Oldskeptic wrote:

B) Did it begin as a single abstract sense, and this over time evolved into the different senses (like specialisations)?

That one sense organ began to evolve before others is a reasonable assumption.

Do you mean that this one sense branched into different directions (senses), as in the root of a tree? Or do you mean one sense evolved first, then somewhere else another type of experience evolved seperately?

pl0bs wrote:...
That one sense organ began to evolve before others is a reasonable assumption....Do you mean that this one sense branched into different directions (senses), as in the root of a tree? Or do you mean one sense evolved first, then somewhere else another type of experience evolved seperately?

You think visions split into hearing and taste or something like gluconazing split into vision and hearing and taste? What do you get when you combine hearing and taste? Then add in some vision?

SpeedOfSound wrote:You think visions split into hearing and taste or something like gluconazing split into vision and hearing and taste? What do you get when you combine hearing and taste? Then add in some vision?

If the different senses are like branches on a tree with one undifferentiated/more abstract trunk, then they do not mix/split at the level of the branches.

For example, the more abstract level may be math or language, and the different senses represent this differently. Abstract concepts like 1/0 may be black/white, noise/silence, etc. Look up ideasthesia.

Apparently babies are born with synesthesia:

Now a study from the University of California, San Diego, suggests that we are all born synesthetes like Kandinsky, with senses so joined that stimulating one reliably stimulates another.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... andinskys/

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:You think visions split into hearing and taste or something like gluconazing split into vision and hearing and taste? What do you get when you combine hearing and taste? Then add in some vision?

If the different senses are like branches on a tree with one undifferentiated/more abstract trunk, then they do not mix/split at the level of the branches.

For example, the more abstract level may be math or language, and the different senses represent this differently. Abstract concepts like 1/0 may be black/white, noise/silence, etc. Look up ideasthesia.

Why do you think they are branches on a tree?

pl0bs wrote:Apparently babies are born with synesthesia:

Now a study from the University of California, San Diego, suggests that we are all born synesthetes like Kandinsky, with senses so joined that stimulating one reliably stimulates another.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... andinskys/

If wires cross then you simply have crossed wires.

pl0bs wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

B) Did it begin as a single abstract sense, and this over time evolved into the different senses (like specialisations)?

That one sense organ began to evolve before others is a reasonable assumption.

Do you mean that this one sense branched into different directions (senses), as in the root of a tree? Or do you mean one sense evolved first, then somewhere else another type of experience evolved seperately?

I simply mean that barring a genesis like creation event something had to be first. Maybe it was a patch of skin sensitive to changes in light intensity? Maybe it was a simple membrane sensitive to vibrations? Maybe it was a rudimentary chemical receptor in the feeding end of an early animal that could determine sweet from not sweet or salty from not salty or sour from not sour...? Maybe it was some sort of simple nerve endings that could sense changes in temperature? Maybe it was some sort of simple nerve endings that could detect pressure from the outside to its covering? Or maybe it was something we're not imagining? Whatever it was, anyone's guess is probably as good as anyone elses.

As for your experience that I striked through there is no reason to think experience, as in how we experience sensory input, goes hand in hand with senses or that a brain is even needed as an intermediate between sensing and reacting.

A friend of mine sneezes when he looks at the sun.

pl0bs wrote:Apparently babies are born with synesthesia:

Now a study from the University of California, San Diego, suggests that we are all born synesthetes like Kandinsky, with senses so joined that stimulating one reliably stimulates another.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... andinskys/

I don't know what your point is but every "normal" person has this to different degrees. There is nothing astonishing about certain smells or tastes or sounds or sights evoking associated memories that contain the other elements as well.

Onyx8 wrote:A friend of mine sneezes when he looks at the sun.

When my father felt a sneeze coming on he'd look at the sun to get it over with.

Onyx8 wrote:A friend of mine sneezes when he looks at the sun.

Do you think sneezing and the sun happened at the same time then? Or do you think one came before the other?

On a scale of goalposts to 10, I wonder how far along we are.

page 1 claim wrote:Imagine a human with its different senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, etc) and which experiences them as a unified whole.

page 3 claim wrote:The seperate senses are integrated and this is the singular person.

I'm going to go with a modest 5/10. Thoughts?

How integrated are your fingers and toes? Did they develop separately or as one. Are babies born with fingers and toes as one or are they separate? Enquiring minds want to know.

and what about proprioception? A sense that doesn't emerge in humans until after they have gained muscle control - especially neck muscles.

felltoearth wrote:How integrated are your fingers and toes? Did they develop separately or as one. Are babies born with fingers and toes as one or are they separate? Enquiring minds want to know.

They start as a single cell......

All senses except olfactory project to the thalamus first. They each have a little country of their own in the thalamus. Synesthesia is not really synesthesia. It happens after the thalamus, in the cortex, which is is linked to the little sense countries by a two way circuit. Cortical confusion is due to the mapping of inter-cortical macro-structures and to their happenstance neighborliness.

This is curious. Anyone with a good education in developmental neuroscience could shed some light here. Why do most senses impinge on a two little walnut sized areas in the center of our brains first? Is it because the senses ARE the center and beginning of our brain?

This is not yellow.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/not-yellow

kennyc wrote:

felltoearth wrote:How integrated are your fingers and toes? Did they develop separately or as one. Are babies born with fingers and toes as one or are they separate? Enquiring minds want to know.

They start as a single cell......

Exactly. The idea of a unified whole is a red herring sold by woo mongers.

felltoearth wrote:

kennyc wrote:

felltoearth wrote:How integrated are your fingers and toes? Did they develop separately or as one. Are babies born with fingers and toes as one or are they separate? Enquiring minds want to know.

They start as a single cell......

Exactly. The idea of a unified whole is a red herring sold by woo mongers.

Well... There is a whole huge part of our brain devoted to tying them together. But then if they were unified in the first place that wouldn't be needed. Like I said, they each have their own well marked out countries in the thalamus.

Pl0bs is a guy that walks around with no input and then gets an Idea. He then mistakes it for a golden nugget and runs over here and starts a thread. The Idea can only remain if he shuts off any external input. It's more a wisp of fog than a nugget.