Molyneux's problem

The Molyneux problem is one of William Molyneux 1688 first problem pointed philosophical problem that focuses on the development of human knowledge and the formation of concepts on the basis of blindness. It is simplified as follows: Suppose a from birth blind person would receive the ability to see, he would be able to cubes and spheres by the mere viewing to distinguish from each other when it can be assumed that he already cube and sphere, could distinguish his sense of touch? The attempts of the philosophical problem solving led in the history of the theory of perception to a much-publicized discourse to this day. Following the publication of the issue in 1693 in John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was this problem by many philosophers and scholars, such as George Berkeley, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, Julien Offray de La Mettrie, Hermann von Helmholtz, and William James picked up that with the negative view of Locke's are partially followed.

The formulation of the problem by Molyneux

In a letter to John Locke formulated Molyneux on July 7, 1688:

" Dublin, July 7. 88 A problem posed to the author of " Essai Philosophique concernant L' ducks Accordingly, Humain " Suppose: An adult, born blind man who has learned to distinguish his sense of touch between a cube and a sphere of the same metal, and almost the same size and share of the can, if he has touched the one or the other, which the cube and what is the ball. Now, suppose cube and sphere are placed on a table, and the man became sehtüchtig. The question is: Is he able, through his sense of sight, before he touched these objects can distinguish them and tell which is the globe and which the cube? If the learned and ingenious author of the above essay thinks this problem is the attention and response worthy, he would forward the response anytime someone very appreciates him and His humble servant. William Molyneux High Ormond's Gate in Dublin, Ireland "

John Locke did not respond to this letter. Locke attacked but a little later this question, the Molyneux again on March 2, 1692 ( after they had become friends ) in a similar form to him - but this time with a proposed answer - sent, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in 1693 again. This led to a scientific discourse in contemporary philosophy, in which neither side was able to explain their position beyond doubt. John Locke wrote:

" Namely Imagine a born blind man who has grown up and has ohngefähr same size to distinguish learned through his feeling a cube and a sphere of the same metal, and so that it can indicate whether they feel the ball or the cube. Now, assume both would be placed on a table, and the blind man get his face; Now here the question is whether he before he touches the ball, you can tell which of the dice and see what is the ball? The astute questioner says: no. The man knew though from experience how a ball and like a cube anfühle, but he did not know from experience, if what his feelings one way or excite, his face would excite either way, and that a protruding corner in the cube that pressed his hand unequally, his eye would appear as it done in a cube. I agree this ingenious gentleman, whom I am proud to call my friend who is in, and believe that the blind man at the first bare seeing not with certainty is to specify which the keeper, which is the cube, even though he after his feeling sure they designate, and with certainty by this sense can distinguish their forms. "

This paragraph about the perception he was directly related to William Molyneux 's statement and added it to the answer of the problem from the perspective of Molyneux ':

"No. The man knew though from experience how a ball and like a cube anfühle, but he did not know from experience, if what his feelings one way or excite, his face would excite either way and that a prominent corner in the dice that pressed his hand unequally, his eye would appear as it done in a cube. "

Historical approaches to problem solving

The discussion of the then contemporary philosophy concerned in particular the relationship between sight and touch, and the corresponding question of whether the eye is physiologically able to perceive forms or the body and space perception by the sense of touch only " borrowed" was so, the visual impression with the previously acquired from the other senses information could be associated. As Molyneux already died on October 11, 1698 this could not complete the discourse. About the differences between visual and haptic sensations was agreement, but not on the relations of the different senses among themselves. Thus, the discourse was whether the relationship of the different senses will each learned through experience or whether a natural relationship of the different senses to each other, which arises automatically vorliege. Molyneux ' question, therefore, is concerned with whether the visual perception is separate from the haptic perception and is only linked by experience, then the figure and distinctive character designation would be after gaining vision impossible only because of the visual perception. Or the visual and haptic perception based on the same concept and a connection is made automatically, then the figure and distinctive character designation would be possible only by the visual perception. Molyneux and Locke argue that a previous haptic experience is necessary to distinguish the objects, and that both forms can not be described correctly only by the optics. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Francis Hutcheson, however, were of the view that even the blind are able to understand geometry without pictorial idea, due to the form of haptic experience. This would be based on the similarity of the underlying idea of ​​the sensory modalities vision and haptics. So they affirmed both Molyneux 's question. George Berkeley, however, agrees with Locke and Molyneux, but differentiated in more detail, in which he postulated that seeing is a learning process and the formerly blind now seeing an experience approach would be missing with the new modality of vision.

