For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
+++If a person who has been blind from birth were to suddenly gain the ability to see, would they recognize objects they had previously only known through touch?+++Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:36 pm Shashwat Mishra explores the limits of perception via the Molyneux problem.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/Seeing_and_Knowing
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.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 7:52 pm 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.
Bullshit.Maia wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 6:02 pm+++If a person who has been blind from birth were to suddenly gain the ability to see, would they recognize objects they had previously only known through touch?+++Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:36 pm Shashwat Mishra explores the limits of perception via the Molyneux problem.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/Seeing_and_Knowing
No.
How do you know this?Maia wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 6:02 pm+++If a person who has been blind from birth were to suddenly gain the ability to see, would they recognize objects they had previously only known through touch?+++Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:36 pm Shashwat Mishra explores the limits of perception via the Molyneux problem.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/Seeing_and_Knowing
No.
Put a blindfold on, go into and unfamiliar room, and click your tongue a few times. Then come back and describe to me the size and shape of the room, where the doors and windows are, and where tables, chairs, and so on, are. If you have ears, that work, there's so reason why you shouldn't be able to do this. Is there?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:24 amBullshit.Maia wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 6:02 pm+++If a person who has been blind from birth were to suddenly gain the ability to see, would they recognize objects they had previously only known through touch?+++Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:36 pm Shashwat Mishra explores the limits of perception via the Molyneux problem.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/Seeing_and_Knowing
No.
If you had sensed through your hands a cube and then had a visual experience of a cube I WILL INSIST, you will identify that a cube sits before you.
Absolutely I can do that. Do I think U can analyse via that method the details of the room better than I? Oui.Maia wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:41 amPut a blindfold on, go into and unfamiliar room, and click your tongue a few times. Then come back and describe to me the size and shape of the room, where the doors and windows are, and where tables, chairs, and so on, are. If you have ears, that work, there's so reason why you shouldn't be able to do this. Is there?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:24 amBullshit.
If you had sensed through your hands a cube and then had a visual experience of a cube I WILL INSIST, you will identify that a cube sits before you.
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. 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. It would probably, in fact, be quite unpleasant, at least at first. I can't even imagine how or where such data would even manifest itself.Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:55 amHow do you know this?Maia wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 6:02 pm+++If a person who has been blind from birth were to suddenly gain the ability to see, would they recognize objects they had previously only known through touch?+++Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:36 pm Shashwat Mishra explores the limits of perception via the Molyneux problem.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/Seeing_and_Knowing
No.
And, is this for each and every object?
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.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:47 amAbsolutely I can do that. Do I think U can analyse via that method the details of the room better than I? Oui.Maia wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:41 amPut a blindfold on, go into and unfamiliar room, and click your tongue a few times. Then come back and describe to me the size and shape of the room, where the doors and windows are, and where tables, chairs, and so on, are. If you have ears, that work, there's so reason why you shouldn't be able to do this. Is there?attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 5:24 am
Bullshit.
If you had sensed through your hands a cube and then had a visual experience of a cube I WILL INSIST, you will identify that a cube sits before you.
I am not accustomed to analysing my reality via reverb of sound.
However, you have clearly ignored the point I have made.
Good.Maia wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:56 amI 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.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:47 amAbsolutely I can do that. Do I think U can analyse via that method the details of the room better than I? Oui.Maia wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:41 am
Put a blindfold on, go into and unfamiliar room, and click your tongue a few times. Then come back and describe to me the size and shape of the room, where the doors and windows are, and where tables, chairs, and so on, are. If you have ears, that work, there's so reason why you shouldn't be able to do this. Is there?
I am not accustomed to analysing my reality via reverb of sound.
However, you have clearly ignored the point I have made.
I don't think I've ignored your point, though, and have tried to answer it by analogy.
With practice, but it would no doubt take quite a while, and you'd have to learn not only cubes, but everything else, too.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:01 amGood.Maia wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:56 amI 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.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:47 am
Absolutely I can do that. Do I think U can analyse via that method the details of the room better than I? Oui.
I am not accustomed to analysing my reality via reverb of sound.
However, you have clearly ignored the point I have made.
I don't think I've ignored your point, though, and have tried to answer it by analogy.
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).
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.Maia wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:51 amI 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.
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?
This is quite a presumption, and a belief, you have, here.
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.
I agree, absolutely, that you could not know every object, nor even most of them, if and when you first 'saw' them. However, there may well be some objects that you could recognize, and know, at first. Obviously you could never know color, for example, at first sight, nor ever, until some one informed you. However, some objects may be very easy to distinguish, and know, at first sight, by just going on 'past experiences', and from the sensory input from 'touch'.Maia wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:14 amWith practice, but it would no doubt take quite a while, and you'd have to learn not only cubes, but everything else, too.attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:01 amGood.Maia wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 8:56 am
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.
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).
It's definitely not something you could do straight away.
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.Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 10:55 amI 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.
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?
This is quite a presumption, and a belief, you have, here.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.