' exists in the 'Mind's Eye'.+++

I can't see it. Again, unless you mean that figuratively. I'm not sure if you do, or not.

+++What, literally, even is the 'mind's eye', exactly?+++

Your internal visual field, in your mind. Unless, again, you're using it figuratively, but, again, I'm uncertain as to whether you are. Indeed, I'm not even sure, now, if you appreciate the difference.

+++Anyway, if one already knows 'the shape' of the 'very thing', which is called 'a fork', then this will be a huge advantage when one is able to finally see, with the physical eyes, for the first time, in maybe enabling to recognize 'a fork' when 'objects and shapes' are first seen and noticed, and obviously when one of 'those shapes and objects' is 'a fork'.

See, because one already knows 'the shape' of 'the object' 'fork', 'that one' might not need absolutely any help at all from any one else, nor from touch, in being able to place the label 'fork' with the newly seen fork object.+++

Sigh. No, that is simply not the case. Please read the report from that project in India.