[accessibleimage] Response 1: Molyneaux's question rephrased

Lisa,

I think you are very much on the right path.

In my opinion there is a lot of evidence to indicate that touch is very
important for sight. To mention just a few, babies begin by reaching out to
touch things, including with their mouths and tongues, and learn to
interpret what they see in this process.  Also, when an adult sits with a
young child and explains that a picture that shows a side view of a person
or animal is not showing a creature with only one eye or only one ear, she
or he can explain to the child that the other eye or ear is on the other
side of the creature. In my experience, the child will often reach out to
feel if the adult's eye or ear or back of the head, etc. that is not showing
is still there.

You very relevantly asked: "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?"

In the last few years I have conducted workshops to help fully sighted
volunteers understand how they can assist immigrants and refugees who are
blind and have low vision to learn English.

To help them understand how the people who are blind can learn about the
world by touching, I pass out paper bags with common objects in them. These
include, combs, brushes, spoons, forks, pencils, keys, cups, etc. I then ask
each participant to put her or his hand in the bag and identify the objects
in it, without looking at the objects. Even though some people protest that
they cannot identify things just by touch, they all can do it successfully.
I then ask them to reflect on how they did it...

I thought it would be a good idea to also present some relatively common
objects that would be relatively more difficult to identify by touch
although they could be relatively easily identified by sight. But, it has
proven to find many such objects. Some models of animals are difficult to
identify by touch without looking, and certainly most people who have not
been trained to use tactile graphics cannot identify them by touch alone.
But, very many familiar animal models and other more complex objects proved
easier to identify than I had anticipated. The things that are difficult to
identify are the things in packages, unless the person is used to touching
such packages... I had a small ball and jacks in a soft plastic bag package
that some people found difficult to identify, but those people who had
played with that kind of thing in the past were even able to identify them
in a soft plastic bag.

Here is a fascinating quote that also substantiates the importance of touch
in our knowledge of the world.

Biologist and former lion trainer Steven Austad, wrote in a book review
titled "Herbophilia" (published in NATURAL HISTORY, July, 1996, page 6,
reviewing the book Plants, People, and Culture:  The Science of Ethnobotany,
by Michael J. Balick and Paul Alan Cox (Scientific American Library 1996):

"Once, through stupidity of epic magnitude, I managed to get completely lost
in a trackless stretch of rain forest in Papua New Guinea.  For several
hours, in darkness and heavy rain, I thrashed through the bush, desperately
looking for familiar landmarks.  Earlier in the day, I had refused an offer
to be escorted into the forest by village hunters accompanying our
expedition.  `Don't worry about me,` I'd told them, `I've got an excellent
sense of direction.`  As I settled under a small canopy of fig roots to wait
for morning, I couldn't decide whether to laugh or weep at my hubris.

"Before long I heard shouts.  I shouted back.  Surprise!  Relief!  I was
found!  The hunters who had been waiting for me back at camp had managed to
follow my spoor over rocks, through streams and thickets, and down mud
slides in the dark!

"I probably wouldn't have been so surprised by their ability to read the
signs of the forest if I hadn't been such a skeptic in the first place.
These hunters were always telling me about things that I couldn't see.
Looking up and down a tree trunk, they would say that a large animal had
come down the tree just after dark.  `It ran across to there,` they would
add, pointing.  `Then something frightened it, and it hid among those roots
before heading to that stream for a drink.`  Previously I had always
chuckled to myself about how gullible they thought I was.  But now I am a
believer.  These people, whose ancestors have walked and wandered in these
forests for thousands of years, indeed see and feel and understand things
about their forest that I will never be able to see or feel or understand."

Best,

Sylvie

Sylvie Kashdan, M.A.
Instructor/Curriculum Coordinator
KAIZEN PROGRAM for New English Learners with Visual Limitations
810-A Hiawatha Place South
Seattle, WA  98144, U.S.A.
phone:  (206) 784-5619
email:  kaizen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web:  http://www.nwlincs.org/kaizen/





----- 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, September 03, 2006 6:29 AM
Subject: [accessibleimage] 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/

Other related posts: