John,

Great stuff. 

There is a huge amount of information that Kant was wrong about these things. 
Someone today mentioned Michael Polyani’s work on personal knowledge/tacit 
knowledge. And, at the risk of being a bore, there is my book, Dark Matter of 
the Mind: 
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matter-Mind-Articulated-Unconscious/dp/022607076X 
<https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matter-Mind-Articulated-Unconscious/dp/022607076X>,
 in which I survey a lot of the literature, proposing my own theories (not as 
much interaction with Peirce as there should have been, I am sure). 

There is also a point that Kant missed entirely and that Peirce had little 
chance to observe: cross-cultural variation. 

Dan


> On Apr 8, 2019, at 11:17 AM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> This morning, I remembered some case studies of people who were
> blind from early childhood and later recovered their sight.
> 
> Those studies cast doubt on Kant's claim that people have a
> complete innate theory of space and time.  The brain may have
> innate structure that facilitates learning about space and time,
> but a lot of experience is necessary to fill in the details.
> 
> For example, Sydney Bradford lost his sight at age 10 months,
> went to a school for the blind, and had a successful career
> as a machinist.  He lived independently, could make his way
> through traffic, and took public transportation to work.
> 
> Then at age 52, he had an operation that restored his sight.
> Instead of being a confident, independent blind man, he became
> a fearful, depressed man, who was terrified of crossing a street
> in traffic, even with a friend holding his arm.
> 
> For a Wikipedia article about Sydney B. and others, see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_from_blindness
> 
> For a 44-page article with much more detail about SB, see
> http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/recovery_blind/recovery-from-early-blindness.pdf
> 
> By the way, that site has links to other articles by Richard G.
> For example, see the attached "impossible" figure.  But it's
> possible to construct an actual 3D object that looks like that.
> See the article 
> http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/brainmodels/illusions-and-brain-models_all.htm
> 
> Peirce wrote a lot about illusions, and he would have loved to see
> that object.  It has implications about form, index, and percepts.
> 
> John
> <impossible.gif>
> -----------------------------
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] 
> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 
> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 

-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to