The case of a flagpole that casts a shadow on the
ground, which I discussed last week, is an instance of how counterexamples can
undermine theories. However, this counterexample was theoretical in the sense
that one didn’t need actually put a flagpole somewhere and make observations.
Often a theoretical case will not do and we need a real experiment for solving
a philosophical issue. In this way one of the most intriguing questions in
modern philosophy has been answered: the Molyneux question.
In 1688 the scientist and politician William Molyneux
sent a letter to John Locke in which he presented him with the following
question, quoted by Locke in his An Essay
Concerning Human Understanding (Book II, ch. ix, §8):
“Suppose a
man born blind, now adult, who has learned how to distinguish by touch between
a cube and a sphere of the same metal and about the same size, so that he can
tell when he handles them which is the cube and which the sphere. Now suppose
the cube and sphere to be placed on a table, and the blind man be made to see.
Can he by his sight, before touching them, tell which is the globe, which the
cube?”
Molyneux thought that the answer was no, and so did
Locke. However, this was not the end of the discussion but just the start of
it. Through the ages, the question attracted the attention of many philosophers
and scholars, like Berkeley, Leibniz, Helmholtz, William James, etc, to this
day. It’s no wonder, for its answer has important implications for the theory
of perception. A negative answer, so Gallagher, implies a theory in which a meaningful
access to the world is mediated and performed by different sense modalities that
have to be coordinated. A positive answer implies a more direct access to the
world based on innate properties. But how to get an answer? An empirical
solution would be most obvious, but as long as it wasn’t possible to perform
eye operations, only a theoretical reply remained. However, in 1728 William
Cheselden published an account of a successful cataract operation in which he
noted that the boy operated was not able to recognize a cube from a sphere.
This pointed to a negative answer. Nevertheless doubts remained on methodological
grounds, for it was not clear whether the boy had been able to make valid
perceptual judgments because his eyes had not been functioning properly. Also
later eye operations followed by tests were not without ambiguities, for
example when there were doubts about the onset of the blindness in the cases
studied or there was confusion about the experience of the patient after the
operation. Therefore a positive or negative answer to the Molyneux problem
couldn’t be given. Actually this was not a matter of how to answer the question
but of the dearth of patients who met all methodological requirements,
especially in the Western countries, where congenitally blind patients are
treated ìn infancy, if possible, so that they are not suitable as test persons.
However, how cynical, useful patients can be found in
developing countries where medical facilities for early eye operations are
often present but many people who need it don’t get it because of inadequate
medical services. So, in 2003 Pawan Sinha, a professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, set up a program in India and as a part of it operated
successfully five blind patients who met the methodological requirements and
tested them. The answer to the Molyneux question was negative: The patients who
could distinguish a cube from a sphere by touching them couldn’t do so by
perceiving them. The result of the vision test was barely better than if the
test persons had guessed.
After three centuries of discussion and testing the
conclusion is that man has to learn to see – which was already known from other
research, of course –; that a meaningful access to the world is mediated; and
that what one sense modality already “knows” is not automatically passed on to
another sense modality. Nonetheless, this doesn’t involve that sense modalities
function completely independent of each other. For – paraphrasing Gallagher – to
take the case of vision discussed here, the structure necessary for seeing has
never been used by congenitally blind persons, and therefore the neural
networks for seeing are completely absent in their brains, or present only in a
rudimentary form. But it is quite well possible, and not unlikely, that
congenitally blind people learn to see and discern much faster, once they have
been operated, because of what they learned before with the help of their other
senses.
Sources:
- Shaun Gallagher, How the body shapes
the mind. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2005; ch. 7.
- John Locke’s Essay
... on http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1690book2.pdf
;
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Molyneux’s
Problem”, on https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/molyneux-problem/#5
No comments:
Post a Comment