I was laughing so hard when they said “there were other potential factors, such as the patients intelligence” this boy really got cured from blindness only to have his IQ roasted by philosophers hahaha... it really do be like that sometimes
@doctyler5382
4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I caught that remark too! 🤣
@atwm1898
4 жыл бұрын
Lol same I can just picture the philosophers being like: that’s not fair; the kid’s an idiot!
@lorigulfnoldor2162
4 жыл бұрын
Actually, it's most probably wrong take on the meaning of the words (though the CHOICE of words was unfortunate). What was meant was (most probably) that 8-years old boy does not know advanced geometry and stereometry to make rational calculations, nor does he have the mental abilities of an adult. So it's not that "a kid's and idiot", but more like "it's a kid, not an adult, his understanding may be limited". That being said - yeah, pretty bad choice of words.
@ashtonpeterson4618
4 жыл бұрын
@@lorigulfnoldor2162 That's a good way of putting it.
@antimatter4733
4 жыл бұрын
It is what it is
@stanleyyelnezevans2913
5 жыл бұрын
I always wondered what a blind person would see if they took acid
@MaxyTv123
5 жыл бұрын
Wtf
@yt-sh
5 жыл бұрын
their other(next prime sense like hearing(?) would be hyperactivated - my guess
@jordanmicahcook
5 жыл бұрын
Ric Sanches A very good guess!
@jordanmicahcook
5 жыл бұрын
They wouldn’t see anything... they are blind...
@senororlando2
5 жыл бұрын
closed-eye visuals would be intense. Well we would call them that but they’d probably be almost beyond description from someone who’s never known vision
@victorrolston6892
5 жыл бұрын
Get a group of highly gifted blind mathematicians to do it and they will figure it out.
@graygravity3856
5 жыл бұрын
lol
@HeraldoS2
5 жыл бұрын
Well, I am not aware of the stats. But, once tried to research for gifted naturally blind mathematicians in history, and they are pretty rare to none. And, by far there have been more naturally blind gifted painters and gifted writters. To some degree, I would believe that is an inderect proof of how much vision is involved in the acquisition and development of mathematical knowledge.
@graygravity3856
5 жыл бұрын
@@HeraldoS2 wooosh
@dionysianapollomarx
5 жыл бұрын
@@graygravity3856 it's not a woosh he got the joke but wanted insight
@graygravity3856
5 жыл бұрын
@@dionysianapollomarx alright, I just thought he didn't know.
@BetterCallThall
5 жыл бұрын
I've often assumed color would be overwhelming to a newly sighted person.
@Luke-pi9ke
5 жыл бұрын
You'd probably be interested in Mary's Room if you haven't heard of it already.
@BetterCallThall
5 жыл бұрын
@@Luke-pi9ke Already sounds like a trip fuck. I'm on it.
@parkerbench1843
5 жыл бұрын
It’d be like just seeing an entire rainbow of new colors that we wouldn’t normally be able to see. It would be crazy
@reverently
5 жыл бұрын
Mary's Room lowkey fucked me up
@SkywalkerSamadhi
5 жыл бұрын
Ever see those videos of color blind people seeing through the glasses that allow them to see color? They get overwhelmed and they've had sight their whole lives.
@Jayloke
5 жыл бұрын
Wait a minute. I read some comments and I’m a bit confused. Everyone is talking about the fact that the cube has edges, flat faces, and that the sphere is round. None of these things, however, take into consideration that we don’t know if a blind person can distinguish these properties from a visual standpoint. But how about the fact that a sphere appears the same shape no matter the angle and place at which you watch it? A cube doesn’t look the same if you move around, *because* it is not round, it does not appear equal from every point of view. Following this logic, knowledge of this fact *could* be used to discern these two objects by one who has never seen before. If you have a different opinion, please let me know, I’d appreciate that!
@esteban7567
5 жыл бұрын
You are right, they would be able to tell IF they moved around the object, but the question is whether they would be able to tell "immediately" (with no frames of reference such as rotation or even seeing the movement of their hands to figure out what a straight line should look like). I believe with this clarification they would not be able to IMMEDIATELY know which object was which.
@gilbertboot572
4 жыл бұрын
That's the argument, would a person be able to figure out how the sensation of touch transfers into sight. Can the person figure out that three sensarion of touching something sharp like an edge look like what an edge looks like
@crawbug8932
4 жыл бұрын
@@esteban7567 But one would assume they could figure it out just by thinking about it.
@Miscio94
4 жыл бұрын
Someone that was born blind would have no idea of how the concepts of edges, flat, faces, and roundness would actually be perceived through vision. The problem here is time. Someone getting sight would probably need hours or days, while in a very disoriented state, "translating" what they touch and relating it to known ideas. Sharpness, roundness, distance, perspective, etc... All of these concepts will probably make sense after a while, when the person is beginning to understand how the visual stimuli works. I think given time of thought a blind person would be able to tell apart a cube from a sphere, making assumptions, like the sphere being a seemingly more consistant shape, which would relate to the smooth feeling immediatly.
@MohammedAli-tb7zc
4 жыл бұрын
Dude someone that has never had vision before cannot be expected to have developed dexterity and intuition associated with living in and understanding a 3 dimensional space, you can touch it as much as you want, but if you've never seen something before and suddenly see it, who says the tactile proficiency in identifying said object transfers directly to visual proficiency?
@mjudec
5 жыл бұрын
It makes sense to assume people will know that a corner/sharp edge will be recognisable but I suppose if you've never seen *anything* before you really have no frame of reference. I'm not surprised at how quickly people adapted once they could see though.
@7616lydeth
5 жыл бұрын
How about a long tube and a ball?
@comet1072
5 жыл бұрын
Totally agree. People who have never seen lack the ability to think visually. They'll be able to learn that super fast, but they just can't think visually if they have 0 points of reference as you said.
@bonniejunk
5 жыл бұрын
It's obvious to sighted people that a corner = pointy, but there would be no reason to make that connection unless you really thought about lines coming together and such.
@raku132
4 жыл бұрын
If you think about it when you see for the first time the world might be difficult to understand through sight. They still have to feel the edge to relate what edges are visually. So I think that no you may not be able to pick out the right object immediately upon gaining sight.
@knowingpigeon3142
4 жыл бұрын
Something I do and I think many people with sight do when touching something with our vision obstructed, is make a mental image of the object in our mind. So when I’m touching a cube, I picture a cube. A blind person would of course not be able to picture the cube, so when they did see it there would be no correlation.
@HonkeyKongLive
5 жыл бұрын
I feel like complexity is the key. Like I refuse to believe they couldn't tell a cube from a sphere, but a toy of a dog versus a giraffe would be impossible unless they had incredible deductive skills.
@peanut8269
5 жыл бұрын
To be fair a toy is a toy. Whether it's an animal or a submarine. The question would be. "Is this a toy or a life?" However identifying a lifelike species of said variables could be done with ease.
@derp2018
5 жыл бұрын
Yea when you have knowledge of most forms of shape, it's easy to answer that blind people can feel which is which. This molyneux question is brilliant because the correct answer needs to factor in multiple controlled situations to achieve a conclusive answer
@rileyriba
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah, like they would’ve recognize the curve of the sphere and the edges of the cube
@creatureofhabit7049
5 жыл бұрын
For people who think that edges, or curves could help them determine the shape an empiricist would argue that this won't work. Our whole procedure essentially boils down to the knowledge of edges(that they are made of intersecting lines, surfaces end and start from there etc.) But how would the blind person know what it looks like? Just imagine that the person has felt a tree, its leaves but when he sees one, he won't say that it's a tree without any other input like rustling of leaves etc. As how would his brain know which feeling needs to be attached with this sensory/visual input. And you should not confuse knowing with guessing, as he could guess that the tree is a big structure, with somethings attached to it. Other way of thinking- The two objects' visual input is some light, how can i safely say that the input which supposedly come from sphere won't feel like surface ending and starting, i cannot.
