Molyneux’s Question Within and Across the Senses

Schwenkler, John

doi:10.4324/9781315146935-15

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Crucially, such information is believed to be either immediately accessible to a newly sighted individual or passed on uninterrupted to other sensory modalities and automatically accessed by that (other) modality. This view appears consistent with the idea that external events themselves are perceived using amodal information rather than unisensory information tied to, say, vision-only cues (refer to Schwenkler, 2019, for a related discussion on “internal vs. external” accounts of perception).…”

supporting

confidence: 77%

“…Returning to recent discussion on these points, Schwenkler (2019) argued that point (ii) is not sufficient for a "yes" answer to MQ. His argument This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

Section: Altierimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, in the following section, I will review and expand upon arguments recently put forth by Schwenkler (2019) against this viewpoint that MQ is primarily a question of whether our perceptual system acts upon amodal or modality-specific information. Therefore, even if a perceptual operation acts on amodal representations of, say, 3D shape, it will not be sufficient condition for a newly sighted individual to identify a “cube” versus “sphere” on visual-only information.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is Molyneux’s question really about multisensory integration?

Altieri

2024

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Altierimentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Molyneux’s question really about multisensory integration?

Altieri

2024

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This generates a puzzle of perspectival variation. You experience the mug as the same intrinsic shape regardless of whether you hold it in your right or left hand, but it also appears different between these perspectives (see also Schwenkler, 2019, 275–276; Matthen, forthcoming). So haptic shape experience exhibits perspectival variation.…”

Section: Tier 1 Shape Phenomenologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The puzzle of cross‐modal shape experience

Green

2021

Nous

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The puzzle of cross-modal shape experience is the puzzle of reconciling the apparent differences between our visual and haptic experiences of shape with their apparent similarities. This paper proposes that we can resolve the cross-modal puzzle by reflecting on another puzzle. The puzzle of perspectival character challenges us to reconcile the variability of shape experience through shifts in perspective with its constancy. An attractive approach to the latter puzzle holds that shape experience is complex, involving both perspectival aspects and constant aspects. I argue here that parallel distinctions between perspectival and constant aspects of shape experience arise in sight and touch, and that perspectival aspects are modality-specific while at least some constant aspects are constitutively multisensory. I then address a powerful challenge to the idea that aspects of spatial phenomenology are shared cross-modally.

show abstract

“…Connolly (2013) doubts the feasibility of the first option, since he thinks it is questionable whether newly sighted subjects would be any more sensitive to dynamic depth cues than they are to static cues. While Connolly favors the second option, Cheng (2015, see also Schwenkler, 2019) argues against it on the grounds that the haptic system has difficulty processing the shapes of raised‐line drawings.…”

Section: Can the Test Be Fixed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Representing shape in sight and touch

Green

2020

Mind & Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We represent shape in both sight and touch, but how do these abilities relate to one another? This issue has been discussed in the context of Molyneux's question of whether someone born blind could, upon being granted sight, identify shapes visually. Some have suggested that we might look to real-world cases of sight restoration to illuminate the relation between visual and tactual shape representations. Here I argue that newly sighted perceivers should not be relied on in this way because they are unlikely to form the kinds of shape representations responsible for cross-modal recognition in normally sighted perceivers. I then argue that the available evidence makes a compelling case for the type identity view, on which the visual and tactual representations responsible for cross-modal recognition are type-identical.

show abstract

Molyneux’s Question Within and Across the Senses

Cited by 3 publications

References 5 publications

Is Molyneux’s question really about multisensory integration?

Is Molyneux’s question really about multisensory integration?

The puzzle of cross‐modal shape experience

Representing shape in sight and touch

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About