Humans have a sixth sense, and i can prove it.

TheAlphaWolf

11-27-05, 11:10 AM

and the brain fits that description dosent it, it is a sensory system, your other senses wouldent work without it,
well, it's not a sensory system. It doesn't sense anything. And the fact that your other senses wouldn't work without it is irrelevant. Your other senses wouldn't work without your heart, does that mean your heart is a sense? also, it doesn't fit into the other part of the definition: "and that correspond to a defined region (or group of regions) within the brain where the signals are received and interpreted".
and isnt it considered a possibility in the far future to keep the brain alive on its own without the body?, [quote]
yeah, so what?
[quote]if the brain can be kept alive without the human body or its other sensory systems, dosent this mean that it isnt dependant on other senses to stay active, and therefore must have its own capabilities in the terms of "sense"
not at all. You can keep tissue liver alive in a petri dish, that doesn't mean you have a "liver sense".
and ok i think its completely idiotic to believe we have only 5 limited senses,
everyone has been ignoring wikipedia. It says right there that there have been 9-12 human senses identified, and it even lists 9.
how do you explain that we only use about 10% of our brain? the other 90% does work you know, we just havent figured out what it all does
easy, that's not true. I love it when people mention that myth... take a look at: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
"While for the people who repeat that myth, it's probably true, the rest of us happily use all of our brains. "
ROFLMAO! I LOVE that!... ehem... anyway... You'd be surprised at how detailed our mapping of the brain is. I know i was. There are regions for language, for every muscle in your body, for memories, for fear, for face recognition, for eyesight, etc. And Even more specific... but of course I ain't no neurologist.
i believe we interact with the universe on a much deeper level, on a quantum level
can you elaborate? how? what's your reason for believing that?
so electric signals are all in your conciousness then huh?,[/quote
Electric singals ARE your consciousness. You seem to think of the brain as something separate from the mind... that just isn't it. Everything you are, all your memories, feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc. are your brain. They're dendrite connections is how you store those things, and the electrical signals neurons use to communicate with each other are the actual "remembering" something. (or feeling, etc)

[quote]and the brain cant pick up electrical signals or any other kind of force/energy no?,
the brain uses electrical signals to work, (like I said before), so you can directly stimulate parts of the brain with electrical impulses and you can get a person to feel/remember/etc. something. For example, I think I read that there was a patient somewhere that was stimulated and felt the taste of lemon so strongly and vividly in her mouth, that she thought they were really putting lemon inside her mouth. That's also true with memories and other things. They may suddenly remember a song, etc.
if your brain can pick up signals from an outside source that proves we have a sixth sense,
no, First off, you can't FEEL the electrical impulse. The brain itself has no touch/pain receptors, so you could stick your finger into a brain and the person wouldn't even feel it. Sure, the person might die, or may be affected somehow, but it's not SENSING anything.
What it does prove is that you're making certain parts of the brain work. Without getting too technical (because frankly I can't... I'm prbably wrong in some of this so please correct me), a neuron works by expelling/taking in certain electrically charged molecules. By stimulating a part of the brain with electrical impulses (which are negatively charged electrons passing through), you are basically making the neuron(s) work, but not to sense anything. It just does what it would normally do (say, remember the tune of "the lion sleeps tonight") again, it's not sensing anything.

TheAlphaWolf

11-27-05, 11:17 AM

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.co...ws.php?id=54274

proof and there we have it, thankyou and goodnight,

That doesn't prove it. The article even explains it.
"in blind people whose eyes function normally but who have suffered damage to the brain's visual centre"
want real proof? get some blind people without eyes that see something. THEN I'll believe you (you wanted suggestions for experiments you might do? there's one)
" it is suggested that other parts of the brain besides the primary visual cortex respond to nerve messages from the eyes at an unconscious level. "
your visual cortex only allows you to physically see the objects, but another part of the brain is the one who realizes they're there.
In other words, "seeing" is divided into two or more regions of the brain. If you disable one, what it does doesn't work, but the other one still works so what the second one does still works. It's a fairly simple concept.

Dascu

11-27-05, 12:17 PM

Good work, AlphaWolf. :P

EmptyForceOfChi

11-27-05, 12:54 PM

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web3/Bernstein.html

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/05.20/sixth.sense.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4638

peace,

TheAlphaWolf

11-27-05, 01:07 PM

for the first two- psst. it's called the sense of smell.
lol. It still works the same way. Smell particles (in this case pheromones) trigger smell neurons to fire. No big mysterious sense that needs quantum anything. Other animals have it, it's no big surprise we do.
for the third one- I think it's just retrieval problems. It's like when you can't quite remember a word, just the first letter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recollection
in that experiment, there's no cue to help you identify what was wrong, so you don't remember what was wrong.

again, no mysterious supernatural or quantum anything is needed.

invert_nexus

11-27-05, 01:14 PM

EmptyForceOfChi

11-27-05, 04:34 PM

Uhm.
I'm working on a more in-depth post, but these latest links you just threw in...
Uh.
What?
You just googled up 'sixth sense' and took whatever you found?
The first two are about a sort of chemical messaging going on. The vemeronasal organ which is more communicative than pure smell.
The last is about, what seems to me, more of a post sensory processing than a sense in itself. There is certainly nothing mentioned in the article that is conclusive.

The last article brought me to mind of a theory of holographic thought however. Which would imply a sight organ (perhaps the pineal gland?) within the brain. This theory would suggest that when you visualize a scene in your mind, that the image is actually being physically constructed by nerve impulses (or some method... never was quite clear on how the image was constructed) within the brain medium itself and perceived by a sensory organ within the brain. It's been quite some time since I've heard of this, however, and I believe that it was highly theoretical.

yes and the latter thing you just mentioned i was speaking about before, it does have something to do with it, and i was not trying to define one single sixth or seventh sense, im talking of all the possibilities that could be classed as a sense,

and ofcourse its theoretical, isnt all science to begin with? it all starts in the imagination.

i think we have alot more than 5 senses its not wise to think we know everything already about how we sense and interact on sub levels, and other ways we sense on levels we arent aware of, i believe the human brain could have quantum links explaining the parts of the brains that we see as dormant,
but are really the most active,

peace,

peace,

EmptyForceOfChi

11-27-05, 04:47 PM

Light

11-27-05, 08:30 PM

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/7036

http://socialsciences.uchicago.edu/ssdnews/mcclintok_article.html

yes i am getting links from google, its the best search tool isnt it?,

i am reading all of them aswell and giving examples of how we interact on other levels with our enviroment and life around us, read these 2 links, i will gather alot more infomation about other senses, i wouldent be supprised if we had quantum senses, Qi senses, all other kinds aswell, nothing supprises me in the universe, just inspires, ive learned not to doubt too much and keep an open mind, but always question everything staying like water constantly flowing, and never getting trapped in a container (frame of mind) do you guys really think its "poppycock" considering other senses?, it seems normal to me just other senses no big deal, if we tried to dig deeper into fields of "extreams" we would find alot more, imagination is the key, knowledge is secondary.

peace

Chi, I would not argue with the "general" statements that we have ways of detecting (sensing) things beyond the much-recognized common five.

A few have already been mentioned like the feeling of a full bladder. But that one can also be compared to the feeling of a full gut and the urgency that both present. However, both are simply slightly different forms of the ordinary sense of touch in that they sense tissue being stressed. And yes, we have sensors for both hot and cold that aren't accounted for in the basic five.

Here's two more that aren't so easily dismissed. Exactly what is a "headache?" and how is it sensed. Another is ordinary pain, like cutting a finger. That one, though, is much better understood. There are actually two different classes of pain sensors which report to the brain individually over different paths, called A and B, and one can actually override another. (But that's another whole, long topic in itself that I won't go into right now.) And so there are two different kinds of pain and however we detect a headache should be added to the list. So that's actually three more to add to the sense of heat and cold. And there are others.

However , here's where the rub comes. When most people start talking about "extra senses" they are usually thinking far beyond the basic five and even the others I've listed. What they are really talking about goes out into the realm of the supernatural and the paranormal. And that's where they run into trouble because they have no sound basis to work from. All kinds of people have made all sorts of claims and they cannot replicate them upon demand. For example, someone says "I had a dream - and I'll have to wait for the next one." That's no good. Because in between those two dreams they probably had dozens (or even hundreds) that didn't work out as predictions of anything.