@zuxx00
4 жыл бұрын
The touch-to-vision test result was around 58%. That's little more than half. I'm curious of what kind of shapes or objects were given to the test subjects. Like were they given like multi-sided dice to see if they can tell the difference. I mean, like one of those unusual shaped dice that have like 13 sides or something.
@nickbridgeforth1663
5 жыл бұрын
At the beginning of the video I thought rationalism made sense, but I think it comes from a bias of having correlation of sharpness to visual edges in my day to day life. Suppose I were to experience a new sense tomorrow, that no one else had, that also expressed 3 dimensional shape. Since I have no previous correlations with the new sense to compare to other senses, I’d be learning all over again how to determine shape with that sense.
@pugilistspecialist70
5 жыл бұрын
Exactly- the rationalist view only makes sense if devoid of empathy and answered from a highly biased perspective. It's natural enough to initially lean that way but a little thought should surely help one realise that the question is far from simple. Intuitively, I felt that blind from birth people would struggle to identify anything by sight as they've not learned to understand that sense and how it correlated with their other senses- something we've been doing from a very young age and were proficient at before we developed many long term memories- giving the illusion of "instinctively" knowing what shapes look like. The studies conducted bear this out. Not just this specific question but adapting to sight generally is difficult for blind from birth patients. Some question whether it's wise to help a person gain sight as they get older. Blind from birth people are faced with many difficulties we can barely comprehend, initially they require more support than they did when blind as they adapt to having sight, anxiety and depression are common in the initial weeks. Generally, these feelings will abait with time although occasionally there have been reports of people appearing less independent since regaining sight.
@marcellopez200
5 жыл бұрын
No it's actually simple. The blind would feel that there are sides or no sides. So thats why he should immediately tell which one is which.
@pugilistspecialist70
5 жыл бұрын
@@marcellopez200 you're beyond stupid- you're wilfully idiotic. The blind obviously know what sides and edges feel like. They have no way to visualise that information having been denied the gift of sight from birth causing a lack of development of visual awareness and understanding. This isn't even a question. Sight being given to blind from birth patients is rare but there's not one case of people actually having the understanding of how to use their sight- including shape recognition. Try a teeny,tiny bit of empathy. Unless you call every blind person on record who gained sight a liar?
@Mike717ful
5 жыл бұрын
@@pugilistspecialist70 exactly lol, why are some people so mentally saturated
@pugilistspecialist70
5 жыл бұрын
@@Mike717ful I think some people literally cannot imagine things from a different viewpoint than their own. Any attempt to do so sees them inject their own bias into it. That in itself isn't surprising- it's not like a part of me doesn't imagine the blind feeling items and "seeing" them in their mind. It's just that I'm able to understand that my experience is making me see things and think that way. Why some don't get how different it is for the blind from birth is bizarre.
@flyingleaves5480
6 жыл бұрын
Can't they just have a blind person draw a sphere?
@d4v0r_x
6 жыл бұрын
Now you made all the philosophers look stupid. Go away
@flyingleaves5480
6 жыл бұрын
d4v0r_x 😂😂😂 I didn't mean to😂😂😂
@Skabanis
6 жыл бұрын
Omg I was going to say aren’t there any blind painters?
@ekpurdy
6 жыл бұрын
Esref Armagan painted still life, landscapes, and fanciful subjects despite being born blind.
@DylanKoch96
6 жыл бұрын
that doesn't necessarily prove that they would be able to distinguish what they drew from something else when they can see again
yup. and that's why the truth lies somewhere between these two viewpoints. I believe that the answer depends on the concrete and specific person as well. the more intelligent a person is, the more valid the rationalist viewpoint is; and the less intelligent a person is, the more valid the empiricist viewpoint is. and this qualitative difference is also reflected and manifested by the pace of development following the acquisition of vision.
@SkywalkerSamadhi
5 жыл бұрын
@@_kopcsi_ maybe Nietzsche was right. There is no absolute truth. Only an absolute truth for every individual person and what that person has it in them to be.
@brutusthebear9050
4 жыл бұрын
@@SkywalkerSamadhi Its the opposite. Truth exists, and it requires the use of the body and mind to understand it.
@turritopsisdohrniii148
4 жыл бұрын
Empiricist sound more rational than the rationalist
@ChronoXShadow
4 жыл бұрын
I'd like to add one more factor into this. Size. Put different sized cubes and spheres in front of the specific patients. Tell them to sort the items based on shape. Then have them do it again only by vision, with a third party moving the items to where the patients want them. Compare the data, to see if the patient got it correct in the beginning when blindfolded and once again when not, and only after they are done sorting should you ask which is a cube and which is a sphere. This should give the patients more time to discern touch from vision, and how they correlate.
@omarhamza1492
Жыл бұрын
I love it
@mellinghedd267
4 жыл бұрын
I mean the answer isn’t really “yes” or “no,” it’s that some people can but most people won’t.
@jynxmangrove1769
4 жыл бұрын
Really awesome way you simplify this. I say its Yes if even one person could. They should increase the number of objects to choose from give better data on it not being chance or guessing.
@kemalsorucuoglu3689
4 жыл бұрын
Question is "is it possible to ....."
@liligonzales6534
4 жыл бұрын
i’m satisfied with that
@a.b.c.d.e...
4 жыл бұрын
But that applies to so many things in the world: A lot of things just have no definite answer. So when asking yes or no questions, we often expect the answer to "round" up or down. For example, if you would ask me: "Did you have a good day?" I would maybe answer with "yes", even though not my entire day was good, but most of it.
@aktk1390
5 жыл бұрын
This much quality presentation and it takes *YTRecommendation* to get viewers after an year??? Also thnx KZitem for recommending video..I never asked for any paradox tho.
@garethhanby
5 жыл бұрын
It isn't a paradox, it is a question.
@daniel4647
5 жыл бұрын
@@garethhanby KZitem algorithm is a paradox though
@garethhanby
5 жыл бұрын
@@daniel4647 No, that would be an enigma.
@ghuegel
5 жыл бұрын
Instantaneous eyesight recovery would involve re-wiring neuronal connections... the answer to Molyxneau's Question depends on whether or not the image recognition package is included.
@olebergst.5828
4 жыл бұрын
EXACTLY
@nathan1008
2 жыл бұрын
Where was the "image recognition package" ever stated to be included in the question? Stop being pretentious and cocky, this question is the question, take it literally, don't overthink it because you impress no one with your knowledge of the brain, this is completely and totally hypothetical, philosophy is all hypothetical, he is not saying imagine neuronal connections of a blind man being restored, he is saying imagine if eyesight is now active. Of course, neuronal connections being completely restored in the primary visual cortex would result in the understanding of shapes and it's textures, etc, but that is not the question.
@shans2408
5 жыл бұрын
Initially I assumed they would be able to... I mean when we touch something we know if it is curved or plain. The same when we see something. But now I am unsure. Like do we know something is round by seeing only because we have had enough experience of touch AND see to link the two
@justinlaureta8151
5 жыл бұрын
sk0sH But how would they associate angular feeling with an angular shape if they have no idea what an angle looks like, only what it feels like. They could only guess as to what a shape with angle would look like
@shans2408
5 жыл бұрын
@@justinlaureta8151 Tbh, I still can't make up my mind... But the more I think over it the more I tend to believe that feeling and seeing are different experiences. Like okay, they know what flat feels like and what round feels like... But how will they know what it looks like? We see two 2-D images which the brain converts to 3D because shadow and stuff. They have no idea what that looks like. What 3D looks like. How shadows work... But on the other hand, what if it is a smooth surface vs a bumpy surface? Bumpy will look irregular and feel irregular. But is that just a clever guess or do they know it... Does clever guess counts as knowing? On a similar note I have been trying to (for the lack of a better word) "visualize" what 4D object would look like. From flatland vs 3D analogy to 3D vs 4D I can have slight idea of what an object in 4D is. (This again may be over stating it, but I kind of know its 3D slices and believe this is helpful in roughly estimating its 4D structure) But if I miraculously "see" the 4D structure I don't think I will be able to recognize it. Or will I?
@shans2408
5 жыл бұрын
m.medicalxpress.com/news/2019-07-vision-scientist-evolution-humans-reality.html?fbclid=IwAR2jHUsxE1M6gTnnVu7QZQiZoNDe9FVmrN7trKh_BzpMBy4sfHGzYyHp7BI here's another argument. Our brains think this is a 3D photo but it is not. Perhaps because we are conditioned (?) to believe that this surface is not flat by our experiences. A blind person does not have that experience and he wouldn't know whether this should be flat or not
@mikderoost9261
5 жыл бұрын
Ud need to associate the feeling of a curve with the image of a curve, a sigthed person sees a curve as a 3d shape, ur eyes just see a couple of markers and the brain drawr the line between them forming ur curve, a blind person should have totally different markers the are based on touch that the brain needs to feel to be able to estimate the shape and complete the picture/Image of what he/she is Holding, and then its the question, is a blind person even able of using a limited amount of info to get a full picture like a sigthed person can or do they need to feel the entire thing, and how does a blind persons brain turn the information of touch into a usefull image, i mean are the capable of creating 3d shapes in their head just without color and less detail or is it completly different ?
@darkwaffle69
4 жыл бұрын
I mean, they could always close their eyes and compare while they can see vs. when they can't.
@comet1072
5 жыл бұрын
I think I'm more of a rationalist normally, but I'm not on their side with this problem. I do think reason is a major way of getting to know and more importantly understand the world, but one can not reason after having some perception of the world. You need to see and touch at the same time first before being able to correctly think about how an objects look relates to it's shape. Also, a sense is super complex, just like we can't think of how it is to be blind (it's not black, people always say "blind people see the same as you see with you elbow" but that doesn't help understand blindness at all). Just imagine how difficult it is for blind people to imagine sight. Also it takes infants months of "testing out their bodies" before finally being able to get some way of understanding the world in some way via the senses. Then it takes years before people understand the world via reason. To summarise: My opinion is that the world is best understood via reason, but before being able to reason, you need your senses.
@ilke3192
4 жыл бұрын
Like Kant
@Blox117
Жыл бұрын
blindness is no different than vision while you are asleep
@kbarrett63
4 жыл бұрын
after sight recovery, boy should still be able to close his eyes and identify the object.
@travisclouse3614
3 жыл бұрын
That is irrelevant. The question was, "would he be able to identify the cube and sphere FROM SIGHT ALONE" once his vision is restored. Of course he could still close his eyes and identify the object from touch, but that wasn't the question.
@carazy123_
5 жыл бұрын
Rationalist. I agree that you should be able to discern the concept of roundness and edges in visual form provided prior tactile knowledge due to our innate understanding of geometry and spatial reasoning. This standpoint, however, assumes instantaneous recovery to sight and ignores the shock of an individual acquiring sight for the first time, which would interfere with human reasoning (due to bewilderment, etc.). Problematically, given a reasonable healing period, it is likely that any subject will have acquired empirical knowledge of spatial understanding and translated their tactile knowledge of the world into visual understanding, thereby eliminating the possibility of a “fresh” test, resulting in skewed data. Without the previous stipulations, it isn’t feasible to have a conclusive experiment, especially given a small sample size like the one listed in the video.
@cheeseandcrackers1606
5 жыл бұрын
I wanna be able to speak English with your vocabulary
@xtentasticx
5 жыл бұрын
I have a good argument: It depends on the object, but you should be able to rationalize. Let's say you see the wave form of something before hearing it. You might notice the the waveform from before have a beat. You find the same beat in the music, so then you match the two. The more complex the harder it would be to figure out. However a blind erson might feel six faces of the cube, and when they can see realize the cube has 6 distinct faces and the sphere only one. They'd be able to figure it out.
@p0rel
5 жыл бұрын
You are assuming people can interpret data using stimuli they have never experienced before the same way someone that has. For us is natural to assume distances and sizes by the focus between our eyes therefore we can understand shapes, but a person who has never seen cannot inmeditly tell how far or close objects are , how big or small, so it would be extremely difficult to try to count the sides, because to interpret which is a side would be a challenge on itself, they've never seen shadows and how do they affect colors, or how an edge looks like
@xtentasticx
5 жыл бұрын
@@p0rel this is where I can get sciency! Believe it or not, our brain is pre programmed to identify shapes edges/boundaries on objects. We automatically detect what is an object/what isn't. We are also preprogrammed to recognize faces. It is possible to remove recognition from site. Some people with brain trauma lose the ability to identify faces or identify objects. Like they'll see an apple but can't connect the word/expected shape/feeling/taste to what they see, like when we can't remember a word: we remember the meaning but can't recall the word itself. However through reasoning, people can still identity shapes etc. Through numbers of points, lines, etc. Unless a different part of their brain is damaged in which the boundary/line/edge sensory is damaged. This is why I have no doubt with reasoning people would be able to tell a cube from a sphere.
@blesstv8994
5 жыл бұрын
xtentasticx Do you believe in the existence of God?
@xtentasticx
5 жыл бұрын
@@blesstv8994 how is that even relevant?
@octavearevian5589
5 жыл бұрын
xtentasticx sorry but our brain is not exactly preprogrammed to recognize shapes etc... in fact it has neuronal circuits that hold these functions but these circuits first have to be connected to the vision circuit and they aren’t by default, that connection just happen really fast( a matter of hours or days)
@redlander55
Жыл бұрын
I did not expect this. When talking about a sphere and a cube, I thought it would be easy to recognize them.
@lukostello
5 жыл бұрын
how skilled they are at deductive reasoning should have been a control. Obviously the sphere is uniform and the cube has edges. One can reason prior to touching the sphere that it would feel the same no matter what angle you touch it so it would be easy to distinguish. If the test was a cube or a pyramid it would be much more difficult although I think possible they would only have to count how many points it has.
@moef.5326
5 жыл бұрын
Exactly
@nayyarrashid4661
5 жыл бұрын
Social science experiments are never perfect and nearly never conclusive...
@gonzalezm244
5 жыл бұрын
Thing is, maybe they don’t know what edges look like. Sight is so intuitive for us because we’ve used it since infancy, but to someone barely using their eyes for the first time, it’ll just be a bunch of signals that the brain isn’t ready for.
@lukostello
5 жыл бұрын
@@gonzalezm244 they don't know what it would feel like to know that it would feel different than the flat parts.
@lincolnduke
4 жыл бұрын
@@lukostello And how would you intuitively know that?
@trebogetich2029
5 жыл бұрын
I believe that they might not immediately know what an item looks like because that’s not a question they needed answered for most of their life, but after some time to understand how their touch translates to sight they can realize what objects are.
@johannesgallein308
Жыл бұрын
i have the same thought.
@davidemmanuel9418
Жыл бұрын
My thoughts exactly
@tommywinehouse1742
5 жыл бұрын
Depends on the smarts, if you have counted the lines you have felt, once you visually see the cube you will connect the amount of lines you felt to the visual evidence. However it depends on the individual, and it may still be far too shocking that you can now see through your eyes, that you won't be able to connect the two things Overall, noone could be sure, but the guess would be educated in the fact you connected touch and visual
@wurttmapper2200
5 жыл бұрын
I think the blind person doesn't understand what edges are supposed to look like, only what they are supposed to feel like.
@manafro2714
4 жыл бұрын
@@wurttmapper2200 Ask someone to make a V shape with your their hands, where their hands meet is the edge/bottom of the V. A blind person could reason out that if he continued to line up his fingers one-by-one along one side of the V, he would have to change direction at the bottom of the V. Maybe if he was good enough at maths he could give a mathematical definition of this, and then when regaining sight, could check the object's visual features based on his definition of an edge.
@MultiTomatojuice
4 жыл бұрын
What about if we look at the opposite situation? What if it's a person who can see but has never touched anything OR has no sense of touch OR no hands and feet or whatever. You show him the cube and sphere every day but he isn't allowed to touch it or can't. Now you cure his touch sense, blindfold him and let him feel the shapes. Could he determine which is which in this case? And shouldn't ppl on the empirical side still say no?
@huhneat1076
4 жыл бұрын
A blind person would know a cube doesn't feel the same all around, there's "sharp" bits and "flat" bits. Whatever that means to them for vision, a sphere definitely doesn't seem have those. Its the same all around.
@user-ti6ix5tn2o
4 жыл бұрын
Blind people can't imagine and dont have any visual reference. Just imagine yourself you are your hand you can only feel. Can you imagine a shape knowing that you have no sight? No, your mind only knows the feeling of edge, point, roundness and so on but have zero visual representation what those look like.
@huhneat1076
4 жыл бұрын
@@user-ti6ix5tn2o "Blind people can't imagine" Well that's just sad now
@huhneat1076
4 жыл бұрын
Also you do notice I never said a blind person would need to imagine anything
@user-ti6ix5tn2o
4 жыл бұрын
@@huhneat1076 oh sorry.
@marioisawesome8218
4 жыл бұрын
@@user-ti6ix5tn2o bitch i can imagine sound and touching sensations. i can imagine what it's like to cut my hand off and put it in a microwave and dine on it like it's the best thanksgiving dinner ever and also imagine how amazing it would taste despite never actually doing any of those things and you mean to tell me all people who are blind can't even imagine?
@danielbonder3291
4 жыл бұрын
There's also a good deal of neuroscience animal research that relates to this question. Researchers do things like temporarily sew one eye shut, then watch how the cortex of these animals develops or rearranges to adapt. I don't remember all the specifics (it's been some years now since I've been in the business), but I believe the data is consistent with the conclusions described here, that vision is not immediately restored upon opening the eye but can then quickly be developed. The key is really that, having never had vision, the blind person's brain isn't able to meaningfully interpret the sensory data being fed into it via the now-functioning eyes. If they did immediately have true vision, they probably could easily identify the cube vs the sphere based on knowledge of edges, etc. But they can't actually "see" anything. In a sense, the ability for vision is something that needs to be "programmed" by visual experience. This is the same reason (or an incredibly similar one) infants don't immediately recognize or track moving objects after birth. I've always thought about it like the brain is picking up random pixels of data, but can't connect them into a larger picture yet. Over time, the patterns repeat and the brain learns to recognize meaningful information in the environment, at which point one can truly "see."
@Tha3l
4 жыл бұрын
I remember this problem being disussed in school when we were talking about Locke. With this problem I am a Rationalist 100%, and I tried to argue with the whole class, teacher included.
@jynxmangrove1769
4 жыл бұрын
Rationalist are empathetic. Empiricists think they are the center of the universe and everyone else was born yesterday. They are chicken shit to rely on their own intelligence and only go by what they are told is the right answer. When new evidence proves them wrong they will jump ship and be Frontrunners to who ever is winning. By the way the blind person did identify the object. SO the answer is Yes. The experiment needs to be done with more objects to choose from so that it can be proven they blind person did not just guess the right answer. The empiricist doesnt believe the word of a blind person to be telling the truth. The experiment itself has to have more objects to disprove it was not just chance, guessing or lying. I hate public school. Literally created to make the population smart enough to run the machines but dumb enough to show up to work every day. It will hold back any intelligent person for their potential, and through athletics program people to hate their adversary on the other team, or other town, or other state or other country to precondition people to kill in war. Check out and read into the Christmas Truce of 1914.
@t_c5266
Жыл бұрын
Well, you were right
@kevinnauli9749
5 жыл бұрын
suppose suddenly you can see sounds in colors you have never seen before, will you be able to identify them by seeing?
@Jordanicolass
6 жыл бұрын
The Molyneux question is the clear example of how limited our senses are
@rinse-esnir4010
5 жыл бұрын
Or the connections between the areas of the brain that operate the senses. I've seen tests with people who had a certain type of brain damage that had trouble making some connections. For example, a man couldn't tell what he saw on photos presented to him, but he could write it down. And when he read what he wrote, he recognised what was on the photo and could say it.
@Wabbelpaddel
3 жыл бұрын
@@rinse-esnir4010 Split-Brain-Patients...
@hiimjosh868
4 жыл бұрын
am i missing something? couldn't you tell that the sphere has the same look all around are the cube doesn't? thus the cube feeling that feels different depending on what part of the cube you're holding could be affiliated with the object that looks exactly like it has that property?
@reedemersonevans
Жыл бұрын
if a sighted person is presented with an object they'd never seen before, they can reasonably guess what they are going to feel on their fingers when they touch it. A newly sighted person can still say, "If I were to touch that cube, would it feel pointy like the cube I felt before, or round like the sphere I felt before?"
@wagesofsinn3881
4 жыл бұрын
I'm astounded by the fact that the conclusion ended in a negative. You would think that someone feeling over an object would be able to mentally visualize what the object looks like in their mind and then associate that to what the object really looks like. It's a surprising result, but conclusive evidence is conclusive.
@jweipjklawe4766
5 жыл бұрын
I would say no. The person can't interpret what he's seeing. I doubt they can tell what an object is, or even left from right. Even when knowing that a cube has edge, the person still doesn't know what edge looks like. In order to do so, they must be able to understand lighting and texture.
@danielkang1560
4 жыл бұрын
They’re blind not mentally deficient, they can visualize things and they understand concepts like “roundness” and “edges”. They are still people
@Shovelchicken
4 жыл бұрын
So my train of thought is that when presented with the sphere and a cube, you’d be able to deduce which one is the cube and which is the sphere by looking for something discernible you could count on the object, so when looking at the sphere you’d likely find nothing, whereas with the cube you’d be able to count corners, edges, or faces, so no matter what you’d be able to think “oh, that one has multiple parts, that must be the cube!” But as was pointed out in this video, this obviously isn’t how the question plays out in the real world. Regardless I still choose to be an optimist and believe that you’d be able to distinguish a cube from a sphere.
@cityraildude
5 жыл бұрын
Everyone's saying "just look for corners", but how will a person who's blind from birth know what corners look like? I'll go with "no"
@mlungisimokhethi6958
5 жыл бұрын
I think they have to reason what separates the two objects. One would have to say why this is a cube and the other a sphere. From there it's logical.
@cuamanhong2719
5 жыл бұрын
What if when they touch something, they make a map of the object in their head?
@thedausthed
4 жыл бұрын
It does not matter what a corner looks like, the fact that the cube has a finite number of shapes that match up with the number of corners they feel should make it possible to tell.
@lincolnduke
4 жыл бұрын
@@mlungisimokhethi6958 Well yes, but how would you assign the correct visual data to what was felt?
@snowob
5 жыл бұрын
What is the music at 1:25 ? The description does not list it.
@Ne0MT
4 жыл бұрын
lol this whole situation is like a tweeter or youtube argument *person A shows proof* person B: yeah but... *person A shows another proof* person B: yeah but...
@megugu2155
4 жыл бұрын
aint that all debates tho >present argument and proof >scrutinize argument and scrutinize proof and question questionable components >present reasoning to deny any doubt >if reasoning is wrong, attack the validity of the argument. if reasoning is right, look for more questions >repeat
@lincolnduke
4 жыл бұрын
Is that not all scientific advancement?
@lilamjazeefa9466
5 жыл бұрын
Analogue question here... what about people with cochlear implants? Can they identify two sounds when previously they had only "heard" by experiencing vibrations in a tactile sense? Perhaps the question has to do with the complexity of the sense, where audio is far less complex than vision.
@algorithmsrandomcomments3925
4 жыл бұрын
My first question would be. “Did the blind persons instructor ever tell him what these objects were called as the subject (blind human) felt the objects (cube and Sphere)? If so I’d say yes. If not then I’d say No.
@algorithmsrandomcomments3925
3 жыл бұрын
@@chloe-historyandgames re read my reply I don’t feel like typing
@algorithmsrandomcomments3925
3 жыл бұрын
@@chloe-historyandgames if while blind you could feel and be told as you felt which was which then you should most definitely be able to tell.
@algorithmsrandomcomments3925
3 жыл бұрын
@@chloe-historyandgames blind people have common sense you know... one could recount and retrace their previous hand movements as remembered and match the movements you recreate to the best shape which is easy in this particular case. Round or cornered
@Google_Censored_Commenter
2 жыл бұрын
@@algorithmsrandomcomments3925 While I also originally thought this way, you have to remember that the blind don't really have a sense of space like we do. I too thought that since a sphere only has a smooth texture, and a cube has a flat & cornered texture, that all they would have to do is visually identify which shape has more textures. But someone who has never seen a cube before, wouldn't know that it is uniform. They wouldn't know that the top feels the same as the bottom, just because it looks similar. For all they know, maybe the bottom of a sphere intuitively to them should feel what we would describe as "cornery".
@BGlasnost
4 жыл бұрын
I read an article in Discover magazine many years ago that had a big impact on me, and relates to this subject. It was about a blind man who had his sight restored to him as an adult. Scientists performed tests on him and he could not distinguish between a flat object and a 3 dimensional object from sight, and even stranger he said that parallel lines did not converge when stretching into the distance. After touching objects, he could distinguish them much easier through sight. It was not stated in the article, but the obvious conclusion is that the information that we believe is coming strictly from our eyes is in fact a mental amalgamation of information that has been collected from all the senses.
@VidkunQL
5 жыл бұрын
The question hinges on _"...the blind man be made to see."_ Try rephrasing it this way: if you perform an operation on him, and he still cannot tell which is the sphere and which the cube without touching them, _have you made him see?_
@VidkunQL
5 жыл бұрын
@S C The whole point is that the question hinges on the meaning of the word "see". The word is very useful when there are two types of people, those who see normally and those who are completely blind. As soon as a person of neither of those types appears, the word becomes ambiguous, and the sensible thing to do is step back and consider what we're actually talking about. As long as we fail to do that, Molyneux's question remains an unsolved problem; if we succeed, it ceases to confuse us.
@christophersmith8014
4 жыл бұрын
The question is basically: Can you identify something by sight that you've only ever touched? Another question to consider then is: Can you identify something by touch that you've only ever seen? Or maybe even better: Can you identify something by sight that you've only ever heard? (like a bird from it's song at a time that it isn't singing) Context clues help. A person who was always blind should be able to deduce what basic shape is which without touching them, but it will be much easier to do so after watching other people engage with the objects. I'm certain that they could simulate some abstract experience and form a correct logical conclusion without touching and seeing the objects at the same time, but all senses require some training to correlate them together and form a communicable understanding of the information they provide.
@vortex_panther3476
4 жыл бұрын
The real question: does it matter?
@flyingmonkey3822
Жыл бұрын
I think that the actual id or ego of a person is the operator behind the wheel of a complex machine and the only real control mechanism is “I like this” / “i dont like this” such as rejecting or relishing evil thoughts. This is the minimum amount of freedom necessary to establish moral responsibility. Free will experiments have shown not only do we have free will but also “free won’t”. The action potential they thought they could show that muscular activation was determined was an illusion that under further rigor just reflected the mental state of the participant who was also mentally preparing to make a choice. The degree to which this choice is determined may be higher than many imagine, but we CAN change our mind about decisions instantly while it takes time to “program” a new skill such as the coordination of visual and tactile stimuli. A blind person was once given sight through his back. A camera was wired to haptic vibrators placed in a grid on his back and more light corresponded to more vibration, so that he could point to the sun and then eventually make out the face of the supermodel “twiggy” (showing what era this occurred in).
@logangaskill4
5 жыл бұрын
Wouldn't a blind person be able to tell that the round object is a sphere after having his sight restored based on edge? You could argue that he would have no context of what sharp looks like, but he would be able to determine that the round object could not be the cube, bc when he felt the cube he would feel a completely flat surface followed by a sharp line followed by another flat surface that is intersecting the sharp line. Then there is the corner where 3 sharp lines intersect creating a point. A sphere would not be able to create such drastic changes in surface angles.
@lincolnduke
4 жыл бұрын
" he would be able to determine that the round object could not be the cube, bc when he felt the cube he would feel" Yeah, how would he know this intuitively?
@manafro2714
4 жыл бұрын
@@lincolnduke You can line up all your fingers in a straight line = one side of the cube, then at the edge you fold your hands 90 degrees (to use our concepts of measurement, but the blind person could also define this in terms of what an angle his hands make), etc etc
@lincolnduke
4 жыл бұрын
@@manafro2714 And this has nothing to do with recognising things visually. You recognise things every day using subconscious processes. It's like saying "can someone recognise a face? Yes, if they use physical measurements and rulers"
@manafro2714
4 жыл бұрын
@@lincolnduke Yeah, you're right. Maybe the key difference is that the 2 senses use different axioms, if you can call them that ("basic building blocks" would serve the same purpose but would be a bit longer and -- less pretentious, I admit :D ), and one set of axioms can't be translated into another. Or perhaps they could be (pixel = digit), but only with a LOT of practice (i.e. initially NOT via subconscious processes), and maybe even not then: the human mind has a limited processing power, so even though a robot in the future might be able to recognize a sphere vs a box based on the arrangement of the pixels, a former blind person's brain's processing power would never be able to handle that workload. Hm, I guess Molyneux's Question leads to this one: Can we build computers with the same visual recognition processes that our brains have?
@manafro2714
4 жыл бұрын
@@lincolnduke Another thought: the question is "Will blind people who see for the first time be able to correlate visual and tactile inputs of a shape?", and a similar question that would be "Could people who start hearing for the first time correlate the shape of an object with what sound it makes when I hit it or it gets in contact with another body or force another way (hollow and dense make different sounds etc)?", or "Does the sound an object makes correlate with how it tastes?". The answer to the last two questions seem to be intuitively a No (for me at least), you can't correlate the impressions an object makes on different senses, there is no intrinsic logic to it. Also, keep in mind that the eye is reversing the image, so perhaps when I'm moving my hands "up", they are moving "down", yet I perceive the reverse (I'm not certain about this hand-eye coordination being the case, though). Perhaps if the eye showed things like a funhouse mirror, one's tactile senses would adapt to that as well. Maybe that could be put to the test (I think a psychologist actually did test if the brain reversed the image back after wearing special goggles that showed the actual image of reality, and the brain did). So there seems to be nothing intrinsically correlative between the impressions an object makes on different senses.
@TheOverlordFrank
4 жыл бұрын
We know from modern neuroscience and psychology that: 1. Cognition takes time and the less familiar the information the longer that time takes - even a sighted person opening their eyes to a cube and a sphere takes time to cognitively process what's in front of them, though this is likely seconds at most. Mapping new neural pathways takes longer, ie days or weeks as revealed in the modern experiment. 2. Different people model the world in differently preferential ways internally - some people are visual or kinesthetic or auditory or conceptual - the ability to quickly reconcile the tactile model with the visual model likely varies with individuals based on their internal modelling of their universe. 3. Empiricism or rationalism is a false dichotomy - everyone does both with regard to knowledge acquisition So, by failing to define time within the question, the answer is no - no-one, sighted or otherwise, can instantly do this because of cognitive lag. It's a useful question in that it prompts us to consider things like cognitive processing and how the brain models the world, whether those models can change and at what rate, but the actual answer is rendered irrelevant by the complexities of the world overwhelming an insufficiently complete research question.
