Scientists settle centuries-old debate on perception

Philosopher William Molyneux asked a question to philosopher John Locke

Molyneux's Problem

Suppose a man born blind, and now adult, and taught by his touch to distinguish between a cube and a sphere of the same metal, and nighly of the same bigness, so as to tell, when he felt one and the other, which is the cube, which is the sphere. Suppose then the cube and the sphere placed on a table, and the blind man made to see: query, Whether by his sight, before he touched them, he could now distinguish and tell which is the globe, which the cube? To which the acute and judicious proposer answers: ‘Not. For though he has obtained the experience of how a globe, and how a cube, affects his touch; yet he has not yet attained the experience, that what affects his touch so or so, must affect his sight so or so…’

Molyneux's Problem

A very interesting question indeed and Locke answered:

I agree with this thinking gentleman, whom I am proud to call my friend, in his answer to this problem; and am of opinion that the blind man, at first sight, would not be able with certainty to say which was the globe, which the cube, whilst he only saw them; though he could unerringly name them by his touch, and certainly distinguish them by the difference of their figures felt

Same link

Now a team of experts have answered this question
Initially there were a few players that had their own answers or theories

Empiricists believed that we are born blank slates, and become the sum total of our accumulated experience.

So-called "nativists" countered that our minds are, from the outset, pre-stocked with ideas waiting to be activated by sight, sound and touch.

www.physorg.com...

As for the results???

I'm not going to post it here
Please go to the link and read the entire article to find out
www.physorg.com...

It's an interesting find.... I find

Although this mainly is about senses and brain functions the logic can perhaps be also applied to the old "it's easier for children to learn a new language than older people".... perhaps

The brain is like it's own intelligent organism

I think that this is pretty interesting so I thought I would share it

Also the answer is pretty much none of the answers that anyone had been theorizing for so very long
Makes you think of all the other schools of thought that have been around for a long time

I'm a psych major and sensations/perceptions is my specialty.
I'm not surprised by the results at all.
This question is actually not that significant and doesn't reveal anything not already known.
On a side note, the nature/nurture debate is pretty much a draw, and there's many scientific experiments that suggest it's 50% nature/50% nurture. The best experiments suggesting this involve identical twins separated at birth.

I still think this is an interesting study, don't get me wrong.

reply to post by Ghost375


Here is the nature vs. nurture docu about the case of the twins you are talking about: "Dr. Money and the Boy with no Penis": video.google.com...#

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Interesting study. Thanks. ...Seems to me already well-recognized that the brain is "plastic" - and the boys are just thrashing out niche details at this point. 'Course the die-hards still want to flog the late lamented nature v/s nurture "debate."

S&F&

Even after a person has died, the brain attempts to keep itself alive for a period of time. That is, it is a living organism in its own right.

I see.