Others see visions or hear voices. Others communicate with the dead. And the list goes on and on. Why do you suppose the majority choose to not believe them? Is it because the majority is jealous? Or are they discriminating and unfairly dismissing these people.

Or could it be just that there's simply nothing there to believe in?

EmptyForceOfChi

11-27-05, 08:43 PM

Chi, I would not argue with the "general" statements that we have ways of detecting (sensing) things beyond the much-recognized common five.

A few have already been mentioned like the feeling of a full bladder. But that one can also be compared to the feeling of a full gut and the urgency that both present. However, both are simply slightly different forms of the ordinary sense of touch in that they sense tissue being stressed. And yes, we have sensors for both hot and cold that aren't accounted for in the basic five.

Here's two more that aren't so easily dismissed. Exactly what is a "headache?" and how is it sensed. Another is ordinary pain, like cutting a finger. That one, though, is much better understood. There are actually two different classes of pain sensors which report to the brain individually over different paths, called A and B, and one can actually override another. (But that's another whole, long topic in itself that I won't go into right now.) And so there are two different kinds of pain and however we detect a headache should be added to the list. So that's actually three more to add to the sense of heat and cold. And there are others.

However , here's where the rub comes. When most people start talking about "extra senses" they are usually thinking far beyond the basic five and even the others I've listed. What they are really talking about goes out into the realm of the supernatural and the paranormal. And that's where they run into trouble because they have no sound basis to work from. All kinds of people have made all sorts of claims and they cannot replicate them upon demand. For example, someone says "I had a dream - and I'll have to wait for the next one." That's no good. Because in between those two dreams they probably had dozens (or even hundreds) that didn't work out as predictions of anything.

Others see visions or hear voices. Others communicate with the dead. And the list goes on and on. Why do you suppose the majority choose to not believe them? Is it because the majority is jealous? Or are they discriminating and unfairly dismissing these people.

Or could it be just that there's simply nothing there to believe in?

i know and i probably come off as some kind of behind the times supernatural pagan to alot of people here,

when speaking of things like a sixth sense, or Orgone energy/Qi, or spiritual/philosophical subjects, people always place what im sayign alongside with UFO's fake paranormal spiritual people who can talk to your dead grandma for 25 notes, or cultists and other types of things of this nature,

i question everything that the skeptics challenge, but i also always question science, and i accept science as a very usefull way of testing, and gaining more knowledge, and insight,

but i never settle and place my beliefs into anythign fully, i accept everything as a possibilty, but question everything from outside the box, i find it hard to even think inside one box, boxes dont exist to me, you cannot contain immagination,

peace,

Light

11-27-05, 09:30 PM

i question everything that the skeptics challenge, but i also always question science, and i accept science as a very usefull way of testing, and gaining more knowledge, and insight,

but i never settle and place my beliefs into anythign fully, i accept everything as a possibilty...

peace,

For the most part you're on a good path. But be careful about accepting everything as a possibility. That road can lead to a mentally unstable individual because the answer is always just over the next hill. They ultimately spend a very large portion of their life on wasted thoughts and unanswered questions.

You are correct to question science. And any professional scientist will tell you that one if the major jobs of science is to continually question itself.

Science is in the business of making discoveries and that often results in discarding previous theories and laws. I've forgotten at this exact moment just who it was but I recently read an article by a well-known physicist. In it he said that we currently accept what we call the "law of gravity" but that clearly does not preclude the possibility that tomorrow apples may start falling upwards.

And that's exactly how good science is supposed to work!

EmptyForceOfChi

11-27-05, 09:41 PM

For the most part you're on a good path. But be careful about accepting everything as a possibility. That road can lead to a mentally unstable individual because the answer is always just over the next hill. They ultimately spend a very large portion of their life on wasted thoughts and unanswered questions.

You are correct to question science. And any professional scientist will tell you that one if the major jobs of science is to continually question itself.

Science is in the business of making discoveries and that often results in discarding previous theories and laws. I've forgotten at this exact moment just who it was but I recently read an article by a well-known physicist. In it he said that we currently accept what we call the "law of gravity" but that clearly does not preclude the possibility that tomorrow apples may start falling upwards.

And that's exactly how good science is supposed to work!

saying i accept everything as a possiblity, i dont mean it in that general sense, i know a dragon breathing fire with pink wings isnt going to appear infront of me one day walking down the street, or believe the intuition in my head is the vioce of god or ghosts preaching to me to kill everyone on my block, (although my intuition does sound like an old chinese gong fu master teaching a student) but i know its possible for a bieng such as a dragon breathing fire existing somewhere in the universe, i admit i think alot about unnanswered questions, i can think at a very high speed about multiple things at once, i dont believe in anything paranormal i think 99% of paranormal activity is a load of BS, but 1% is still open to possabilites, and i do believe there are thigns we cant explain yet that we can already do and dont know as a whole,

peace,

Jinoda

11-30-05, 11:37 PM

If you disable one, what it does doesn't work, but the other one still works so what the second one does still works. It's a fairly simple concept.
It may "work", but would it still have any effect at all?

I would imagine that the part of the brain that "realize objects are there" relies on the part of the brain that "allows you to physically see the objects". There is no way for your eyes to realize something is in front of you if they cannot "see" the thing there (or so it seems logically).

valich

12-01-05, 12:37 AM

If you take into account all the different chemo- and sensory receptors in our body, we have a lot more than five senses. But quite obviously to our brain we also have the following:

1. The inner ear detects gravity - important for balance.
2. The bladder senses when to urinate (not a sense of touch or feeling - as in "peeing in your pants")
3. Hunger and thirst

There is also the so-called sixth sense of "instinct" or ultrasensory spiritual perception.

Satyr

12-01-05, 08:49 AM

Humans have little to no sense and I can prove it:

Read this thread.

How does one “know” without sensing?

How does one know even with senses?

If knowing is merely interpreting, how does one interpret what he/she doesn’t perceive?

Why am I even posting here? :bugeye:

My Satyr senses are tingling.

EmptyForceOfChi

12-03-05, 12:09 AM

valich you made a good point there,

instinct, now dosent that class as another sense?

and satyr i know nothing but sense everything,

peace,

Billy T

12-03-05, 07:14 AM

...when speaking of things like a sixth sense, or Orgone energy/Qi, or spiritual/philosophical subjects, people always place what im sayign alongside with UFO's fake paranormal spiritual people who can talk to your dead grandma for 25 notes, or cultists and other types of things of this nature..."Energy" and "work" are example of common words with vague meanings in general use, but very well defined terms in science, especially physics. I thus do not object to your use of "orgone energy" in common speech, but there is no evidence for it as physicists understand “energy”. For example, it needs to be able to lift a brick or something like that to be valid concept of energy for a physicist.

Quantum Quack

12-04-05, 03:47 AM

Light

12-04-05, 04:13 AM

Interesting thread Chi,
I have been pondering on the notion that all in all we only have one sense that becomes specialised through various organs.
In other words a single sense that is receptive to the various ranges in vibratory rates or something to that effect.

So sight for example is a higher frequencey sense than hearng or our sense of smell is the highest vibrational sense. [ vibration could mean energy]

Touch being our lowest form of sensory specialisation.
So in essence we have only one sense....any way just some thoughts.

Sorry, Quantum, but thoughts are all they are. ;)

A quick look at the "beast" makes that clear.

Not only do we have highly specialized receptors for each of those, we also have highly specialized areas of the brain that process the signals they produce.

valich

12-08-05, 11:44 PM

Interesting thread Chi,
I have been pondering on the notion that all in all we only have one sense that becomes specialised through various organs.
In other words a single sense that is receptive to the various ranges in vibratory rates or something to that effect.

So sight for example is a higher frequencey sense than hearng or our sense of smell is the highest vibrational sense. [ vibration could mean energy]

Touch being our lowest form of sensory specialisation.
So in essence we have only one sense....any way just some thoughts.I hate to say it bluntly, but you really don't know what you are talking about. I'm not trying to insult you, but please do a little scientific research on the subject before you post, else why post at all.

Quantum Quack

12-09-05, 01:13 AM

I hate to say it bluntly, but you really don't know what you are talking about. I'm not trying to insult you, but please do a little scientific research on the subject before you post, else why post at all.

Quote: " I was pondering on the notion that......."

