tilthat: TIL a philosophy riddle from 1688 was recently solved. If a man born blind can feel the differences between shapes such as spheres and cubes, could he, if given the ability, distinguish those objects by sight alone? In 2003 five people had their sight restored though surgery, and, no they could not.

nentuaby: I love when apparently Deep questions turn out to have clear empirical answers.

  • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    how can you restore sight to someone who never had in the first place?

    Semantically, it implies that their bodies were born with the capacity for sight, but something occurred, either in utero or when they were very young, to rob them of it. Also, the subjects in the experiment all had some very minor visual capacity, like the ability to distinguish the direction light was coming from. They just didn’t have visual acuity.

    Also, this wikipedia page isn’t behind a paywall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux’s_problem

    • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      in vitro means in glass, as in a petri dish. and in vivo is just like, in a living body generally, not necessary just fetuses. So, I’m thinking maybe you were going for in utero?

      Sry, idk when I’m being a pedant or a helpful person who appreciates language, well, words. Grammar can get fucked.

      • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        in vitro means in glass, as in a petri dish. and in vivo is just like, in a living body generally, not necessary just fetuses. So, I’m thinking maybe you were going for in utero?

        Look, dog, words are hard and I’m stupid. Aite?