Two visual systems in Molyneux subjects

Abstract
Molyneux’s question famously asks about whether a newly sighted subject might immediately recognize, by sight alone, shapes that were already familiar to her from a tactile point of view. This paper addresses three crucial points concerning this puzzle. First, the presence of two different questions: the classic one concerning visual recognition and another one concerning vision-for-action. Second, the explicit distinction, reported in the literature, between ocular and cortical blindness. Third, the importance of making reference to our best neuroscientific account on vision, ‘the two visual systems model’, in order to better address Molyneux’s problem. Then, by offering a new, deeper analysis of the relation between, and, this paper suggests that the subjects of Molyneux’s two different questions show the same visual impairment as brain-damaged subjects with different lesions of the visual cortex. In particular, the subject of the first question shows the same impairment in visual recognition as a visual agnosic subject, while the subject of the second question shows the same visual impairment in visuomotor processing as an optic ataxic subject. These impairments still hold even if ocular processing is restored. Therefore, I suggest the following. For the first classic question, the required experimental setting cannot be properly reached. By contrast, concerning the second question, based on the interpretation we select, either the answer is negative, or, as with the first question, the experimental setting cannot be properly reached. This proposal constitutes, with the other approaches offered in the literature, a further attempt to tackle the enormous complexity of Molyneux’s puzzle.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11097-017-9533-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 34,386
External links

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

A Sensorimotor Account of Vision and Visual Consciousness.J. Kevin O'Regan & Alva Noë - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):883-917.
How the Body Shapes the Mind.Shaun Gallagher - 2007 - Philosophy 82 (319):196-200.
Perception and the Reach of Phenomenal Content.Tim Bayne - 2009 - Philosophical Quarterly 59 (236):385-404.
Collected Papers.Colin McGinn & Gareth Evans - 1988 - Philosophical Review 97 (2):278.

View all 35 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Molyneux’s Question and the Amodality of Spatial Experience.Janet Levin - 2018 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 61 (5-6):590-610.
Thomas Reid on Molyneux's Question.Robert Hopkins - 2005 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (3):340-364.
Do Things Look the Way They Feel?John Schwenkler - 2013 - Analysis 73 (1):86-96.
Leibniz on Molyneux's Question.Brian Glenney - 2012 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 29 (3):247-264.
Molyneux's Question Redux.Alessandra C. Jacomuzzi, Pietro Kobau & Nicola Bruno - 2003 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2 (4):255-280.
Molyneux's Questions.Peter Baumann - 2004 - In Ralph Schumacher (ed.), Perception and Reality. mentis. pp. 168-187.
Non-Visual Consciousness and Visual Images in Blindsight.Berit Brogaard - 2012 - Consciousness and Cognition 21 (1):595-596.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-11-23

Total downloads
1 ( #1,035,582 of 2,266,885 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #372,916 of 2,266,885 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes

Sign in to use this feature