[accessibleimage] Re: [Art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research] Molyneaux's question rephrased

Hi Lisa,j
Interesting question, one which I have addressed in the book I am currently 
writing.

In brief, to understand Molyneux's question to Locke, you must realise its 
history. Locke was trying to show that there are no inherent thoughts and that 
all things are learnt. Gregory's findings appreared to confirm this. SB at 
first could not tell by sight that which he had touched. However, after a while 
he learnt to transfer the cognitions from his previous touch perceptions to his 
new sighted ones, after he had experienced both together. This indicates that 
he learnt what he was seeing by building cognitive pathways from his previous 
experiences. Gregory called this Cross Modal Transfer (CMT). Berkley, in the 
early 18th century found much the same thing, as did Oliver Sacks after 
Gregory. I know the John (K) whom I have copied in has a very different take on 
this situation, and believes we have inherent ability in this area, which needs 
to be released through learning skills, much as Chomsky believed in an inherent 
Generative Grammar of language. If anyone is
 interested, I have added two relevant, VERY ROUGH chapters for your purusal on 
this subject which will add to the debate.

If anything, I would feel that, inherent or not, all senses rely on eachother. 
See particularly the research of Charles Spence from Oxford University. Neither 
is more important, although sight of course has more social and cultural value 
to all of us.

As ever, Best wishes and cheers,

Simon

----- Original Message ----
From: Lisa Yayla <fnugg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: accessibleimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Art Beyond Sight Theory and Research 
<art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, 3 September, 2006 2:29:52 PM
Subject: [Art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research] Molyneaux's question rephrased

Hi,
Following are some questions I have about touch and sight. Would 
appreciate any feedback, thoughts

In the paper "Recovery from Early Blindness" by Richard Gregory he 
describes a man, S.B, gaining vision at the age of 51. Shortly after the 
operation he draws pictures from what Gregory calls "touch memory" and 
is able to understand objects through vision alone and not touching 
them, though they are objects he has known from touch when blind (clock 
on wall and written letters). This again touch memory. In his pictures 
though he does not enter features which he "had not known previously by 
touch".

This seems to answer differently than John Locke's answer to Molyneaux

However S.B had difficulty recognizing faces and facial expressions. 
This is also the case for Michael May (blind and regained sight) that he 
has difficulty with understanding faces and facial expressions. I was 
thinking that perhaps the explanation to this is that facial 
expressions, body language are something done "on the fly", there is 
movement involved and this is something one can not experience with 
touch. Transition of expression involves movement.

In lieu of this would it not seem fair to rephrase Molyneaux problem to:

"If a blind person gains sight will that person, soon after gaining 
sight, understand an object from sight alone not having experienced it 
by touch from before?"

and/or Could this be compared to an archaeologist who uncovers an object 
and doesn't know what it is? 

The idea being that touch is very important for sight

Is perhaps sight  the "servant" of touch? That sight discovers things 
for us to touch? The original object of development is to touch and 
verify?  Is sight the ability to "touch" at a distance? That sight 
develops from touch? Sight developed to be able to touch farther away 
then the lengths of our arms?

Thanks,
Lisa


http://www.richardgregory.org/
_______________________________________________
Art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research mailing list
Art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research

Other related posts: