[Art_beyond_sight_theory_and_research] Molyneaux's question rephrased

[Lisa Yayla]

Hi Simon,
I am looking forward very much to reading the 2 chapters from your book. 
Thank you for sending them.
I think I understood Gregory's findings a bit different. He wrote that 
S.B could understand objects
by sight  after, if he had knowledge of them from before through touch. 
Examples given clock on wall and
printed letters.
As I understand it it showed that information is passed on from one 
sense to another.
But wouldn't this also answer the intent of Locke, that being that all 
things are learned.
Perhaps the missing bit that Locke didn't know about was cross modal 
transfer - another type of learning?
Perhaps there is a common factor between senses that allows them to 
communicate - they don't speak the
same language but because of a common factor are able to communicate- 
sort of like the EU?
Best,
Lisa

Simon Hayhoe wrote:
> <!-- 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
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>