It is true that the brain has specialised areas to deal with sensory information etc, however when it comes to the point of actual perception or awareness it seems to me that it is focussed as one sense or one point. [ center of conscious awareness] there-fore I would contend the notion and I repeat "the notion" that all we sense culminates as one fundamental sense or awareness.

EmptyForceOfChi

12-09-05, 09:33 PM

c'est moi

12-10-05, 04:56 PM

I thus do not object to your use of "orgone energy" in common speech, but there is no evidence for it as physicists understand “energy”. For example, it needs to be able to lift a brick or something like that to be valid concept of energy for a physicist.

A strong magnet can lift up any object which is sensible enough to a magnetic field. All this, without using any energy.

They may be well-defined terms in physics, but in the end, it doesn't make much sense to me. Forces are just plain magic. They just named it "force", like in The Force of Star Wars. Where's the difference?
I've discussed this with some people at my uni - nothing but confusion.

valich

12-10-05, 11:50 PM

Quote: " I was pondering on the notion that......."

It is true that the brain has specialised areas to deal with sensory information etc, however when it comes to the point of actual perception or awareness it seems to me that it is focussed as one sense or one point. [ center of conscious awareness] there-fore I would contend the notion and I repeat "the notion" that all we sense culminates as one fundamental sense or awareness.Again, do some research on the multiple sections of the brain and how they all have individual inputs that contribute to our sensory information and sensory awareness and consciousness (Temporal Lobe, Cerebellum, Occipital Lobes, Parietal Lobes, Sensory Cortex, Frontal Lobes, Motor Cortex, Neocortex, Thalamus, Amygdala, Hippocampus, and Hypothalamus) and then understand how these component parts are related through the electrochemical synapse process of neuron Axon Terminals and Dendrites.

http://www.aea267.k12.ia.us/cia/motivation/brain.html

Quantum Quack

12-11-05, 05:20 AM

Again, do some research on the multiple sections of the brain and how they all have individual inputs that contribute to our sensory information and sensory awareness and consciousness (Temporal Lobe, Cerebellum, Occipital Lobes, Parietal Lobes, Sensory Cortex, Frontal Lobes, Motor Cortex, Neocortex, Thalamus, Amygdala, Hippocampus, and Hypothalamus) and then understand how these component parts are related through the electrochemical synapse process of neuron Axon Terminals and Dendrites.

http://www.aea267.k12.ia.us/cia/motivation/brain.html
thanks for your "encouragement", I shall certainly do some investigation,

c'est moi

12-11-05, 05:28 AM

“
Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Quote: " I was pondering on the notion that......."

It is true that the brain has specialised areas to deal with sensory information etc, however when it comes to the point of actual perception or awareness it seems to me that it is focussed as one sense or one point. [ center of conscious awareness] there-fore I would contend the notion and I repeat "the notion" that all we sense culminates as one fundamental sense or awareness.
”
Again, do some research on the multiple sections of the brain and how they all have individual inputs that contribute to our sensory information and sensory awareness and consciousness (Temporal Lobe, Cerebellum, Occipital Lobes, Parietal Lobes, Sensory Cortex, Frontal Lobes, Motor Cortex, Neocortex, Thalamus, Amygdala, Hippocampus, and Hypothalamus) and then understand how these component parts are related through the electrochemical synapse process of neuron Axon Terminals and Dendrites.

http://www.aea267.k12.ia.us/cia/motivation/brain.html

Thank you for that link.

Why would this be an argument against what quantum quackr's statement? Aren't all your senses part of one experience? What is the problem with different inputs? My computer has many different inputs, yet I get one coherent picture on my screen. Again, I fail to see any logic in your 'argument'.

Quantum Quack, I think you are basically saying the same thing as me, only I see the centre of our existance as consisting of a visionary experience (see thread Reality, perception and simulation).

Quantum Quack

12-11-05, 06:03 AM

Thank you for that link.

Why would this be an argument against what quantum quackr's statement? Aren't all your senses part of one experience? What is the problem with different inputs? My computer has many different inputs, yet I get one coherent picture on my screen. Again, I fail to see any logic in your 'argument'.

Quantum Quack, I think you are basically saying the same thing as me, only I see the centre of our existance as consisting of a visionary experience (see thread Reality, perception and simulation).
Thanks for your support c'est. I also agree that it is our experience that is essentially a visual one. In fact all our senses are interrepted in visual terms, which I must admit sounds a bit abstract on first inspection. How can sound be interpreted as visual?
Any way this sort of conjecture is more a question of ahhh....whats the word....hmmmm...metaphysics, than science, [ although sometimes the distinction between science and metaphysics gets a little blurred.]

So maybe this idea of a single sensory point is more for the philosophy forum than this one.

Just from a perspective of introspective observation, our sense of location of the "I" seems to be around the hypothalamus, and would contend that the "I" is the single point of sensory awareness or our center of physical awareness, that being the , thalamus or hypothalamus which of course has close proximity to the pituitary gland.
So what I see is a situation where all five senses are filtered and interpreted and eventually lead to the center of sensory perception being the hypothalamus which works closely with the pituitary gland.

Essentially what this means is that in regards to Chi's contention that we have only one primary sense that has virtually infinite variablility. It is only for our convenience that we relegate them to 5 major areas of interest.

What is interesting is c'est's contention that all sensory experience is ultimately interpreted as visual. This would of course require thorough support of course but I tend to agree if anything simply because of personal experience after enduring a stroke and a loss of proprioception which granted me interesting insights into this area of enquiry.

Quantum Quack

12-11-05, 06:15 AM

Also I might add that when we dream and experinece that dream in a strong way we employ senses yes? Now I have had dreams that have demonstrated all the usual senses and others never experienced in conscious life yet my external senses are asleep.

So are our dream senses a copy of our waken senses and if so how are they sensed?

Certainly if I experience the touch of someones hand in mine in a dream I am not sensing it with my real hand am I?

So this leads to the notion that we have a set of dream senses that correlate with our waken senses. Or should I say this leads to the notion that we have "imaginary" senses as well as "real" senses.
This then leads on to the question of: "What is our imagination?" "How is it generated and what aspect of the brain is primary in it's function?"
I tend to feel although I am probably very wrong according to brain research that the imagination is the function of the Thalamus which is governed by the Hypothalamus. ["I"] Thus the imagination is very responsive to sensory inputs that the hypothalamus recieves.
And as imagination is our primary repsonse to sensory imput then it can be concluded that all sensory inputs are primarilly visual in nature, thus leading back to c'est's contention. Thus our sensory interpretation is essentially a single sense, visual and very subjective. [ imagination ]

any way thats the thinking I guess

c'est moi

12-11-05, 07:12 AM

So this leads to the notion that we have a set of dream senses that correlate with our waken senses. Or should I say this leads to the notion that we have "imaginary" senses as well as "real" senses.

They are not different senses They are exactly the same ones. Whether the input signals experienced by your Self (the informational part of the brain) are electrical induced impulses or your subconscious thoughts (dreams - eventually also "but" brain activity), you keep living in a virtual world which you constantly built up from information input no matter where it comes from. So it is not just imaginary, it is very much real in the sense that it is based on fysical inputs who carry bits of information which we interpret based on million years of evolution.

There is no contradiction in this view as Valich pretends. Emergent phenomena are a common thing in complex systems. Emergence is a non-local property of a system as it is a result caused by interaction of the whole. There is no demarcation problem between the physical and non-physical - only when one tries to understand every problem through one principal (matter) which will only end up in circular reasoning.

Happeh

12-12-05, 10:20 AM

i will give facts and document this properly, but i will give you one thought to think about before i write up my argument in full,

we have 6 possibly 7 senses or more, the sixth i can prove quickly the others are on sub energy levels dealing with Qi energy, electromagnetic and such other forces,

touch,
sight,
taste,
smell,
hearing,
awareness,

if you strip down all 5 known senses, you still have a sense of awareness, and "knowing".
peace

So what is your point? The sky is blue. I don't make a post that the sky is blue and act like I am telling people the secrets of the universe.

You have anything more interesting to add?

valich

12-17-05, 09:21 PM

They are not different senses They are exactly the same ones. Whether the input signals experienced by your Self (the informational part of the brain) are electrical induced impulses or your subconscious thoughts (dreams - eventually also "but" brain activity), you keep living in a virtual world which you constantly built up from information input no matter where it comes from. So it is not just imaginary, it is very much real in the sense that it is based on physical inputs who carry bits of information which we interpret based on million years of evolution.

