+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Klotsch (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-22.html)
+--- Thread: Philosophy Question from the 1600's (/thread-6538.html)
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - Beaker - 05-24-2016
(05-24-2016, 11:32 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: If, when a person born blind and only had tactile reference to distinguish between shapes such as a globe and a cube, sight were restored and without the use of touch, could the once blind person distinguish between the two shapes.
Has the person whose sight was restored lost all sense of touch, or simply is not allowed to touch those two shapes?
If they lose all sense of touch when sight is restored, they would still likely be able to eventually distinguish. Because if they injure themselves on sharp corners or other pointy objects, even if they can't feel it...they will learn what "pointy" is. Therefore they would have a reference to connect with the memory of what "pointy" felt like while blind.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - Bengalzona - 05-24-2016
(05-24-2016, 05:21 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Did you cast your vote?
Why do you ask?
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - rfaulk34 - 05-24-2016
(05-24-2016, 07:01 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: "I see!" said the blind man to his deaf and dumb wife.
But, yes, if they can at least see shapes, if they were to gain sight, they would be able to distinguish the difference. How could they not?
Because they've never 'seen' the shape before, being blind from birth. Having felt the shapes, what kind, if any, image would/could they have in their brain if they've never seen it before?
Now, being able to see it, but not touch it for recognition, can they distinguish by sight only?
P.S. I did not and will not vote!
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - SteelCitySouth - 05-24-2016
(05-24-2016, 07:23 PM)Beaker Wrote: Has the person whose sight was restored lost all sense of touch, or simply is not allowed to touch those two shapes?
If they lose all sense of touch when sight is restored, they would still likely be able to eventually distinguish. Because if they injure themselves on sharp corners or other pointy objects, even if they can't feel it...they will learn what "pointy" is. Therefore they would have a reference to connect with the memory of what "pointy" felt like while blind.
The thought experiment says that they may not touch the object...only through sight.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - SteelCitySouth - 05-24-2016
(05-24-2016, 07:01 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: "I see!" said the blind man to his deaf and dumb wife.
But, yes, if they can at least see shapes, if they were to gain sight, they would be able to distinguish the difference. How could they not?
The person was born blind and only knows shapes through touch. Once sight is restored they would be Asked to distinguish the items using sight alone.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - Penn - 05-24-2016
I can see how, at one time, this was a philosophy question since giving sight to a blind person was just theoretical but now it isn't. The few occasions where it has happened the result was what I consider to be the obvious answer to the theory. No, they can't distinguish shapes by sight alone at first. Over time they can learn. I couldn't find an online accounting of the first story I heard of a man getting sight for the first time (at least not in less than 3 minutes) but I do recall that even after several years of having vision he still couldn't ascertain if a person was male or female by sight alone.
But I did find one account of a person getting sight and it clearly states it took months to learn shapes http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/11/11/can-a-blind-person-whose-visio/
So the only 2 examples I know of say, no. Maybe someone can find a real world example that says otherwise but I would be truly shocked. Even people who once had sight, lost it (possibly as a child), then regained it after several years (as an adult) have had issues using sight to identify certain things, especially facial recognition.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - Beaker - 05-24-2016
(05-24-2016, 08:27 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: The thought experiment says that they may not touch the object...only through sight.
Yes, but they have felt the object before. And upon regaining sight will touch other objects with corners, thereby having a point of reference from which to distinguish the shapes.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - Penn - 05-24-2016
(05-24-2016, 09:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: Yes, but they have felt the object before. And upon regaining sight will touch other objects with corners, thereby having a point of reference from which to distinguish the shapes.
The spirit of Molineaux's question (I think that was his name) is "do we have an innate ability to correspond the sense of touch to the sense of vision or is it learned".
So, if we are talking the theoretical situation it would go something like this. A blind subject receives surgery to give them vision. During the post operative healing they are blind folded. They are placed in front of a table. An observer hands them a cube and tells them it is red. They then hand the subject a ball and tell the subject it is green. Now they tell the subject the green ball and red cube is going to be on a white table in front of them (but no reference to where on the table) and are instructed to pick up the green ball once the blindfold is removed.
So some would incorrectly theorize that a person that a person can translate tactile to visual without ever having being able to see. The reality is, once that blindfold is removed, not only will the subject not be able to tell the difference between the red cube and the green ball, they also won't be able to identify the white table. They have to learn everything. Color, shape, depth perception.