@TheUKNutter
5 жыл бұрын
I’m sure Larry Bundy Jr knows a lot of Molyneux questions
@jaggns5774
5 жыл бұрын
Just my thoughts - because its a thought experiment. No, a person which just rescently gained their sight could not tell you what a cube or a ball is, becaue A) their brain has to learn the concept of recognizing shapes visually B) a persons brain which has never had a visual impulse has to learn to rotate the information by 180° to gain the "real" orientation of an object therefor its "real" shape C) a person wich just gained their sight will not be able to analyse new shapes in a short amount of time, its only after their brain learned what shapes there are and how they can be recognized that it will start to analyse shapes visually. VIRTUALLY a person SHOULD be able to recognize shapes of objects, because of the way creativity and imagination works.
@7616lydeth
5 жыл бұрын
We can feel wind, different types of wind, but we can't see it directly. If one day we can see what wind looks like, can we say (Wind A) is a breeze and (Wind B) is a gust?
@coopergarlick4755
5 жыл бұрын
Chen Vannlydeth what the fuck are you on lol
@lincolnduke
4 жыл бұрын
Brilliant.
@manafro2714
4 жыл бұрын
@@coopergarlick4755 well you can distinguish small waves of water from big ones visually, and what distinguishes one from the other is the amount and angle of force that is causing them. The same can be said for different types of winds I think.
@LMargis0
4 жыл бұрын
If anyone thinks they'd be able to do it, or at least reliably, consider a brand new sensory input. Imagine we convert vision to a combination of audio tones and prods to the back of your leg and arm, and a smell. Assume the full visual data is translated into this new medium, ie no data loss, but you've never experienced vision of a cube expressed in the form of "three touches on the left leg, the scent of grass + fire, and a 8khz tone". Until we became familiar with it, it would be pure noise to us. And this analogy is converting it to senses we're already familiar with, it would be even more foreign if it's a new sense being experienced for the first time.
@deanmoncaster
4 жыл бұрын
My issue with this question is that I already know the difference Through sight and touch thus I am unable to understand how anyone could fail to know the difference. Anyone that has sight and touch is not able to objectively answer this question.
@malnutritionboy
3 жыл бұрын
It can be better understood than colour. Since colour is naturally strictly visual for humans. But since we can touch and feel physical objects it makes the problem more interesting. You could say that no since they would have no point of reference of visual information of shapes and faces and edges they would not be able to link it with their previous knowledge via touch. But if they were able to understand that a cube would look different depending on how you look at it against a sphere which looks the same at all directions and combine it with their experience of a sphere feeling the same no matter how you rotate it while a cube isn't uniform throughout. You could make an argument that they could tell which was the sphere and which was the cube.
@ridculley06
5 жыл бұрын
How is the answer not obviously no? If you never have vision, seeing things will be confusing at first. You wouldnt equate the sight of something sharp for example to the feeling of something sharp because you would have no point of visual reference, to understand you would have to both touch AND see at the same time, as you have never seen anything before
@arikwolf3777
4 жыл бұрын
I'm a rationalist. My wife was an empiricist. We divorced.
@ismailhaq3407
4 жыл бұрын
Condolences brother
@jynxmangrove1769
4 жыл бұрын
Mr. Know It All don't know shit huh? lol
@thomasbacon3997
5 жыл бұрын
what language do people think in if they're born deaf and blind?
@theweirdstufff5940
4 жыл бұрын
John Locke: No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience Einstein: *25th November 1915* I'm about to end this man's whole career
@jokerxxx354
4 жыл бұрын
Except that einstein's discoveries are in no way contradicting empiricism, they are in fact supporting that viewpoint by showing that empirical science works and is best explained within the framework of empiricism.
@theweirdstufff5940
4 жыл бұрын
Nah, man....The way I see it, the very existence of his mind blowing theories are contradicting empiricism indirectly
@theweirdstufff5940
4 жыл бұрын
@@jokerxxx354 And...um...yeah they are theories not discoveries..and my point in first place was not that whether his theories are against empiricism or not..but that I'm kinda against Locke's statement...and I supported my point by using Einstein's extreme cerebration. Peace out ✌🏼
@jokerxxx354
4 жыл бұрын
@@theweirdstufff5940 i dont understand how could someone's cerebration be used to argue against empiricism. Einstein himself was aware that this elegant theory, like any other theory, can be disproven by a single experiment. Plus, Einstein himself was empiricist.
@theweirdstufff5940
4 жыл бұрын
See bruh.... U don't understand...it's simple....Locke said no man's knowledge goes beyond his experience...and we know Einstein published relativity...so if Locke is right... Einstein should've learned 'em by experience...so do u think he traveled in the speed of light?...do u think he traveled to the space to find about the nature of the space-time?...no so my point is these interesting theories are given by him just by using his incredible cerebration...not EXPERIENCE...Do u get it? Toodles!!
@calebr9736
5 жыл бұрын
I believe they would assuming they have touched the cube and sphere enough times to understand the difference in surface like how the cube has pointy edges they can use those experiences to deduce which is which
@malnutritionboy
3 жыл бұрын
Not to discredit but your hypothesis is weak. They would be unable to understand what they are looking at if they have no point of reference. Like a language you can speak it a million times but if you have never learned to read you still wouldn't be able to relate it to your speech and the 2 would seem unrelated. Another way to explain is if they have walked their entire lives blind and can accurately measure 3 feet blind. Can now without using their body as a reference and seeing things for the first time it is incredibly unlikely for them to know what is visually 3 feet even if they had a 99% accuracy measuring 3 feet blind. To conclude. Seeing things for the first time and unable to touch them would be like seeing an abstract impressionist painting to us. It would look like a bunch of nothing and randomness.
@thesublimeparadigm8863
4 жыл бұрын
But if even one person was able to pick the right object without guessing then the rationalists are correct. Sure not EVERYONE would be able to pick the right object because it would take some degree of logic and reasoning to figure it out, but if even one person could figure it out it is in fact possible. The "58 percent is just above random chance" means nothing unless literally everybody just guessed.
@johnalanelson
4 жыл бұрын
This reminds me of the assumption many hearing people make that if you substitute a sign for a word with a sign for a homophone word then someone profoundly deaf since birth would "get it". But I don't see how they could. In other words, if you substitute the sign for "dew" (as in dew on the grass) for the sign for "do" (as in what did you do?) those would be two completely different signs with completely different meanings. How would someone who has always been deaf know that the two words sound the same in spoken English?
@rajeshlotlikar4305
5 жыл бұрын
He touched the cube. he must have felt the points in the cube. so after he recovered his eyes, he must touch the both things and understand the points were of cube hope u undestand
@treeman8773
5 жыл бұрын
I think the question is based purely on eyesight
@ayingchanda
5 жыл бұрын
He was blind at birth so he has no visual memory of what a cube look like. If you were blind at birth you wont even know what a line looks like because you seen one. Its like in a dark room all you see is nothing if you were born blind
@jayemdaewarehouse9027
4 жыл бұрын
I agree with Hume when he stated one could explain a fire, detail the colors, describe the sound and explain the pain of sticking one’s hand into the flames, but until one experienced fire he only knows a shadow of the idea.
@L1D1
5 жыл бұрын
Feeling and seeing are related to each other for a normal person, but i do believe it is quite hard for a blind person to relate those two senses. Imagine you can see the cube, then in the future, some alien form that can feel energy vibrations from mass (or can do any other non-human sense), asks you to differentiate between the energy of a cube and energy of a sphere. You wouldn't know because you can not relate those to a previous experience. The same with this test, if you could see your entire life, it is easy for you to mentally create a relation but it is quite hard for a blind person.
@nathanwfranke
5 жыл бұрын
Can't very few skilled blind people see the world with sonar? How would that relate to the question? This means that blind people can still have a sense of space around them and obstacles.
