Talk:Molyneux's problem

How is this a *philosophical* problem?

I don't understand how or why this counts as a problem at all, let alone a philosophical one. Isn't it just a question of fact? Either a person who used to be blind can recognise these objects by sight, or they can't. Has anyone ever bothered to ask a person who used to be blind about the "problem"? What was that person's answer? Could somebody out there maybe address this point in the article itself (without doing original research)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.154.79 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand? Well, I got bad news for you. You are doing it wrong. You are Epic fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.220.125 (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that like many philosophical problems it is now a question of fact since blindness is sometimes a curable condition today. Certainly the problem may have changed to a much more interesting one that was originally belied by the simplicity of the original question's conception. Here is a Science News article with references which mentions that there were many documented cases of depression followed by suicide due to the fact that there was no initial correspondence between the formerly blind person's inner conception and outer world, as well as a still living formerly blind man's corroborating explanation. http://psych.mcmaster.ca/maurerlab/AboutOurResearch/VisionSeekers/VisionSeekers.html --210.250.80.50 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. A question like this is totally objective. Should be easy to solve by simply seeing if blind people are able to recognise cubes. Ytaker (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is known from a philosophical work by John Locke, and is recorded by Bunnin&Yu's dictionary of philosophy as a problem in epistemology. More importantly, Wikipedia does not have a principled position on what philosophical problems are, it reflects what Reliable Sources (WP:RS) say. If you have Reliable Sources saying that this is not part of philosophy, we should include those too. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Senden/Hebb

Maybe someone wants to add a paragraph about the study of Marius von Senden: „Die Raumauffassung bei Blindgeborenen“. (Dissertation, Kiel 1931). Book store title: „Raum- und Gestaltsauffassung bei operierten Blindgeborenen vor und nach der Operation“. Leipzig 1932. He collected in 66 cases, and his work is especially interesting because his conclusions were one of the main sources for Donald O. Hebb's Organization of Behavior (1949). -- 78.53.72.96 (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sinha study

The question is, "can a man born blind distinguish objects by sight if given the ability to see?" The Sinha study found "subjects could distinguish between objects visually as effectively as they would do by touch alone." This seems to answer the question affirmatively. However, this article the study concluded the answer to the question was "no". Am I somehow misunderstanding the question or the study? --beefyt (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the study as presented in the article, they could only distinguish them, but were unable to "name" them (like "ball" or "cube") based on previous (tactile) experience. Qarel (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hayy ibn Yaqdhan

Can anyone find the corresponding Arabic text from Hayy ibn Yaqdhan where he mentions the story which is similar to the Molyneux problem? The full Arabic text should be here but I still cant find the "imagine a person born blind" line?--الدبوني (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)