To my understanding the only part of the original question that is still debatable is weather or not the person has to learn to merge the two slightly different images from the two eyes of if that part is innate. My belief is they have to learn that too. Maybe the evidence for that one exists somewhere.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - Rotobeast - 05-24-2016
I would say that the answer to the question would be dependent upon the age and intelligence of the subject.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - SteelCitySouth - 05-25-2016
(05-24-2016, 09:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: Yes, but they have felt the object before. And upon regaining sight will touch other objects with corners, thereby having a point of reference from which to distinguish the shapes.
Dude....read the of again. I'm not sure where you disconnect is.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - SteelCitySouth - 05-25-2016
This riddle was answered beginning in 2003. The answer is no. Those who had their sight restored, having been blind their entire life were not able to distigush between different object using sight alone. It wasn't until they had used both senses over time were they able to then begin to be able to learn how to do this using sight alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - SteelCitySouth - 05-25-2016
(05-24-2016, 09:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: Yes, but they have felt the object before. And upon regaining sight will touch other objects with corners, thereby having a point of reference from which to distinguish the shapes.
Beaker....the question is....Can they distinguish between the objects using sight alone. IE, right after having sight returned and without touching the objects. You're making this entirely to complicated.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - fredtoast - 05-25-2016
When I was young the only time I masturbated was in the total darkness of my bedroom closet. The first time I actually saw my own erection I had no idea what it was.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - rfaulk34 - 05-25-2016
(05-25-2016, 11:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: When I was young the only time I masturbated was in the total darkness of my bedroom closet. The first time I actually saw my own erection I had no idea what it was.
But were you able to immediately associate it with a vienna sausage?
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 05-26-2016
(05-24-2016, 10:25 PM)Penn Wrote: The spirit of Molineaux's question (I think that was his name) is "do we have an innate ability to correspond the sense of touch to the sense of vision or is it learned".
So, if we are talking the theoretical situation it would go something like this. A blind subject receives surgery to give them vision. During the post operative healing they are blind folded. They are placed in front of a table. An observer hands them a cube and tells them it is red. They then hand the subject a ball and tell the subject it is green. Now they tell the subject the green ball and red cube is going to be on a white table in front of them (but no reference to where on the table) and are instructed to pick up the green ball once the blindfold is removed.
So some would incorrectly theorize that a person that a person can translate tactile to visual without ever having being able to see. The reality is, once that blindfold is removed, not only will the subject not be able to tell the difference between the red cube and the green ball, they also won't be able to identify the white table. They have to learn everything. Color, shape, depth perception.
To my understanding the only part of the original question that is still debatable is weather or not the person has to learn to merge the two slightly different images from the two eyes of if that part is innate. My belief is they have to learn that too. Maybe the evidence for that one exists somewhere.
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.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - bfine32 - 05-26-2016
Sure, as long as they never lost their ability to hear.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - Benton - 05-26-2016
(05-25-2016, 11:15 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: This riddle was answered beginning in 2003. The answer is no. Those who had their sight restored, having been blind their entire life were not able to distigush between different object using sight alone. It wasn't until they had used both senses over time were they able to then begin to be able to learn how to do this using sight alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem
Hmmmm...
Quote:
If, when a person born blind and only had tactile reference to distinguish between shapes such as a globe and a cube, sight were restored and without the use of touch, could the once blind person distinguish between the two shapes.
From your link:
Quote:Although after restoration of sight, the subjects could distinguish between objects visually almost as effectively as they would do by touch alone, they were unable to form the connection between an object
So... if the question was "could the once blind person distinguish between the two shapes" then the answer — according to the link — is, yes. Yes they can.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 05-26-2016
(05-26-2016, 10:32 AM)Benton Wrote: Hmmmm...
From your link:
So... if the question was "could the once blind person distinguish between the two shapes" then the answer — according to the link — is, yes. Yes they can.
And the philosophy nerds say . . .
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - SteelCitySouth - 05-26-2016
(05-26-2016, 10:32 AM)Benton Wrote: Hmmmm...
From your link:
So... if the question was "could the once blind person distinguish between the two shapes" then the answer — according to the link — is, yes. Yes they can.
You are correct. I worded that incorrectly. I doubt though that you didn't know what was actually being asked.
RE: Philosophy Question from the 1600's - Rotobeast - 05-26-2016
(05-26-2016, 11:00 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: You are correct. I worded that incorrectly. I doubt though that you didn't know what was actually being asked.
Ahhh... that old chestnut.