There is no contradiction in this view as Valich pretends.I'm contemplating your point but still can't see how you can say there is a "seperate" virtual world from our sensory inputs that make it up. But then you're going to say that it is not seperate, but the terminology refers to it as if it is? So how to reconcile this? Certainly it is not just "imaginary," but then again we do have imaginary dreams. Are they just extensions of our real sensations maybe? Or a seperate virtual world?

In any case, I still adhere to saying that we have more than just five senses:
1. The inner ear detects gravity - important for balance.
2. The bladder senses when to urinate (not a sense of touch or pain - you first just sense an "awareness" that you have to pee - no pain involved.)
3. Hunger and thirst (again, just have a sense of "awareness," but different from the above)
4. The sixth sense of "instinct" or ultrasensory spiritual perception.

To complicate matter, I find that when I sleep lightly or for a short term, I do not recall any dreams - no REM sleep.

If I sleep for 6-8 hours, I dream and the dreams seem to correlate to real physical experiences or sensations that I had (like Freudian psychoanalysis or much much better yet, read Carl Jung!).

But, if I'm not feeling quite well and sleep from 9-12 or more hours, I seem to remember a non-visual, non-world-like "virtual" experience.

I don't know? Strange, huh? I should read Carl jUNG.

Billy T

12-18-05, 05:15 AM

I'm contemplating your point but still can't see how you can say there is a "seperate" virtual world from our sensory inputs that make it up. But then you're going to say that it is not seperate, but the terminology refers to it as if it is? So how to reconcile this? Certainly it is not just "imaginary," but then again we do have imaginary dreams. Are they just extensions of our real sensations maybe? Or a seperate virtual world?....C'est moi is correct, but I am glad that you are trying to contemplate his view, which is the same as mine (No wonder I think him correct. ;) ) I will just add a few comments:

Although no one is sure that dreams occur in REM sleep most physiologist and psychologist with some knowledge in that field think this is the case. (Wake someone near end of REM episode and they often can tell a dream is main support for this idea.) As to dreams being "sensory inputs" this is less clear. Not very likely that a significant part is the transformation of proximal stimulation from the environment, but there is more activity in V1 etc. during REM sleep as has been often shown in EEG studies. There are actually more "backwards" or retrograde neural imputs to all the visual cortex than the nerves coming from the eyes, via the LGN, so it is quite possible, in fact very probably because normally the eyes are closed while dreaming, that this EEG activity originates at the higher "virtual level" C'est moi spoke of and propagates, via these retrograde fibers, into the V1 etc.

To help your "contemplation" progress, perhaps an example of virtual or emergent physical properties will help. (Surely if physical properties "emerge" you will admit that a distinct mental virtual world could emerge also.)

Pressure does not exist but emerges from atomic collisions of molecules (or atoms) with the walls of their container. Same is true of temperature, but then it is the emergence of a particular distribution, again via collisions, of kinetic energy in the colliding particles.

Life expectancy vs. age and other factors (like smoke or not etc.) is an emergent property. So is the Dow-Jones average, or the current rate of T-bills.

I.e. it is very common and entirely reasonable and correct to recognize an emergent level of mental activity from the body's senses. In fact because it is known (well established anyway) that the sensitivity of the sensor systems of the body to proximal stimulation is greatly suppressed during sleep, yet dreams with full "sensation" do occur that one must almost conclude that some internal "virtual level" of a sensed world does exist.

Summary: C'est moi is correct. Your view that there is only the five (or more if things like "full bladder" are not part of the five) senses that make up consciousness is very hard to reconcile with the facts about dreams, sensory suppression, hallucinations, phantom limbs, unilateral neglect, etc., etc. or the common acceptance of "emergent levels" in many other areas, including physics.

valich

12-19-05, 06:14 AM

As to dreams being "sensory inputs" this is less clear. Not very likely that a significant part is the transformation of proximal stimulation from the environment, but there is more activity in V1 etc. during REM sleep as has been often shown in EEG studies. There are actually more "backwards" or retrograde neural imputs to all the visual cortex than the nerves coming from the eyes, via the LGN, so it is quite possible, in fact very probably because normally the eyes are closed while dreaming, that this EEG activity originates at the higher "virtual level" C'est moi spoke of and propagates, via these retrograde fibers, into the V1 etc.

To help your "contemplation" progress, perhaps an example of virtual or emergent physical properties will help. (Surely if physical properties "emerge" you will admit that a distinct mental virtual world could emerge also.)

Pressure does not exist but emerges from atomic collisions of molecules (or atoms) with the walls of their container. Same is true of temperature, but then it is the emergence of a particular distribution, again via collisions, of kinetic energy in the colliding particles.

Life expectancy vs. age and other factors (like smoke or not etc.) is an emergent property. So is the Dow-Jones average, or the current rate of T-bills.

I.e. it is very common and entirely reasonable and correct to recognize an emergent level of mental activity from the body's senses. In fact because it is known (well established anyway) that the sensitivity of the sensor systems of the body to proximal stimulation is greatly suppressed during sleep, yet dreams with full "sensation" do occur that one must almost conclude that some internal "virtual level" of a sensed world does exist.

Summary: C'est moi is correct. Your view that there is only the five (or more if things like "full bladder" are not part of the five) senses that make up consciousness is very hard to reconcile with the facts about dreams, sensory suppression, hallucinations, phantom limbs, unilateral neglect, etc., etc. or the common acceptance of "emergent levels" in many other areas, including physics.Education is lifelong learning: progression of knowledge. I haven't seen that you've progressed in any learning on any forum at all. Would you like to give me an example of how you've progressed grasshopper? I've seen how you've regressed on this forum, but no progression. Through contemplation, I stated a progression of knowledge through experience, but a yet-to-be explained one.

I don't think you have yet to understand the difference between physical consciousness and virtual reality?

You haphazardly go from the "retrograde neural inputs of the visual cortex" to "emergent physical properties" to a "distinct mental virtual world" to "pressure" to "atomic collisions of molecules" to "temperature" to "particular distribution" to "emergent property" to "sensory suppression, hallucinations, phantom limbs, and unilateral neglect," all in three short paragraphs. Right! Now tell me that what I just quoted from you doesn't sound like someone writing from a mental institution? You could never get away with saying that at a scientific seminar, university classroom, or commentary to a journal article without all hands being raised immediately in the air or your paper being crumbled up and tossed in the bin.

Maybe if you tried sticking to just one subject you might make some sense?

Again, if the neocortex or the brain stem are cut, all consciousness is lost immediately due to the deprivation of sensation. The neocortex provides conscious thought, spatial reasoning, and sensory perception. The visual cortex, nor the memory stored in the cerebral cortex from visualization cannot compensate for this loss to consciousness from the neocortex even though the cerebral cortex is considered to be dirrectly responsible for memory, attention, awareness, and consciousness. However, if you cut the visual cortex, you will not loose any of the functions of the brain mentioned above. So what does this tell you about the need for vision to consciousness, perception, and dreaming?

What is necessary is the following:
"Sensory information is relayed to the cortex by the thalamus. Parts of the cortex that receive this information are called primary sensory areas. Other areas receive impulses from the primary sensory areas and integrate the information coming in from different types of [sensory] receptors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_cortex

From a brief review of the literature, it seems that dreams and "visual hallucinations" are controlled by thalomocortical modulation.
Source: "Complex Visual Hallucinations," M. Manford and F. Andermann, Brain, 121, 1998, pp. 1819-1840.

Most all dreams, and the most vividly recalled dreams, occur dreaming Rem sleep. REM is also the most physiologically active form of sleep. In fact, when a person wakes up during REM sleep, they sometimes feel like they were not ever even sleeping at all.

"Excitatory postsynaptic potential (EPSP)/inhibitory postsynaptic potential (IPSP) sequences occur during thalamic stimulation....during the sleep oscillatory state associated with spindles, spontaneous synchronized thalamic inputs to neocortex are heavily controlled by intracortical local inhibition. TC cells fire spike bursts at the offset of IPSPs. The IPSPs are imposed by thalamic reticular neurons because, after disconnection from thalamic reticular inputs, TC cells display much shorter and arrhythmic IPSPs."
Source: "Intracellular and Computational Characterization of the Intracortical Inhibitory Control of Synchronized Thalamic Inputs In Vivo," by Diego Contreras, Alain Destexhe, and Mircea Steriade, The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 78 No. 1 July 1997, pp. 335-350.

"During REM sleep a group of cat midbrain neurons, which we call Pontogeniculooccipital (PGO) waves appeared almost simultaneously in both PGO burst cells, PGO burst neuron discharge also correlated with the direction of rapid eye movements during REM sleep. In wakefulness, PGO burst cells fired single spikes, not bursts, which had some correlation with lateral geniculate nuclei LGB waves when averaged by computer. The results suggest that PGO burst cells are output elements in the PGO wave-generation system ad that PGO waves convey eye movement information to the sensory visual system in REM sleep. They also may have a role in the production of saccade-related waves in the visual system during wakefulness"
Source: "REM sleep burst neurons, PGO waves, and eye movement information," by J. P. Nelson, R. W. McCarley and J. A. Hobson, Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol 50:4, 1983 pp. 784-797.

The above article may help to explain your confusion about a seemingly uni-directional relation between vision to dreaming, and the necessity of visualization to dreaming.

"The most important function of the cortex from the point of view of consciousness studies is that it creates models. These models are most easily experienced when there is a lack of sensory input such as in dreaming, day dreaming, lucid dreaming or experiencing imaginary speech (thinking).

There is considerable evidence that the parts of the brain that deal with imagining (modelling) things are also the parts that deal with perception. Internally generated experiences share some, but not all, of the phenomenal properties of actual perception. There is also considerable overlap between the areas used for imaginary speech (thought) and actual speech, areas dealing with the control of sensation and of the tongue etc. being used in actual speech but not in imagined speech. Investigations into the activity of single neurons in humans and also found that the brain activity evoked by visual imagination overlapped that which occurs upon direct stimulation by the same image. Our conscious experience consists of the output of the cortical modelling processes. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_studies:_Neuroscience_1

I believe that this ""modeling" experience during sleep, when there is a lack of sensory input" is what you are calling the "virtual" world? As contrasted to the "actual" world, as it is referred to in the second paragraph.

In conclusion, it goes like this: receptors to the thalumus then to the cortex, then widespread cortical activity gives you consciousness.

People in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher cerebral powers and consistently demonstrate an impaired connectivity between the deeper brainstem and thalamic, and the upper cortical areas of the brain. Some scientists equate this loss of consciousness characterize as a loss of the ability to resolve time. This theory is supported by other reasons for loss of consciousness that occur, such as during epileptic seizures and in general anaesthesia. At present, the best-supported hypotheses about such cases of loss of consciousness are the loss of time resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Also, if you cut the centermedian nucleus of the thalamus (the intra-laminar nucleus, which is the the principal sites of action of general anaesthetics and anti-psychotic drugs), you also loose consciousness. This also supportsthe above theory. Time consciousness is consciousness.

Either way, there has to be a widespread cortical network for consciousness, and this consciousness comes directly from receptors that send instantaneous impulses to the thalamus that are then integrated into a complex real world in the cortex called consciousness.

A virtual world is like a computerized game or a prerecorded video show, so dream on in your fantasy world, with puppets, dragons and dungeons; but keep me out of it as I prefer to live in the REAL WORLD.

valich

12-19-05, 06:38 AM

Putting all of the above together is called progress, because as soon as I finished writing it, it all came together:

1) When you are wide awake: you have a direct 1-on-1 consciousness with the real world through all 7 or 8 of your senses:

receptors > thalamus > cotex > complex cortical integration > consciousness

Only possible with the perception of time.

2) During REM is the only time when you can recall vivid dreams because your brain is the most active and just on the verge of awaken consciousness.

3) During deeper states of sleep, you may still dream, but because your thalamus is no longer being stimulated or as active as when you are awake, you loose your resolution of time and drift off deeper-and-deeper into a unconscious state - just like cutting your brain stem, neocortex, or centermedian nucleus of the thalmus. You loose that total cortical integration.

4) The deeper you sink away from those receptors that activate the integration network of the cortex the deeper you drift away into a vegetative unconscious state. Dreams in this state are impossible to remember. This is your virtual imaginary world - time no longer exists.

5) Beyond this is virtual world where time stops - we call it death.

Ophiolite

12-19-05, 06:50 AM

I am constrained from responding lest it I be accused of stalking - or, peradventure, of making belittling comments.

valich

12-19-05, 10:19 PM

If you can restrain yourself from making accusations, condemning one's views, or belittling a person, then by all means reply. I ask that you be scientifically objective without any personal attacks. You may have something to say that will be progressive to the forum and help advance all of our understanding and knowledge. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive, but please don't just put me down. Phrase your words politely and respectably: we all deserve this. And this is how we respond to lecturers given by outsiders that we invite in to speak when we don't agree with their views. We are polite and courteous, else who would want to come to our university to give a highly-prepared presentation of their findings and experience. Thanks.

Hercules Rockefeller

12-19-05, 10:31 PM

...our university...
You're a student?<P>

Ophiolite

12-20-05, 12:21 AM

Phrase your words politely and respectably: we all deserve this. ....... We are polite and courteous,
Is this an example of what you mean? This was your response to BillyT a few posts above.
I haven't seen that you've progressed in any learning on any forum at all. Would you like to give me an example of how you've progressed grasshopper? I've seen how you've regressed on this forum, but no progression.
I find such a comprehensive, direct put-down to be neither courteous, nor respectful. BillyT is well capable of defending his ideas and himself, but I find it remarkable that you deliver such a scathing attack - with little or no justification - yet protest repeatedly when errors in your own thinking are demonstrated.

c'est moi

12-21-05, 04:44 PM

I don't think you have yet to understand the difference between physical consciousness and virtual reality?

You haphazardly go from the "retrograde neural inputs of the visual cortex" to "emergent physical properties" to a "distinct mental virtual world" to "pressure" to "atomic collisions of molecules" to "temperature" to "particular distribution" to "emergent property" to "sensory suppression, hallucinations, phantom limbs, and unilateral neglect," all in three short paragraphs. Right! Now tell me that what I just quoted from you doesn't sound like someone writing from a mental institution? You could never get away with saying that at a scientific seminar, university classroom, or commentary to a journal article without all hands being raised immediately in the air or your paper being crumbled up and tossed in the bin.

Trying to sound smart? Just as Ophiolite says, you don't act consequent. And you're going to have serious problems maintaining real, constructive discussions with your current attitude.

Maybe those in a scientific seminar will be educated and will have read standard works by Wiener, Ashby, et. al or L. von Bertalanffy, who did understand the difference between a shallow analogy and a fundamental isomorphism.

To oppose this idea is:

"tantamount to criticising Newton's Law because it draws a loose analogy between apples, planets, ebb and tide and many other entities or if one would declare the theory of probability meaningless because it is concerned with the 'analogy' of games of dice, mortality statistics, molecules' in gas, the distribution of hereditary characteristics, and a host of other phenomena".( Ludvig von Bertalanffy, General Systems Theory, General Systems Year Book Vol. 1, 1956.)

To explain the phenomenon of emergence, it is just the whole point to use ANY example. It is a property of systems - whatever the physical components it consists of. Your accusations are sham. I think BillyT does quite well know that education is lifelong learning, but I doubt that you do. Try reading his article for a start. Earn your respect back or don't expect any feedback anymore.

Blue_UK

12-22-05, 08:04 AM

(In reply to original post)

Awareness... I think he just means being awake and conscious! A sense is supposed to be something that give you information - an input. There are many senses not covered by the wishy washy 'five': Sight, smell, taste, touch and sound.

Smell and taste are really the same sort of sense, anyway!

Others include: sense of time, temperature, thirst, (the list could go on for discrete internal senses).

Temperature is not really part of 'touch', is it? Even though it is topical, it is gauging something completely different by similarly different means.

Billy T

12-22-05, 08:59 AM

...Temperature is not really part of 'touch', is it? Even though it is topical, it is gauging something completely different by similarly different means.I am not an expert. I think that there are four or five, perhaps more, different types of "tactile" nerves well distinguished from each other. The coding of what is stimulating them is distributed, as they all respond to almost everything, but with different sensitivities. For example, Pain is often associated with the strong activity of "C-fibers," but they respond to temperature changes, pressure changes, etc. also.

Think of it as half dozen notes of a piano sounding at the same time, but when their relative strength is changed, so is the musical experience. I would venture to say that with very careful discrimination in the various nerve groups usually recognized as separate components of the "Tactile Sense" one could define 100 different senses only within the tactile sense.

Same is true of all the "basics five." For example, westerners have subdivided "taste" into four, but in Japan, it is subdivided in to five, (I have been told that their "extra one" is best translated as "delicious" to go with our "bitter, sweet, sour, and salty".)

If you like you could invent more fine subdivision of any of the five senses or, I guess, compress all five into one sense called "awareness." I grew up learning about the five senses, so when some wants to call propriception a sixth sense, I tend to say: No, it is just “internal tactile.” - But how you slice up the "awareness sense" is arbitrary. This whole thread is dealing with arbitrary divisions.

Blue_UK

12-22-05, 10:42 AM

Billy T

12-22-05, 07:53 PM

Whether one of them can be subdivided is not just a subjective 'arbitrary' thing. If there are no extra nerves then there is no extra sense. I assume that even the Japanese with five 'tastes' define below the actual number of receptor types.

Do you group all the senses on the skin as one 'tactile senes'? Surely temperature and pressure are too distinct to be bundled so easily?I agree with you, but note I made one word of your text bold to show why. I only want to note that there are significant and many difference in the individual nerve transducers. It is my understanding that there is no natural division of "taste sensor types." Each is a little different in "cavity shape" and thus a little different from all others (sort of like snow flakes) in sensitivity to specific chemicals.

There are, however, in normal humans only three color sensor types. - A very natural, non-arbitary division. When there are thousands of different taste buds shapes/ sensors, dividing them into 4 or 5 groups seems "arbitary" to me. I think the same is true of tactile sensor, but that they do fall into a relatively few "natural" groups (15 or 20? - not my field.)

Ophiolite

12-22-05, 08:23 PM

1. Temperature, touch and pain are all delivered through different nerve types.
2. I do not understand why you say there are thousands of tastes. This is not so. There are thousands of aromas (or stinks, as appropriate), but the taste receptors in the mouth are limited to the traditional four + one.

Blue_UK

12-23-05, 06:15 AM

Ah, sorry Oph, I was under the impression there were a few more receptors than just 4/5.
If what you say is correct, odour aside, I should be able to create a 'banana' flavour from a particular balance of no more than five basic component flavours. This showhow feels incorrect to me, but then again I'm not really in the know!

Billy, on reflection I would have omitted the word 'just' if I had proof read that post.

Ophiolite

12-23-05, 06:48 AM

Billy T

12-23-05, 09:28 AM

No. You are confusing taste and flavour. This is a common error. When you think you are 'tasting' banana, you are mainly smelling it. The only taste you should get is the sweetness of sugar. This is why food 'tastes' so bland when you have a cold. The food molecules can't get at your olfactory receptors....No, I think Blue_UK is basically correct. For example you can (and your TV does) create the experience of any color with only three light sources, even if each is only one pure wavelength. (Almost any set of three significantly different ones will do, need not be red, green and blue.) This is true because this sense does have only three types of neural transducers. However, the "chemical sensor system" has so many sensors with different sensitivities, that any attempt to reproduce all tastes or smell with even 100 different chemicals is doomed to fail.

I will stick by my claim, and extend it to include olfaction, that there is no small set of distinct neural transducer types. EACH RECEPTOR IS UNIQUE IN SHAPE, to approximately the same degree that snowflakes are. Both taste and olfaction, which really are very closely related if not actually the same "chemical sensor system," basically respond to the shape of the molecules. Very different chemicals, with the same shape, are known to cause essentially the same smell or taste. Electron microscope studies show why - each receptor cavity is different from all others.

These two senses (or the "chemical sensor system") are much more ancient in our evolution and still processed in what was once called the "reptilian brain" but that term is not used much anymore. I.e. they are processed in entirely different and phylogenic ally old part of the brain, not in the cortex as the other senses are. In some sense, creatures we came from first learned to evaluate chemicals in their environment and later, after a lot of evolution, learned to "touch, hear & see" things.

Although one part of the "chemical sensor system" responds to air born chemical and the other to liquid born chemical, they are processes in basically the same neural tissue of the "reptilian brain." Because of this, the fact you site that of the absence of one makes the other less responsive, the fact both are mainly "molecule shape detectors" makes me think that even the division of the "chemical sensor system" in to separate ones (olfaction & taste) is very suspect.

Certainly, it is impossible to separate "chemical sensor system" into two separate senses as you move back one the evolutional tree to creatures that do not have noses.

Certainly, it is ignoranance which permits one to claim that either consists of a few sensor types.

Ophiolite

12-24-05, 06:59 AM

Billy T

12-24-05, 03:52 PM

BillyT, your posts are typically accurate and interesting. This one is just interesting.

There are four (or five, if recent reports are validated) tastes only. I am not disputing a variety of olfactory receptors: I was disputing and continue to dispute Blue_UK's mistaken belief that we ever taste 'banana'. Or any other so called 'taste'. The tastes are restricted to sweet, sour, bitter, salt (and the one the Chinese(?) researchers just identified).
So I shall remain rooted in my ignorance: there are only a few sensor types implicated in taste - four (or five) in fact. If you really wish to dispute this I shall have to start quoting from many ignorant websites and ignorant biology textbooks, written by ignorant experts in the matter. Do you really want my intransigent ignorance spread so widly (and wildly)?The japenses have hqd a fifith for centuries, just as westerner have had four, I do not know the new chinese one, ALL ARE ENTIRELY ARBITARY DIVISIONS. Any ture division of the "chemical sense" must be based on identificably differ esmsor types, as in the visual sense. There are three different types of photo
sensor for color. electrophysicological studies with micro electrode tracking the neural outputs of the color sensitive retinal cells show they all fall into one of three (and ONLY three) different sensitivity vs wavelangth curves as the sitmulating wavelength is varied.

If there were four taste sensro than these same type of studies would find that there were four different sensitivity curves as as the chemical stimulaus was varied. I will illustrate for only two types what the results would look like:
"CELL" is a taste bud cell whose neural pulse rate (number of discahrges per second when stimulatred by statdardized molar fraction solutions) is the table data. The cell numbers are arbitary, n =1 was the first to have a microelectrode successfully inserted into its axion for recording etc.

Cell ....salt....sugar....tea....milk.... butter .....coffee....a.....b........c---> more chemicals
1........789.....194......64.....39.......127..... ......28.......131...88......17....
2........185.....753......87.....53.......135..... ......37.......74.....63......21....
3........892.....191......68.....44.......177..... ......44.......75.....74......15....
4........196.....893......59.....38.......204..... ......25.......63.....64......20....
etc for at least 30 or 40 more cells. (I of course made this data up)

But note all cells giva a reasonably good response to high energy food source like sugar and butter fat (and all people like them for this reason).
Cell's 1 & 3 are of the "salt type"and 2 & 4 are of the "sweet type" and easily fall into these two types.

But this is not what the data shows. There are no clear divisions in the responce rates of tested cells into groups, as there are in the visual system.

Ophiolite

12-25-05, 01:52 AM

Billy T

12-25-05, 10:10 AM

I think you are getting hung up on deconstructing the sensory process. It seems to me appropriate to view the senses from a system point of view. It is not the character of the taste sensor that is relevant in this context, but the manner in which it responds to different stimulants. ...I only want to be consistent with what is done for the best understood sense, detection of light and color. From a "system point of view" one would say that there are at least six sensors. One for each of the following colors:
Red
Orange
Yellow
Blue
Green
Purple

and prior to learning more about the retina's photo detectors, most societies that even asked the question, in their ignorance, did divide the "color sense" into 4 to 8 divisions* despite the fact that solar radiation is continuum of wavelengths. Any such division is arbitrary, prior to knowledge that there are only three different colors selective photo detectors. Their response curves vs. wavelength is well known and each of the three spans the entire visible range, although very intense short wavelength light is required to get a response from the cell type that is most sensitive in the red.