Empirical approaches to problem solving

As Molyneux ' Problem looks at first glance like a testable question, one would assume that today, more than three centuries later, a clear answer to the question can be given. However, there is also the beginning of the 21st century is no really comprehensive and universal answer. Although now studies task were conducted with people who had been blind since birth or childhood and whose eyesight was prepared surgically, but the results of these studies are partly contradictory or inconclusive, even when operated with control groups, so some patients explicitly Molyneux provided was and not others. This allowed some patients Molyneux ' task - ie the figure determination - to perform, others do not. In addition, the reliability and accuracy of some studies has been criticized. So criticism is that visual impressions immediately after an operation based on the status of the eye are not comparable with those of normal vision with a lifetime visual experience. The saliency of sensory perceptions after successful surgery was also very different, as some patients could distinguish only light and dark after surgery, others colors and a few were able to perceive motion, distance and size. Another criticism of empirical studies on Molyneux ' problem is the different age at attainment of vision, ranging from childhood to late adulthood.

The English physician William Cheselden delivered his report on the first successful iridectomy in 1728 a medical- practical basis for the hitherto speculative - philosophical problem posed. Cheseldens patient was a boy of thirteen, who had lost his sight so early that he had no memory of visual impressions more. Cheseldens study on the experiences of the boys was from Berkeley, Thomas Reid, Voltaire and other comments. Some, including Berkeley and the mathematician and theologian Robert Smith (1689-1768), appealed to Cheseldens study in support of their own negative answer to the question of Molyneux. Others questioned the relevance of Cheseldens study because the boy could initially distinguish no figures. Cheselden wrote when the boy could see the first time, " he did not know the form of anything, and could distinguish any objects, no matter how different they were in shape. " Cheseldens study appeared to Locke and Molyneux ' presumption to confirm that not including detecting objects at the basic content of visual perception, but items will only be detected when the corresponding haptic experience has been made and is then combined with the optical perception.

Modern approaches to problem solving

Although the discussion of the Molyneux problem remained into the 21st century in the scientific discussion, but came under eye doctors, psychologists and neurophysiologists into the background and was regarded primarily as a philosophical debate of the Enlightenment. A current intermediate state of the solution of the Molyneux problem from the perspective of the 21st century are predominantly Locke and Molyneux ' denial right, but with a different justification. In particular, the highlighted Locke knowledge gained through the experience of cooperation between vision and haptics are of minimal relevance is still attached. Rather, the entire process of perception is organized in an innate schema and will be improved through a continuous learning process. In this learning process may influence the experiences and perceptions of the other one mind.

Since the turn of the millennium aligns the interests of research, in particular by the far-reaching technological developments in microchip and Brain chip area, again more on the parallel use of different sensory perceptions, the so-called multi-modal perception and processing of information as well as the replacement of a sensory perception by another, so, for example, in the research field of human echolocation. It resembles echolocation, as used by bats and dolphins, a trained person the reflected sounds of nearby objects interpret and can thus determine its location and partly their size.

Experimental solution of the problem

In 2011, five blind from birth children who had attained the vision after surgery at age 8 to 17 years for the first time, examined in a similar experimental setup. Before surgery, the children groped similar figures from blocks and learned to distinguish them. After the surgery you previously palpated objects were given only to view. They were the seen the first palpated not assign, learned this in the further course, however, very quickly.