@christopherlin4706
4 жыл бұрын
Well the energy of the cube will have non uniform energy distribution
@SimbaLion
5 жыл бұрын
neat. Particular the test results. Visual and tactile "shape memories" are probably stored in completely different ways, and maybe locations. I'm no brain surgeon, I'm assuming that they'd be located based on their sensory device.
@riftis2210
5 жыл бұрын
My intuition put me on the side of the rationalists but I'm not going to stay with that position since the evidence seems contrary to that.
@blizzrd6578
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I feel the same way. Kind of a humbling experience.
@parkerlee8071
5 жыл бұрын
Here's my answer: If one's sight is nonfunctional, their proprioception (sense of their limbs in space) is most often not. Therefore, one could use their proprioception to calculate the orientations of the faces of the sphere or cube, forming a rough approximation of the shape in their mind with the orientations of their hands pressed against the object, which would be refined through textural and tactile stimulus. By keeping this image in mind, one could discern the sphere from the cube, assuming the proper neural pathways for sight were established beforehand through recovery.
@micahwissman7
5 жыл бұрын
Parker Lee I had the same exact though. It’s likely that by the simple fact your hand shapes different around an object, it would be possible for the blind man to imagine how one’s had would form around it. Therefore yes, the blind man could.
@maniac117
5 жыл бұрын
I think people are over thinking it, these are my answers: A, he just has a 50/50 chance of getting it right B, someone at some point told him
@christopherjackson1661
5 жыл бұрын
This
@NDT-hw7nr
4 жыл бұрын
Great video! I used this to start a discussion with some friends.. interesting POVs!
@me-vx4wi
5 жыл бұрын
I thought Molyneux's Question was "What's the next thing in my games that I can lie about?"
@akulanandur1243
4 жыл бұрын
The question boils down to just one aspect- "Is edge visually detectable? or is it a combined tactile sense?" The answer would involve experience, which would include combined visual-tactile experience- going back to whether edge is a natural instinct or an acquired knowledge. I believe, edge is a dangerous aspect of a solid, when the entire dynamic switches. This should/could be a reflex detection, rather than a thought detection. And, reflexes are bare natural instinct. Hence, I think it's a yes from mine. Edges can be detected by a fresh visual person, because edge detection is a reflex, and not a thought.
@rizwanrazakh749
5 жыл бұрын
What if the blind person already has knowledge of the geometry of the objects? Will the experiment be still relevant?
@anionshade970
4 жыл бұрын
i think the experiments are honestly probably the most inefficient way to handle this. you cant just give someone an object who was blind and go: "what is it?" i feel like they only gave the test subjects literally one answer or an extremely bad amount of time for them to get a second to think about what it could be. maybe they didn't even explain that these were objects that were held at one point. if the subject had held and felt these objects enough to be able to easily remember the object to the detail, they would feel how one object had no sides and the other object did. thats all the context they would need to know in order for them to be able to answer it easily. before sight: "please take these two objects one at a time and feel them with both hands. and take note of any distinguishable characteristics of said object." *subject takes a little time (say:an hour or when ready) to feel the objects* "what were the distinguishable difference between the two objects?" subject:"the first shape wasn't completely round, every so often id feel a bump after smoothness. and the second one had no bumps at all. it was easier to hold the second one in my hand then the first one" "the two shapes you just held were called a sphere and a cube. the first one you held was the cube, and the second one you held was the sphere." (all possible things a child could say, with less vocabulary available to them) *take the objects, put them on the table, and swap them so they wouldn't know which one was which based on order* *un-blind subjects* "now take the differences you just described and see if you can guess which object was which." _i have no doubt in my mind if you ran the experiment just like this, half or more would be able to identify the objects with ease_
@KirkHMiller
5 жыл бұрын
The now-sighted man would reason, “ahh yes, that one poked me with pointy corners and that one didn’t.” Does that make me a Rationalist?
@heinzmonster
5 жыл бұрын
How would a blind person know what a pointy corner looks like?
@coppagh8040
5 жыл бұрын
heinzmonster You can feel the difference between a corner and a smooth sphere with your touch sense.
@RTDAVIDgamer
5 жыл бұрын
Step 1: you open your hand forming a 90 angle so It fits the cube. Step 2: open your eyes and you hand. Step 3: see if your hand match with the object 1 or 2. I think this would work.
@bluesteel8376
5 жыл бұрын
@@coppagh8040 but you would not know what those things look like.
@huckmart2017
4 жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure you'd be able to tell which one is which. Its pretty intuitive that a sphere would feel AND look smooth, and a cube would feel and look edged.
@stewartbugler
5 жыл бұрын
24 seconds in... Yeah probably cause they would recognise the concept of faces and edges. I'll keep watching of course but like it does seem a pretty simple answer
@zachmiller1994
5 жыл бұрын
That's what I was thinking, you'd already be aware it's round or flat with edges.
@petarjovovic308
5 жыл бұрын
But would you know what an edge looks like? Like the person in question has never visually distinguished between an edge and something thats oval. To you it seems obivous because you always conected the visual picture of an edge with what it feels like to touch it. A blind person did not.
@stewartbugler
5 жыл бұрын
Petar Jovovic thats where i think people are getting confused... The sight is a new thing to them however even as it would associate in reverse the light would be a constant... So they might not have estsblished what images are quite yet but the information would be based off the same information. It would look like the object regardless like a tree falling in the woods making the event which disrupts air to make its sound. Just cause you never heard it wouldn't change anything about the properties of the sound waves produced. Thats not a fact of my own associations before its own existence. A sphere will be curved n would most ressemble and object with 1 continuous face. The face being a plane of an object could be told against an edge through touch alone for since it and edges are just properties even when blind they will be felt out. You could get the answer by feeling out the shape in ur head of sorts n weighing options.
@ruiwang657
5 жыл бұрын
They wouldn’t.
@ruiwang657
5 жыл бұрын
Stewart Bugler But you don’t know what edges are. You don’t have any depth perception nor can you visualize.
@nickbridgeforth1663
5 жыл бұрын
Touch is also way less spacially concrete than visual sense is, because it involves so much more motion. The world I see visually is relatively a static feature, whereas when I feel for things there isn’t the same amount of stasis required to understand space in the same way. Depth is a totally different feature that is variable to tons of changes when I’m feeling as opposed to when I’m seeing.
@anandsuralkar2947
5 жыл бұрын
Clearly yes if he is smart enough
@bhangrafan4480
Жыл бұрын
The genuinely interesting thing about Molyneux's question, a rather contrived situation, is that it illustrates the difference between rationalism (determining the answer to a question using pure logic), and empiricism, (answering a question by practical test). Personally i would argue that this is a question which is not answerable by pure logic, but must be tested and determined empirically. Philosophers today have little excuse for not understanding the nature of logical argument, and its limitations in answering a question. All logical argument (rationalism) can achive is to determine whether an answer is consistent with the starting assumptions (axioms). In other words whether the answer entails any contradictions with the axioms. So what answer you get will depend on what your starting assumptions are. The starting assumptions on a subject like this, the physiological functioning of the central nervous system, the most complex and subtle organ system, must be at best educated guesses. It is necessary to conduct experiments first, then work backwards to some kind of logical analysis of how the physiological system functions. It shocks me that philosophers and mathematicins having made such great strides forward in understanding the foundations of rational reasoning in the late 19th and early 20th century, that so many practicing scientists and philosophers today, still fail to understand these limitations. It leads even Noble prize winning physicists to speak as if mathematical arguments relate to real objects, rather than purely logical, linguistic structures, present only in the human mind.
@jaybofa617
5 жыл бұрын
Bling person: *feels cube and sphere* Same blind person with vision restored: I can’t tell which one was pointy versus which one was smooth
@coalkingryan881
5 жыл бұрын
I side with the rationalists. If a person was able to determine a shape through touch, then they would recognize that while a cube has points in which there is a sudden cut-off, a sphere continues on a upwards or downwards slope. These senses would be vastly different from each other. Upon being presented with a visual of the two shapes, they could then rationalize that a cube cuts off suddenly while a sphere appears to have no end thus differentiating the two shapes through touch and sight. The experiments were most likely flawed in that the first one was most likely crude in terms of overall curing of sight and the second, more modern one, was done in a time when the subject’s sights were still adapting and were most likely very blurry. Plus whoever said they were deaf? Someone probably described the shapes more elaborately through words while they were blind.
