Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:43 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:38 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:29 pm
And in a noisy downtown or anywhere with a lot of loud noise? Is it still usable?

I wonder if your brain/mind processes sounds so much more heavily than most of us do, that it uses additional regions for it.

It's still usable, unless the noise is really bad. Any normal sort of noise, including a busy street, is fine.

According to CT scans that I've had, my visual cortex has been mostly repurposed to be stimulated by sound input. Which is one major reason, incidentally, that I'm loathe to have things stuck into it.

Aha you can almost "see" sound echoes.

I suppose so.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 1:29 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:25 am While we're talking about Blindness, here's an interesting thought experiment (turned real experiment):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem

Basically, the thought experiment goes like this: take a blind person who is familiar by touch with various shapes, eg squares circles triangles stars. This blind person knows what they feel like and can distinguish between them easily by touch, but of course they've never seen these shapes.

Now give that blind person sight and ask them, using sight alone, to say which one is the square, the circle, the triangle or the star.

To most sighted people it seems intuitively like that shouldn't be particularly hard -- that the visual experience of these shapes matches the tactile experience in an obvious and intuitive way that even a person who is seeing for the first time should understand. But the reality is more complex apparently.

To me, it would be EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to distinguish between them, while KNOWING which one is which, EXACTLY.

Is there ANY REASON WHY ANY one would think otherwise?

Were you born blind, or just dumb?

LOL
LOL
LOL

All I ASKED WAS, 'Is there ANY REASON WHY ANY one would think otherwise?

And, OBVIOUSLY, this one is NOT CAPABLE of JUST ANSWERING, and thus CLARIFYING, A Truly VERY SIMPLE, and VERY EASY TO ANSWER, CLARIFYING QUESTION.

Were you born blind, or just stupid, "flannel jesus"?

HOW the two 'blind' AND 'dumb' ACTUALLY CORRELATE in 'that one's' QUESTION, and WHY ONLY 'the two', "flannel jesus" is probably the ONLY one who would KNOW.

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:02 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:25 am While we're talking about Blindness, here's an interesting thought experiment (turned real experiment):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem

Basically, the thought experiment goes like this: take a blind person who is familiar by touch with various shapes, eg squares circles triangles stars. This blind person knows what they feel like and can distinguish between them easily by touch, but of course they've never seen these shapes.

Now give that blind person sight and ask them, using sight alone, to say which one is the square, the circle, the triangle or the star.

To most sighted people it seems intuitively like that shouldn't be particularly hard -- that the visual experience of these shapes matches the tactile experience in an obvious and intuitive way that even a person who is seeing for the first time should understand. But the reality is more complex apparently.

I like the fact that they finally managed to answer it, after hundreds of years.

How do you KNOW, for ABSOLUTELY SURE, that 'they', SUPPOSEDLY, 'finally managed to answer it', ABSOLUTELY Accurately AND Correctly?

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:02 pm The 3D mental map I have in my mind of shapes, places and so on probably bears little or no relation to what they look like.

1. you do NOT have 'a mind'.

2. Do you REALLY BELIEVE that those 'images' that 'you have', or those 'shapes' that you conceptualize, of those very little formations of just a square, a circle, a triangle, and a star would probably bear little or no relation at all to what they ACTUALLY 'look like'?

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:04 pm

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:26 am

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:20 amI suppose, see what my family and friends look like.

Well, of course... but go on. Can you give several more? How about go skiing or something? Watch the snow fall?

It's not something that I've given a huge amount of thought to, but I would have to say anything to do with nature.

Well considering the Fact that absolutely EVERY thing has to do with 'Nature', your answer, here, applies to absolutely ANY and EVERY thing.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:10 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:02 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 11:25 am While we're talking about Blindness, here's an interesting thought experiment (turned real experiment):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem

Basically, the thought experiment goes like this: take a blind person who is familiar by touch with various shapes, eg squares circles triangles stars. This blind person knows what they feel like and can distinguish between them easily by touch, but of course they've never seen these shapes.

Now give that blind person sight and ask them, using sight alone, to say which one is the square, the circle, the triangle or the star.

To most sighted people it seems intuitively like that shouldn't be particularly hard -- that the visual experience of these shapes matches the tactile experience in an obvious and intuitive way that even a person who is seeing for the first time should understand. But the reality is more complex apparently.

I like the fact that they finally managed to answer it, after hundreds of years.

The 3D mental map I have in my mind of shapes, places and so on probably bears little or no relation to what they look like.

I think it does bear a relationship, but that relationship isn't necessarily obvious to someone seeing for the first time.

I mean, someone who's seen for their whole life can feel a shape they've never felt before, and could probably have a good guess on what that shape looks like.

But someone who has never seen has never excercised those mental muscles to understand how those things relate to each other. What's odd is, to a sighted person, it seems like it should be obvious, even to someone who's only just begun seeing, but regardless of how it seems to us, it's just not the case.

HOW do you, supposedly, KNOW, for IRREFUTABLY SURE, that 'it' is just NOT 'the case'?

And, if you are ENVISIONING SAYING some thing like, 'Read the link', you are MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING, AGAIN, the ACTUAL QUESTION being ASKED, here.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:10 pm And that raises some interesting questions I think.

LIke 'what', EXACTLY?

And, WHY do you ONLY 'think' 'this'?

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:18 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:02 pm I like the fact that they finally managed to answer it, after hundreds of years.

The 3D mental map I have in my mind of shapes, places and so on probably bears little or no relation to what they look like.

I've been wondering how I would try to explain sight to someone who can't imagine it.

Okay. For how long for, EXACTLY?

And, is there even ABSOLUTELY ANY one who can NOT just IMAGINE 'it'?

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:18 pm Maybe like this: it's like touch but from a distance, we can tell what the surface of something is like, without touching it, from a distance. Also, we see all the surfaces around us all at once. It's like touching everything around you all at once, even things that are far away.

Except I think touch is a feeling, while sight doesn't feel like anything.

Do you, REALLY, ONLY 'think' 'touch' is a 'feeling'?

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:18 pm It's an impression without feeling. More like a thought I guess.

And even surfaces that feel the same when touched, can appear differently when seen. Those are the different colors. But also, surfaces that feel differently when touched, can have the same color. It's like touch with 2 different dimensions I guess, shape and color.

Have you EVER CONSIDERED just ASKING 'the other', what 'they', ALREADY, KNOW and UNDERSTAND, BEFORE you START TO EVEN BEGIN EXPLAINING to 'them' what you KNOW and UNDERSTAND?

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:43 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:10 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:02 pm

I like the fact that they finally managed to answer it, after hundreds of years.

The 3D mental map I have in my mind of shapes, places and so on probably bears little or no relation to what they look like.

I think it does bear a relationship, but that relationship isn't necessarily obvious to someone seeing for the first time.

I mean, someone who's seen for their whole life can feel a shape they've never felt before, and could probably have a good guess on what that shape looks like.

But someone who has never seen has never excercised those mental muscles to understand how those things relate to each other. What's odd is, to a sighted person, it seems like it should be obvious, even to someone who's only just begun seeing, but regardless of how it seems to us, it's just not the case. And that raises some interesting questions I think.

I suppose the nearest equivalent for me is recognising something by echolocation, and by touch.

Just out of curiosity do you feel 'sorry' for those who have been 'echolocation disable' since birth and/or do you 'look for' things/qualities in others to make up for 'their lack of this ability'?

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:43 pm Can I tell if a tree is a tree, a chair a chair, and so on, using one or the other? Obviously, yes.

And, so if you, 'magically', were just ABLE TO SEE do you think that you would be able to tell 'a tree' is 'a tree', and if yes, then do you also think you would be able to distinguish ('that shape' of) 'a tree' from (the shape of) 'a chair', just by 'sight' alone?

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:46 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:18 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 2:02 pm I like the fact that they finally managed to answer it, after hundreds of years.

The 3D mental map I have in my mind of shapes, places and so on probably bears little or no relation to what they look like.

I've been wondering how I would try to explain sight to someone who can't imagine it. Maybe like this: it's like touch but from a distance, we can tell what the surface of something is like, without touching it, from a distance. Also, we see all the surfaces around us all at once. It's like touching everything around you all at once, even things that are far away.

Except I think touch is a feeling, while sight doesn't feel like anything. It's an impression without feeling. More like a thought I guess.

And even surfaces that feel the same when touched, can appear differently when seen. Those are the different colors. But also, surfaces that feel differently when touched, can have the same color. It's like touch with 2 different dimensions I guess, shape and color.

I can tell different surfaces apart, glass, bricks, wood, and so on, by echolocation, without having to touch them.

And do you feel 'sorry' for these other human beings who are, OBVIOUSLY, DISABLED, here?

