[Art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research] Molyneaux's question rephrased

Sun Sep 3 17:11:33 CDT 2006

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 at online.no>
To: accessibleimage at freelists.org; Art Beyond Sight Theory and Research <art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research at nfbnet.org>
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 at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research

-------------- next part --------------
<!-- DIV {margin:0px} -->
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 at online.no>
To: accessibleimage at freelists.org; Art Beyond Sight Theory and Research <art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research at nfbnet.org>
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/ http://www.richardgregory.org/
_______________________________________________
Art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research mailing list
Art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Chapter Two.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 128512 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research/attachments/20060903/ff771403/attachment-0002.doc 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ChapterThree.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 122880 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research/attachments/20060903/ff771403/attachment-0003.doc 