Philosophy Question from the 1600's

[Benton]

(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.

That is an entirely different philosophical question . Did the smartass know the intent of the question asked, or did he just lawyer up a loophole to be correct?

[Tiger Teeth]

(05-24-2016, 03:52 PM)MrRager Wrote:

I've always hated this song.

[SteelCitySouth]

(05-26-2016, 02:54 PM)Benton Wrote: That is an entirely different philosophical question . Did the smartass know the intent of the question asked, or did he just lawyer up a loophole to be correct?

I think there is only one person being a smart-ass here.  But go on.

[Benton]

(05-26-2016, 04:42 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I think there is only one person being a smart-ass here.  But go on.

Oh, the smartass is me, but that wasn't the point of the question.

[Penn]

(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?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-26-2016, 08:07 PM)Penn Wrote: 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?

They don't need to touch the shapes to use proprioception to identify the shapes.  

Our brains make mental maps.  That's how a blind person learns to navigate a room without running into objects.  People and animanls with sight do the same thing learning a route.  Each time they travel the same route they are able to go further and add to their 3D mental map.  It's basically a GPS hard wired into the brain which allows us to navigate from point A to point B and constantly up date our own maps.

How has a blind person identified shapes while blind?  By touch.  Running their hands over the shapes.  While they do that their brain is collecting proprioception data from their hands.  I hypothesize this proprioceptive data could form a mental map so they are able to recognize the same shape in the future.  How does a blind person know a square is a square?  From the proprioceptive data from their hands forming a mental map . . . I think (I don't know if that part is true or not so don't quote me.)

So how do they use proprioception and the mental map to identify the objects once they have sight, but aren't allowed to touch the objects?  They just pretend like they are touching the objects in the same manner they did when they were blind.  The see a square shape and they basically draw the outline of the object they see in the air so they get proprioceptive feedback from their hands without touching the object and they are able to access the mental map they made while touching the same object when still blind.

That was my thought process and why I voted yes.

[SteelCitySouth]

(05-26-2016, 06:25 PM)Benton Wrote: Oh, the smartass is me, but that wasn't the point of the question.

The point is on the square that the once blind person couldn't identify prior to touching it again.  

[Penn]

(05-27-2016, 01:26 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: They don't need to touch the shapes to use proprioception to identify the shapes.  

...

That was my thought process and why I voted yes.

I understand the thought process an can see the logic.  Yes it is logic but the current studies demonstrate it is incorrect.

In the 18th century, somewhere around 50 years after the question was originally proposed, what may have been the first example of of surgically repaired eyes giving sight to the blind.  Even though it wasn't incorporated into actual experimental studies until 2003 the observations of people for the next 200+ years all indicated that in practice the theory of innate vision comprehension just didn't hold up.  It is a totally new type of data that a brain needs to learn to interpret.  You just don't take a computer audio file and expect an image program such as Photoshop or Gimp to comprehend a "new" type of data without teaching (programming) it to understand that new data.

I didn't vote because I viewed it as unfair for me to give input since the question was clearly intended as philosophical instead of with actual knowledge derived from reported experiments.  Ten years ago, before I knew of either experiments or the 200+ years of observation, I would have been the only person to vote no apparently.  Maybe my unusual experience with the question, "What language to deaf people think in?", may well be why I understood the unknown data concept.