I find it VERY HUMOROUS that the people who call 'others' DISABLED are ACTUALLY DISABLED "themselves".

I also find it VERY INTERESTING that people 'LOOK AT' others as 'DISABLED' instead of JUST 'LOOKING AT', and 'SEEING' what 'their ABILITIES' ACTUALLY ARE, INSTEAD.

ALL human beings ARE DISABLED in one way or another. But, if 'I' was ANY one of 'you', human beings, I WOULD MUCH PREFER to 'LOOK AT', and 'SEE' FROM 'the perspective' OF, ' 'TIS is MY ABILITIES', INSTEAD of MY 'DIS-ABILITIES'.

I ALSO MUCH PREFER TO 'LOOK AT' and 'SEE' the ABILITIES IN others, and NOT what they are, SUPPOSEDLY, 'NOT ABLE' AT.

And, just like EVERY human being HAS A DISABILITY in 'one form' or another, so to EVERY human being is AUTISTIC at 'one level' or another ALONG the SPECTRUM, or CONTINUUM. But, MOST of you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written anyway, did NOT WANT TO 'look at' AND 'see' this Fact.

MOST OF you spent MORE TIME 'looking FOR' your SUPERIORITY OVER 'others' OR FOR the INFERIORITY IN 'others'. And, spend MORE TIME just 'TRYING TO' RIDICULE and/or HUMILIATE 'the other'/s'. As "atla" has PROVED, here in this forum, TO BE A PRIME example of 'this', and of being 'one' of 'this type'.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:22 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:46 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:18 pm

I've been wondering how I would try to explain sight to someone who can't imagine it. Maybe like this: it's like touch but from a distance, we can tell what the surface of something is like, without touching it, from a distance. Also, we see all the surfaces around us all at once. It's like touching everything around you all at once, even things that are far away.

Except I think touch is a feeling, while sight doesn't feel like anything. It's an impression without feeling. More like a thought I guess.

And even surfaces that feel the same when touched, can appear differently when seen. Those are the different colors. But also, surfaces that feel differently when touched, can have the same color. It's like touch with 2 different dimensions I guess, shape and color.

I can tell different surfaces apart, glass, bricks, wood, and so on, by echolocation, without having to touch them.

Huhh, why haven't I heard of this before, why isn't human echolocation common knowledge?

LOL
LOL
LOL

BECAUSE people like you "atla" can be VERY, VERY IGNORANT, while you are 'TRYING TO' TELL 'others' that you UNDERSTAND and KNOW MORE than 'they do'.

Also, CONTINUALLY EXPRESSING, and 'TRYING TO' ARGUE and/or FIGHT FOR, your OWN ALREADY OBTAINED PRESUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, does NOT leave you MUCH TIME to OBTAIN MORE and/or NEW KNOWLEDGE NOR LEARN MORE and ANEW.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:22 pm I thought the Daredevil movie was just fantasy..

AGAIN, here 'we' have ANOTHER example of HOW BELIEF can and does BREED IGNORANCE, itself.

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:29 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:22 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:46 pm

I can tell different surfaces apart, glass, bricks, wood, and so on, by echolocation, without having to touch them.

Huhh, why haven't I heard of this before, why isn't human echolocation common knowledge? I thought the Daredevil movie was just fantasy..

I don't know why it isn't more widely known about.

There are PLENTY of 'things', in the days when this is being written, that are NOT more widely known about, like, for example,

How the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work.
How the Universe ACTUALLY works.
What the Universe is ACTUALLY made up and consists of.
There is One Mind, ONLY.
The Universe did NOT begin, and IS infinite.
There are NO ACTUAL thing/s to DEBATE.
There is NO ACTUAL creation versus evolution, nature versus nurture, free will versus determinism, et cetera.
What came first.
Who and what 'I' AM, EXACTLY.
Who and what people, and, human beings ARE, EXACTLY.
The meaning of 'life'.
The purpose of 'life', for 'being here', and for 'human beings'.
What 'space' and 'time' actually ARE.
Among MANY other things.

Although 'these things' ARE ALREADY KNOWN, to 'me', like 'echolocation' WAS, to 'you', AND, the NON geocentric Universe WAS, to 'another', 'these things' WILL and DO BECOME more widely KNOWN, and ACCEPTED.

Some people, however, just take LONGER TO LEARN, and COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, SOME things, than OTHERS TAKE, and DO.