I think it was a German, ignorant of the actual detector characteristics, who made, for the western world, at least 200 years ago, the arbitrary, system-level division of taste into four "taste colors." I do not know if who or where the arbitrary division into five "taste colors" was made for Oriental persons. (Westerners and Orientals, ignorant of the actual facts, of course are convinced, as you are, that their division is correct and not arbitrary.)

Now that microelectrodes studies have been done on the taste transducers, the results are every different from the results of similiar studies for the division of colors. Not only these studies but also the fact that three different molecular forms of the dye molecule rhodopsin exits confirms that there are only three types of color sensors, not the system level's six. That is we understand the results of the microelectrode, dye absorption coefficient, and chemical analysis studies, all of which confirm there are three color sensors.

The microelectrode studies of the taste bud transducers show no tendency to fall into a few "types" (as I falsely illustrated for two non-existent types in prior post.) as the color transducers do. (Three types)
We now also understand why these "response curves" I.e. neural pulse rates vs. stimulating chemicals, which pay the role of wavelengths in color stimulation microelectrode studies. That is electron microscope (and now also theory. Confirmed by fact very different chemical molecules with the same size and shape produce nearly the same taste.) show no standard "pit shapes" in the taste buds exists. Thus, unlike defining three color sensros, defining 4 or 5 "types" of taste sensors is ridiculous. At least 100 different taste bud cavity shapes could be found, described and defined as "different types."

The thing that is confusing you, and tricked the German many years ago, is the fact that different parts of the tongue do have different distributions of taste bud shapes so that those which fit sugar molecules well are more common in one area (I think the tip, but probably do not remember correctly where.) and those highly responsive to salt are more common elsewhere. (I think the sides, but do not remember well.)

It is important to also understand that 200 years ago, the tongue was the "transducer" as existence of taste buds was not known. In his time, it was perfectly reasonable, even "scientific", to stick swabs with salt, vinegar, sugar and bitters on different parts of the tongue and conclude that four different types of taste sensors existed, but not today, when so much more is known.

It is indeed remarkable how that German's ignorance has continued to be taught in high schools and even in simple textbooks! But now, you at least, should know better and be consistent with the methodology that killed the older idea that there are 6 color sensors, which that German no doubt also believed.

___________________________________
*Quite a few societies, typically isolated tribes that no longer exist in their isolation, had only two color names, that the missionaries who learned to speak their languages translate as "warm" and cold" because these tribes considered Red, Orange, Yellow to be all the same color. Likewise for them, Blue, Green and Purple are all the same color. Just as you think, Red is all the same color. Of course, you recognize there are different shades of red, but they are all "red" to you. Your "red" spans a larger wavelength range than any other color of your arbitrary system-level set of color divisions. (Your "yellow" has the smallest wavelength range.)

Since these system level divisions are arbitrary, some tribes divided your big "red" range into two or more DIFFERENT colors, one of which is invariably a very narrow wavelength range best translated as "blood red". (For them "blood red" is even narrower than your "yellow.") Some have three divisions of your red, the longer wavelength side of "blood red" has a name is best translated as "deep red" and the shorter wavelength side, which usually includes some of your orange, is translated as "warm red."

SUMMARY: If you are ignorant of the actual characteristics of the color transducer cells, and consider only the "system level", how you slice up the colors is completely arbitrary.

Ophiolite

12-25-05, 10:22 AM

BillyT, I am surpised at you. You are erecting strawman arguments then shooting them down. That is not your style. I have to assume you have not understood my post, for which, as the communicator, I accept responsibility. I have made no mention of the common myth that different parts of the tonguge respond differently. I have not claimed different types of 'taste bud' for the different 'tastes'. I am not basing my statements on anything I learned in secondary school.
The same basic 'taste bud' reacts in different ways to different stimuli.( I thought I had made that clear in my post.)This is what justifies the subdivision of taste in the conventional ways.
I have said absolutely nothing about our visual system, either to agree or disagree with you. And finally, I suspect I may have at least as broad a knowledge of the semantic and linguistic aspects of colour definition as you, so the lecture on that topic was superflous.

Summary: You are starting to piss me off, which is unfortunate, since till now I have appreciated your posts, valued your comments, and agreed with much (most) of what you have said. Your descent into cheap debating tricks is unbecoming.

leopold99

12-25-05, 10:50 AM

No, I think Blue_UK is basically correct. For example you can (and your TV does) create the experience of any color with only three light sources,

a color television cannot produce all colors.

Billy T

12-25-05, 11:44 AM

...(1)I have made no mention of the common myth that different parts of the tonguge respond differently. (2)I have not claimed different types of 'taste bud' for the different 'tastes'. ....(3)The same basic 'taste bud' reacts in different ways to different stimuli. ... This is what justifies the subdivision of taste in the conventional ways. (4)I have said absolutely nothing about our visual system, either to agree or disagree with you. (5)And finally, I suspect I may have at least as broad a knowledge of the semantic and linguistic aspects of colour definition as you, so the lecture on that topic was superflous....(6)Your descent into cheap debating tricks is unbecoming.
(6) first:
I am not making "debating tricks" but factual arguments, and asking for consistency in how we define "sensor types."

(1)It is not a "myth" - Different parts of the tongue can detect weaker concentrations of most tastes that have survival significance. For example, seeds tend to have a cellulose coat that will let a them pass thru the gut of a primitive man and get "planted" in a location far from the plant that grew them. To discourage that primitive man from breaking the protective coat, they evolved a bitter taste. Some are actually toxic and those that are not are "free loading" on those that are, just as some bright yellow frogs have toxic skins and others "free load" on them without the biological cost of actually making the toxins.
Sugar containing foods were very important and we develop many taste buds sensitive to that molecule's shape. etc.

(2) I did not say you made this false claim. Almost everything uses "distributed coding" of many different nerves, not specific coding, and I think we agree on this. All of the three-color cells will respond to monochromatic yellow light. It is their relative responses that distributely encodes "yellow." This is also true of the many entirely different shape taste bud cells. It is their relative responses that distributely encodes "sweet."

(3)Except for your text, I made bold, we do not disagree here either. I do not know what you mean by "same basic" - my whole point is that unlike color sensors, this is meaningless concept. There is no "basic" taste bud type, unless you mean that all taste buds do have some sort of shape pits or cavities. But if that is your meaning, why are there 4 times, instead of just one?

(4) True. I brought the color sensor triad into the conversation to illustrate how more advanced knowledge is used to define sensor types at the transducer level, not the system level where even in the color system the division of the stimulus into different named divisions, I thought you would, and now think you do, agree is completely arbitrary. My point (not a "debating trick") is that system-level divisions of taste are arbitrary. Especially so when based on some German's decision to try four test chemicals, instead of six or 10 etc. and the fact that Oriental make a division into five (but equally arbitrary ones). I brought the color set up, as I wanted to ask you to use a consistent methodology for defining sensor divisions. I was reasonably sure that you would know that in the color division into distinct types, the older system-level division methodology has been abandoned in favor of a more modern knowledge based methodology that looks at the transducer level.

(5) Good. Quite possibly so. My knowledge this is mainly a by-product of extensive studies of what linguistics can tell about brain processing of sensor information. (Especially people with specific small linguistic defects after small strokes.)

Added later by Edit, on (2):
Probably the reason that their are so many different types of taste buds (compared to only 3 for color) is related to fact: Color is not nearly as important to survival as properly evaluating what you are about to swallow. Thus we need a great variety of differently responding tranducers to be able to discriminate fine difference. (Think what discriminations professional wine tasters make.)

You can alternately flash two slightly different monochromatic lights on a screen and determine as a function of wave length the "JND," just noticable difference. (The JND is widely used for evaluation of all the senses. It is logrimith in intensity for sensing sound at all frequencies, but not the same log function. etc.)

The visible spectrum can thus be divided up into a set of adjacent JNDs. The total of which is at least a couple of orders of magnitude less that the total of JND of the taste sense, I think the total of JND for taste is more than 1000 times the total of the JNDs for color. (When both different concentrations and different chemical mixtures are to be discriminated.) This is an additional reason to for saying it is silly to think that taste is a distributed coding built on only 4 (or 5 if you are oriental) "same basic" taste buds, as you do in sentence (3).

Some one else, in much less words than me, also pointed out that one can not make the smell or taste of anything else with even 100 different chemical. If there really were only 4 of the "same basic" taste buds, then only 4 chemicals could reproduce any taste or smell, just as only 3 monochromatic lights can make almost any of the several hundred JND colors.