@the_allucinator
5 жыл бұрын
They could just label "object a" or something, you know.
@gabrielblyde2176
4 жыл бұрын
They actually did that, and the answer is no. No they cannot.
@MrTeknotronic
4 жыл бұрын
Except when they can
@Thezombieslayer175
4 жыл бұрын
How? are they fucking stupid? how would you not be able to tell lmao it’s literally so simple
@poodle5421
4 жыл бұрын
@@Thezombieslayer175 try not seeing the moment you are born. oh, you cant? well then dont pretend you know their struggle you mini brained hunk of meat
@somebodyiusedtoknow2012
4 жыл бұрын
Thezombieslayer175 that’s bait
@Thezombieslayer175
4 жыл бұрын
Poodle man r/woosh
@burhan2075
4 жыл бұрын
the cube has edges and the sphere is smooth so just by looking at the shape you should be able to distinguish between them
@davidjones-vx9ju
5 жыл бұрын
see...they got high in 1600's too
@RossJukesPhotography
5 жыл бұрын
So if someone who was blind from birth could suddenly see - what is “Green” to them? Surely these things are arbitrary until the point that they *LEARN* what green is, or in this case, what a cube is etc?
@ryanh1013
4 жыл бұрын
I believe that it’s almost completely dependent on the strength of the person’s deductive reasoning skills
@HollowJet
4 жыл бұрын
"... this along with the fact that participants are experiencing vision for the first time have led some to argue that Molyneux's question can only ever be considered as a thought experiment." Isn't the fact that participants are experiencing sight for the first time sort of the entire point of Molyneux's question? Like the point about how sight is restored gradually is completely fine as a criticism of modern solutions to the question. But it seems like the second half of the sentence is saying "it's not fair to ask a question like that because of how correct it makes one of the answers."
@Michael-cg4un
5 жыл бұрын
The answer is: They absolutly could tell. Because they were blind, now they see, but they were never mute. So they could take a guess
@Feyangel23
4 жыл бұрын
what's the song that plays at 1:26?
@Ken_Scaletta
4 жыл бұрын
I don't think I understand why this would be difficult. How hard is it to see if something has edges or corners?
@7616lydeth
5 жыл бұрын
It depends on the similarity of the objects. Can't they tell the difference between a long straight tube and a ball? In terms of dimension, the tube is arm-wide long, and a ball can be placed in a hand.
@rasger302
5 жыл бұрын
Just here for the algorithm... need to support that kind of content
@Rlllllllllllh
4 жыл бұрын
My initial thought was “maybe the if the test subjects counted the different textures they could feel when they were blind, then they would be able to count and understand the textures on the objects after treatment.” (Ex. The sphere would be infinitely smooth, so one consistent texture there; whereas the cube would have smooth flat sides and bumpy edges, so at least two textures for the cube.) But after giving it further thought would the subjects even be able to figure out visual/physical counting on their own?
@feerow
4 жыл бұрын
I have the same question about deaf people, if they gain hearing, are they able to recognize spoken workds?
@Sam-zu5mr
5 жыл бұрын
The answer is simply "no" take any baby's learning, they learn through association (touch, sight,sound, taste and smell)...this learning creates neuro pathways in the brain. So in order to recognise a shape through sight, the blind person would have to touch the object first to create a new association between the feel of the object and it's appearance. You could tell the newly sighted person what object is what, but until this is confirmed by their touch only then will the association become learnt and a new neuro pathway be made. Here's an example of association: you see a meal being made on TV. ..your shown the ingredients and you see what it looks like, your also told what it tastes and smells like, but do you yourself (dispite all this info) genuinely know what this food dish tastes like.......of course not, until you experience tasting it yourself. Only then do you know what it truly tastes like. It's called associated learning.
@AnHebrewChild
4 жыл бұрын
You've oversimplified neo-natal learning. Tabla Rasa is dead. See Chomsky on inherent language structure in the brain or look into epigenetic coding.
@owdeezstrauz1268
4 жыл бұрын
how can you feel pointy edges and think it looks round?
@qt9296
5 жыл бұрын
Maybe they can't process depth when they get their eyesight back, so they see everything in 2-D with lines. That'll make it hard to distinguish the shapes, but some should be able to reason the lines to edges, skewing the results above 50%.
@cmilkau
5 жыл бұрын
The fact that the vision-to-vision recognition was about as good as touch-to-touch can be interpreted as evidence that the low touch-to-vision recognition was not (entirely) due to bad eyesight from slow recovery.
@ClementinesmWTF
5 жыл бұрын
cmilkau that’s probably why the scientists did it. V2V and T2T were controls that showed evidence that T2V was wasn’t very good. I agree that some people might be able to do T2V, but by and large, they can’t without experience. Either way, the rationalist objections to the experiment are pretty BS given that those control trials were given
@SILVERF0X13
4 жыл бұрын
It depends heavily on how much time they get to look at/touch things before being presented with the cube. If you give them a day to touch things, I wouldn't be surprised if they can learn about smooth surfaces vs edges visually. If the very first thing they saw was the cube or sphere I don't think there is almost any chance they could tell.
@nathan1008
2 жыл бұрын
The question is simple, and presented at the standpoint where someone magically gains eyesight and is immediately presented with these two objects, not whether they were presented with them before this gift, or anything else.
@NickEJuice
4 жыл бұрын
What do people that have always been blind dream about? What do they "see"?
@kolbethompson1432
5 жыл бұрын
Yes. They would be able to tell. Having previously felt both a cube and sphere, they should be able to make a mental image of what the cube and sphere look like based off of touch by recognizing and remembering specific features and characteristics of the cube or sphere.
@v1991c
4 жыл бұрын
There is another thing in favor of the regionalists, which also makes us wonder if the question gives all the information we need. Do the subjects understand concepts such as the number of sides, vertexes and edges? One object has those 3 distinct elements and the other object is uniform. So assuming that the subjects know these differences and can distinguish something uniform from something with multiple features and therefore not uniform, rationally approaching the problem gives them the possibility to solve it. If they approach the problem empirically, no, they won't be able to distinguish them. So the correct answer is: Empirically it is not possible to make the distinction, rationally it is. The subjects are humans so they have both capabilities at their disposal, therefore, through rationality they should be able to tell which is which.
@humunculy7c
5 жыл бұрын
Like most, the question is just to vague. Empiricists are looking at the question in a vacuum considering the test to be performed immediately upon the regaining of sight and answered before any other stimuli can be introduced. In that case the answer is a confident no. But from a rationalist perspective your not going to assume those types of parameters and would instead be thinking along the lines of observable / transferable properties that can be implied to the unknown. EG: viewing the cube and sphere on the desk you notice similarities between the cube and the desk it's sitting on. Touching the DESK you can create an abstracted idea of flatness which you can then apply to what you already know about the cube and come to a reasonable conclusion without ever really touching the cube, that the cube is the flat one. With these parameters the answer is at least a reasonable yes. But in the end it's really just a guess and it depends on the cleverness of the subject to increase success rate/deal with limitations. When you boil it down, empiricists are asking for conditions that will never exist so they can answer with complete certainty, while rationalist are more pragmatic but as a result can never answer with certainty....
@matthewmullin6042
5 жыл бұрын
The answer seems like a very clear no regardless of which theory you start from. A person whom has never seen would not be able to interpret any of the visual information upon first gaining sight. They have no experience to understand how light plays on objects, no experience of color and wouldn't even be able to fully comprehend visual 3d information at all. Even though the could see, they wouldn't be able to rationalize what they are seeing.
Пікірлер: 1,7 М.