tilthat: TIL a philosophy riddle from 1688 was recently solved. If a man born blind can feel the differences between shapes such as spheres and cubes, could he, if given the ability, distinguish those objects by sight alone? In 2003 five people had their sight restored though surgery, and, no they could not.

nentuaby: I love when apparently Deep questions turn out to have clear empirical answers.

  • someguy3@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    … they really can’t connect spacial awareness from touch to sight? Really?

    • Knusper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I could imagine it being difficult to conceptualize without the ability to visualize, but yeah, I find it hard to believe, too. Between cube and sphere, at the very least, I’d expect them to realize the pointy bits are probably the corners of the cube, not a flat surface.

        • Knusper@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t expect them to know. I’m saying, if they’re given time to think about it, I’d expect them to make an educated guess that’s likely correct.

          Pointy bits feel thin, unlike the rest of these shapes. So, if they’re given only the sphere and the cube to feel, they could remember that the cube had 8 pointy bits, the sphere did not.

          Of course, a lot depends on how these tests were performed and what “they could not” actually means.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re still assuming an ability to connect shapes to vision, even if what you’re assuming is the most basic connection. Keep in mind these people had absolutely nothing to base their visual experiences on. I’m sure that given a few minutes to play with the objects they’d begin to map their visual inputs to mental models, but at first, it’ll all look like abstract garbage

            It’s not that they don’t have a sort of 3d model of a cube in their mind, it’s that their 3d model of a cube includes absolutely nothing visual, which is virtually impossible for us to even imagine

            • Knusper@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I actually felt like my pointy bits method was entirely disconnected from experience. Yeah, they see abstract garbage, but they’ll still see anomalies in this abstract garbage. And they were able to feel anomalies on the cube.

              It does take some thinking to make a guess like that. And they may have still been completely overwhelmed with sight in general. And again, I don’t know what the methodology in these tests looked like. But yeah, just summarizing it as “they could not” seems entirely unhelpful.

      • Vector610@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        What does a pointy bit look like to someone who has never seen one ? You have years of experience matching your visual input of the world around you with your tactile experiences, it’s easy to forgot how much of our basic knowledge is learned at a young age.

        • Knusper@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, as I said, without the ability to visualize, this may be tricky. But I’m imagining this test as them being given enough time to think about it and feel the shapes and maybe even count the pointy bits. At the very least, I’d expect an educated guess that’s likely correct, if they’re only discerning sphere and cube. Of course, a lot depends on how these tests were performed.