Poll: Pick an answer
This poll is closed.
Yes
90.00%
9 90.00%
No
0%
0 0%
I don't give two shits about Philosophy.
10.00%
1 10.00%
Total 10 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Philosophy Question from the 1600's
#45
(05-26-2016, 12:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I thought proprioception would allow them to distinguish the shapes by sight.  Because I thought proprioception would allow them to draw a mental map they could use to recognize the shapes.  

If I understand proprioception correct it is more of a matter of knowing things like body position.

Think of it this way - If a person has never had sight, when they suddenly get it that will be a totally new type of data.  The brain would have absolutely no way of understanding that information in itself.  Now if the person moved their hand from their side to in front of their face they would know from previous use of the muscles what happened so they can figure out what they are seeing is a hand.  If they held a known object in their hand they would also be able to figure it out. Propriocetion would aid in learning how to understand that new data but keep in mind the original question explicitly states touching is not available to the subject.  All they have is trying to interpret data that is nothing like anything they have previously experienced.

In an attempt to find out if I was right about two images from the eyes I came across this article which does a decent job of explaining the findings (I also found out from that article "stereo" can also be applied to sight) http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/people-cured-blindness-see

In that article you find that the subjects even had 48 hours of use of vision and still couldn't identify shapes however within a week they learned to identify shapes by vision.  I would guess if you do an internet search for the 3 names the author of that article cited, you can find out more information about the study of 5 individuals they talk about as well as a few studies since that confirmed the findings.

On final note about the new data perspective.  I heard a story of a blind man hitting his head and somehow was able to see immediately.  To my understanding, in the first few seconds he couldn't even understand the new data enough to realize he was seeing and even after initially considering it a possibility he wasn't 100% sure that is what was happening. So if it takes any amount of time at all for a person to comprehend that they are actually seeing for the first time, how can they immediately understand what they are seeing?
Reply/Quote





Messages In This Thread
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - Penn - 05-26-2016, 08:07 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)