The REASON WHY 'echolocation' AND 'the things', above here, are NOT MORE WIDELY KNOWN, and ACCEPTED, IS BECAUSE one HAS TO BE Truly INTERESTED IN LEARNING and KNOWING ABOUT 'these things', AS WELL AS NOT BE ALREADY DISADVANTAGEOUSLY AFFECTED BY their 'current' thinking and views. And, the BIGGEST DISADVANTAGE A human being can have, here, is TO ALREADY BE HAVING and HANGING ONTO BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS. As 'they' WILL, LITERALLY, STOP and PREVENT one FROM SEEING, LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING NEW and MORE 'things'.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:36 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:29 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:22 pm
Huhh, why haven't I heard of this before, why isn't human echolocation common knowledge? I thought the Daredevil movie was just fantasy..

I don't know why it isn't more widely known about.

If you don't mind me asking, say you're in a room, can you put a number on how many objects you can perceive at the same time using echolocation? Or is that not how it works?

Considering the Fact that you could NOT do 'this' WITH 'sight', itself, absolutely Accurately AND Correctly, wondering if one without 'sight' but with 'echolocation' could do 'this' is ABSURD.

How about you ASK WITH and FROM 'the perspective' of PROVIDING ACTUAL examples, FIRST?

Like, for example, ASK if they could put a number on how MANY objects they could perceive in a room, depending on the size of a room, how many actual objects were in the room, what kinds of objects are they, exactly, and how far each object is from them, exactly.

What you did, here, would be like me asking you, 'Can you put a number of how many objects, in a room, you can perceive at the same time using sight?'

What would your ANSWER BE, EXACTLY?

And, if you would have ANSWERED some thing like, 'everything' or 'every one of them', then you REALLY ARE NOT 'SEEING' things, FULLY, here.

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:42 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:36 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:29 pm

I don't know why it isn't more widely known about.

If you don't mind me asking, say you're in a room, can you put a number on how many objects you can perceive at the same time using echolocation? Or is that not how it works?

Yes, I can easily tell, for example, how many chairs there are in a room. Or people. Or tables, and so on. And how big the room is too. It's simultaneous, in all directions.

Thank you for POINTING OUT, and SHOWING, the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, here, for 'those' who are Truly BLIND, here.

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:59 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:54 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 5:42 pm

Yes, I can easily tell, for example, how many chairs there are in a room. Or people. Or tables, and so on. And how big the room is too. It's simultaneous, in all directions.

Does rain help with echolocation or does it hinder it?

It hinders it. As does, for example, snow on the ground.

Does rain HINDER your ABILITY WITH 'seeing'?

And, if it sounds like there would be AN OBVIOUS ANSWER TO 'my question', then so to was there AN OBVIOUS ANSWER TO 'your question'

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:38 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:29 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:14 pm

Yes, absolutely. It's extremely useful, in a forest.

And in a noisy downtown or anywhere with a lot of loud noise? Is it still usable?

I wonder if your brain/mind processes sounds so much more heavily than most of us do, that it uses additional regions for it.

It's still usable, unless the noise is really bad. Any normal sort of noise, including a busy street, is fine.

According to CT scans that I've had, my visual cortex has been mostly repurposed to be stimulated by sound input. Which is one major reason, incidentally, that I'm loathe to have things stuck into it.

Considering the Fact that 'that body' AND EVERY 'other body' IS PERFECT IN the EXACT WAY that they are ALL CREATED, through EVOLUTION, STICKING things IN, which are NOT NEEDED IS 'ABUSE' in EVERY USE of the WORD, and TERM.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:43 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:38 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:29 pm
And in a noisy downtown or anywhere with a lot of loud noise? Is it still usable?

I wonder if your brain/mind processes sounds so much more heavily than most of us do, that it uses additional regions for it.

It's still usable, unless the noise is really bad. Any normal sort of noise, including a busy street, is fine.

According to CT scans that I've had, my visual cortex has been mostly repurposed to be stimulated by sound input. Which is one major reason, incidentally, that I'm loathe to have things stuck into it.

Aha you can almost "see" sound echoes.

Just like you can ALMOST 'see' what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, here.

you are, anyway, 'seeing' more and anew, here, which is NEW in and of itself. And, although you are, 'now', LEARNING HOW to 'see' MORE, and ANEW, your rate of LEARNING, UNDERSTANDING, and 'SEEING' is, STILL, VERY, VERY SLOW. But, at least it HAS STARTED.