I have to admit that after reading To See and Not See by Oliver Sacks, it surprised me significantly because this was actually against parts of what I had studied and researched before. Save this point for the later.
First thing is first. This text is basically telling a story of a man called Virgil, who had lost his physical ability to see unexpectedly in age three, but got the sight again in age 58 due to a surgery. Nevertheless, opposite to be excited, he was completely confused and depressed for not recognizing a lot of common things and not being able to “closure.” Though the situation kept becoming better, he was still experiencing a very hard time to understand both the world saw by him and the meaning of seeing itself.
For instance, Sacks mentions several times in the article about how and why Virgil could not recognize items entirely. He could tell a cat’s paws, tail, nose, etc., but could not regard it as an entire cat. Same things happened when they came to a tree and a house. Another example is he was not able (or very difficult) to develop the recognition towards distance and depth. The perspective did not make sense to him.
I personally am very interested in psychology and have been studying psychology for a few years. According to developmental psychology, the critical period for a baby to develop the physical ability to see is from age zero to age one (“physical ability” means that biologically, the lights hit on retinas can finally form a accurate and complete image in the brain). In the passage, Virgil did have eyesight from age zero to one, which can perfectly explain why almost immediately after the surgery, he can “see” (not recognize).
However, important thing is the cognition would not develop completely until age four, and the time Virgil lost his sight was exactly within that period. One of the fundamental abilities of cognition are “closure,” the fact that Virgil could not to “closure” also proved this.
Hope you are still staying with me. Till here, everything makes sense. Then, I try to dig a little deeper and find it problematic. Sacks writes that Virgil did not have concepts on depth and distance, but all researches till now are all proving the recognition towards depth and distance (they are the same actually) should be fully developed in age one and half. The way to have that ability is to build neuronal connections in the certain parts of the brain. And also, these neuronal connections that have been built would not be lost in the entire life. The problem here is, since Virgil had lost eyesight in age three, he should have those neuronal connections, but when he could see again 55 years later, he was still like an infant under age one and half.
Anyway, there are too much stuff and too professional to be possible to be discussed here. If this reflection were informative to you or could inspire you a little, I would be very glad and grateful.