David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Analysis 73 (1):86-96 (2013)
Do spatial features appear the same whether they are perceived through vision or touch? This question is at stake in the puzzle that William Molyneux posed to John Locke, concerning whether a man born blind whose sight was restored would be able immediately to identify the shapes of the things he saw. A recent study purports to answer the question negatively, but I argue here that the subjects of the study likely could not see well enough for the result to have been meaningful. I then propose a way to improve the study, by including cues from object motion.
|Keywords||vision touch intermodal perception spatial perception Molyneux's question|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
D. Maurer, T. Lewis & C. MondloCh (2005). Missing Sights: Consequences for Visual Cognitive Development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (3):144-151.
Citations of this work BETA
Nicholas Altieri (2015). Multimodal Theories of Recognition and Their Relation to Molyneux's Question. Frontiers in Psychology 5.
John Schwenkler (2015). Commentary: “Multimodal Theories of Recognition and Their Relation to Molyneux's Question”. Frontiers in Psychology 6 (1792).
Similar books and articles
John Schwenkler (2012). On the Matching of Seen and Felt Shape by Newly Sighted Subjects. I-Perception 3 (3):186-188.
Robert Hopkins (2005). Thomas Reid on Molyneux's Question. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (3):340-364.
John Campbell (2005). Information-Processing, Phenomenal Consciousness and Molyneux's Question. In José Luis Bermúdez (ed.), Thought, Reference, and Experience: Themes From the Philosophy of Gareth Evans. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Robert Hopkins (2005). Molyneux's Question. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (3):441-464.
Janet Levin (2008). Molyneux Meets Euthyphro. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (3):289-297.
Brian Glenney (2012). Leibniz on Molyneux's Question. History of Philosophy Quarterly 29 (3):247-264.
Michael J. Morgan (1977). Molyneux's Question: Vision, Touch, and the Philosophy of Perception. Cambridge University Press.
Brian R. Glenney (2013). Philosophical Problems, Cluster Concepts, and the Many Lives of Molyneux's Question. Biology and Philosophy 28 (3):541-558.
Sara Shute (1981). Molyneux's Question: Vision, Touch, and the Philosophy of Perception. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Philosophy 19 (2):255-257.
R. S. Woolhouse (1979). Molyneux's Question: Vision, Touch and the Philosophy of Perception By Michael J. Morgan Cambridge University Press, 1977, Vii + 213 Pp., £7.50. [REVIEW] Philosophy 54 (207):136-.
Janet Levin (2008). Molyneux's Question and the Individuation of Perceptual Concepts. Philosophical Studies 139 (1):1 - 28.
Mike Bruno & Eric Mandelbaum (2010). Locke's Answer to Molyneux's Thought Experiment. History of Philosophy Quarterly 27 (2):165-80.
Tim Crane (2005). What is the Problem of Perception? Synthesis Philosophica 2 (40):237-264.
Added to index2012-08-06
Total downloads623 ( #1,356 of 1,911,856 )
Recent downloads (6 months)77 ( #6,382 of 1,911,856 )
How can I increase my downloads?