Molyneux's problem

[Toasted]

You wouldn't "restore" his sight, since he has never had it to begin with.

Yes very good, but that is a semantics argument not a philosophical one.

If you take a philosophical view point to your nit-picking, then you could say that sight is an inherently human characterisitic, and that it is an intrinsic part of 'being human' so by giving him his sight, you are restoring him to the human condition.

Anyway. That isnt the argument that Im trying to explore -

Can he visualise the shapes in his head, only from touching them - with no previous visualisation experience?

I still say 'no.'

 

[Mon Rominee]

I just want to know how his name is spelled. Is it

Molyneux

or

Moylineux?

(I'm just kidding around)

To answer your question, no, I do not think he would initially be able to differentiate the objects. Once he acclimated to constants (truths) in his new world view, then of course he would.

I think the most base of perceptions aren't linked at all. BUT, to that end whatever senses you don't have always have a way of strengthenning your others. Only through conditionning do they cooperate.

 

[Toasted]

"Molyneux" Is the correct spelling. Please excuse my bad typing. Interesting view Mon Rominee. I think i almost agree with you

 

[klorence]

unless the definitions of smooth or pointy or square or circle were described/explained to him.


it's like people who are "color blind" - is the 'red' that we tell them is red really 'red' to them? or are they seeing what we call 'green' and think it's 'red' just because that's what they've been told?


analogously - in the 1st Matrix film, where they're at chow time and Mouse is talking about what "chicken" tastes like. is it really what it tastes like, or have they just been programmed (told) "This is what chicken tastes like"?

 

[Tsal]

Yes. Ability to understand three-dimensional world isn't bound to a certain sense; eyes are just one organ to feed our brain.

For example, there are blind cave bats who are able to navigate and prey on dimensional image produced by their hearing only.

Also there is logic; if you feel something with multiple sides versus just one (a sphere has only one side), you would quickly be able to connect which of two is which.

 

[dlloyd]

If we suddenly restore the power of sight to him would he be able to tell which was which that he had been feeling?

Depends whether they were any good at abstract spacial reasoning.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Think of it this way; teach this blind man the numbers 1 through 10 on his fingers. He knows them well, so if someone asked him to hold up the number say, seven, he could do it without a second thought. Suddenly he gains the ability to see. He is then put in a room with a group of people, each holding up a certain number of fingers, and asked to say how many fingers each are holding up. Even though he hasn't seen before, he can hold up each hand gesture that he knows represents 1,2,3, etc., and KNOW that however his hands are positioned represents a certain number. All he would have to do would be to hold up his own hands and look at them to understand what 1,2,3, etc. looks like, and from that information he can determine what numbers the other people are holding up without having to feel their hands.

Same goes with Molyneux's problem-so long as the man has a transferable reference, which he does in his own hands, he would be able to determine which object is which without having to touch them.

 

[canopener]

Yes very good, but that is a semantics argument not a philosophical one.

If you take a philosophical view point to your nit-picking, then you could say that sight is an inherently human characterisitic, and that it is an intrinsic part of 'being human' so by giving him his sight, you are restoring him to the human condition.

Anyway. That isnt the argument that Im trying to explore -

Can he visualise the shapes in his head, only from touching them - with no previous visualisation experience?

I still say 'no.'

In most cases, I would tend to say no, but there are other issues that do not seem to be considered. Of course, there have been many breakthroughs in brain chemistry studies and many studies to come to a conclusion to Molyneux's problem. It would depend on the individual's own mental capabilities and how long he/she had to gather spatial information as others have alluded to, so far. Would the person recognize other characteristics of the objects (i.e. size, how the object appears at rest, etc)? Remember, we've known for some time that persons who may be blind or deaf have other heightened senses.