To show how relatively uninportant color is compared to taste, note all cats* are totally totally color blind/ no ability to see any thing but intensity or black and white (unless it is dogs that is true of) but very taste discriminating.
__________________________________________
* Cats gave up color to be more sensititve with only rods in their retina. They hunt at night. They also gave up resolution for greater sensitivity. Humans have an almost black pigment behind the retina (it does reflect red - red eye photos) to prevent back scatter from lowering the optical resolution, but cats have a reflective backing to their retina cells so that the photo detectors have two, not one, chances to respond. (Why their eyes shine in the nite if even a faint flashlight beam strikes them.)

Billy T

12-25-05, 12:21 PM

a color television cannot produce all colors.You are correct. I should have said "almost any color" - The total of colors humans can respond to can be mapped onto a 2D sheet of paper. This maping is not unique and none of the possible ones is triangular in shape. If our color sensitivity were triangular, then What I said would be true if you used the three corner colors.

It is interesting how strongly dependent upon many things the color sensation is. You have probably seen the effect of the surounding color on a color dot (Two identical dots look to be different colors with different "surounds.")

I was was in the audience when Land was explaining his "Retinx color theory." He projected a red apple on the screen. Asked everyone who saw it as red to raise their arm and keep it up so long as the apple was red. I was surprized to seen many people lowering their hands. I was one of the last to put mine down when it suddenly became green. He then repeated the same projection sequence with an absstract shape - In both cases there never was any long wavelength (red) light used. The "red" experience was made with yellow and green or red blocked white and green - I may not have the details all correct as this was many years ago.

Ophiolite

12-25-05, 12:43 PM

(Some one else, in much less words than me, also pointed out that one can not make the smell or taste of any thing with even 100 different chemical. If there really were only 4 of the "same basic" taste buds, then only 4 chemicals could reproduce any taste or smell .Taste and smell are not the same senses at all. They are different in so many ways. That is the point you seem to be unable to grasp. You keep going on about molecular shape, which is important for smell, but largely irrelevant for taste. When we say 'that tastes good', or 'that tastes of cinammon and pineapple', we actually mean 'that smells of cinammon and pineapple'.
I can see I need to come back with clear references in order to convince you and I have a Christmas dinner to eat. Then a day to recover.

Billy T

12-25-05, 01:33 PM

... You keep going on about molecular shape, which is important for smell, but largely irrelevant for taste. ...If that were true, then why would molecules with entirely different atoms but the same shape and size have very similar tastes? Why do many artificial sweeteners exist with vastly different chemistry?

I keep “going on about molecular shape” because I think that is what is the most common characteristic of molecules that have nearly the same taste. I.e. They have a similar fit in the taste bud pit. If you think this wrong, please tell what is the common characteristic of similar tasting molecules. I.e. What is taste responding to, if not to molecule shape? - I challenge you to find some support for anything other than molecule shape in the search you are planning.

If you want to design an artificial sweetener, do you worry about the chemistry of it - No. You worry about the shape of it. (and of course try not to make it toxic when digested.

As refined sugar was not available during man's evolution, the taste buds pits for “sweet” are not especially good fits for the sugar molecule. - I think I may have erroneously said that they were. Some artificial sweeteners have much better fits and consequent seem very sweet to us even if none of the caloric value these taste buds evolved to detect. (Not nice to trick mother nature like that!)

The strong taste bud responders for even the class of only "sweet things" has many different cavity shapes. I am sure that you could, with electron microscope and microelectrode studies define at least twice your "basic same" (i.e. define 8 types) of “sweet transducers” alone. As I said to think there are only 4 basic tastes or taste buds is silly, now that science knows better. If that German had tried 5 different substance on the tongue, you would no doubt now be arguing that there are 5 “fundamental” or “same basics” taste sensors as the Orientals do.

Please describe carefully what it is we westerners have only four of.

I am getting a little confused about your position/ claim of "four only" instead of my "hundreds of different response curves" when the neural response is plotted against even only 1% of the JND in tastes of different chemical combinations.

BTW, I had an aunt, who about 100 years ago had some nasil surgery to correct a breathing (or snoring? - I was not born when it was done, or just a child and do not recall problem.) Unfortunately, they cut her olifactory nerve. She did, as you suggest, have impared sense of taste, but she was still able to tell old coffee from fresh. - I do recall her throwing some out, but she burned cloth when ironing several times I do also recall.)

Blue_UK

12-26-05, 08:40 AM

Wikipedia articles: Olfaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction) and Taste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_bud)
Post regarding receptor cell regrowth: Taste bud regrowth (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep2001/1000774286.Gb.r.html)<hr>
If Wikipedia is correct, then it seems Ophiolite is correct.

Billy T, you have made a right meal out of this diversion!

'Arbitrarily subdividing' aspects of taste and other senses according to human abstraction, which obviously does not necessarily have anything to do with reality, is really a waste of time here. The only 'fuzzy' or 'arbitrary' defining we need to argue about are things like, for example, whether different olfactory receptors should be classed as different senses.

I would say that that pressure and temperature are too seperate to be put together. Although, as for whether different taste bud receptors can be classed together, I find the distinction more difficult.

Billy T

12-26-05, 09:02 AM

Thanks for the references. I seldom search, but rely on my memory. I have not been to all the sub sites yet, but one of them from the "taste" link states what I said:
"For the record, we perceive all taste qualities all over our tongue, although there may be increased sensitivity to certain qualities in certain areas."

I.e. taste is like all other neural signals, distributedly coded both in space and in differing response curves for the different sensor types available (only three different response curves for vision, but many for taste.)

I will read more links and may post more.

Billy T

12-26-05, 11:29 AM

I agree Ophiolite is correct in stating I had confused some aspects of taste and olfaction. I was totally wrong to speak of “different shape molecules making different fits in taste bud pits and cavities.“ These “key & cavity fits” only exists in the olfaction system.

I do not think I am wrong in the more basic, important point. Namely that there are many different “response curves” for various taste discriminating cells (many of which I now think are clustered in each taste bud). Thus I continue to claim many, very distinguishably different, sensor cells exists, not just 4 or 5. One proof of their existence is fact that it is impossible to generate any taste sensation with only a few chemicals, the way it is possible to generate almost any color sensation with only three monochromatic lights. Only three pure wavelengths are required because only three distinguishable color discriminating cells exist.

I will now grant the if humans are asked to describe their taste SENSATION only the classic four + “other” appear to be sufficient and are used in western physiological tests. (The Japenese physchologist uses these four plus “umami” which translates into English as “delicious” as I stated earlier.) The western world uses approximate 6 words to describe the color SENSATION (red….purple) but all educated people do not confuse this fact with the fact that there are only three distinct color sensitive cells. Why make that confusion mistake with taste?

Summary: I was wrong about the existence of taste bud pits. The selective nature of taste buds is less well understood than the selective cell processes causing color discriminations. However, not wrong about the fact that there are many different types of NEURAL CELLS, many just now being identified, not just 4 or 5 only. It appears that there are more than 4, just for the bitter SENSATION (see quoted text below.)

There appear to be two different mechanism in taste (from Taste Perception, Cracking the Code“ Plos Biology, a peer reviewed journal, Vol.3No. 2004. - Convent link at end of wikipedia article “taste buds“):
“The salty and sour receptors may be very different from the GPCRs involved in bitter, sweet, and umami perception, which bind complex molecules on the outside of the cell and transmit a signal into the cell. For salty and sour perception, the taste cell only needs to detect simple ions. One way to do this may be to use ion channels—proteins that form a channel through which specific inorganic ions can diffuse.”

Thus for three of the five now recognized taste SENSATIONS, the first selective factor has to do with how long a molecule adheres to the taste bud, then which types of and how many of the different selective taste CELLS, processes it determines the information the brain then interprets as a taste SENSATION.

It is clear from all my posts, especially when I have compared the multitude of different taste cells to the limited set of three color cells or used the word “transducer” that I have only been discussing the basic sensor cells, not the resultant sensation words, which people use to verbalize these sensations.

To claim that the sensor cells are limited to only 4 or 5 because people, especially experimental psychologist, use only 4 or 5 terms to describe SENSTION OF TASTE is silly. We must look to see the mechanism or "deconstruct," to quote Ophiolite, who claimed I am "hung up on deconstruction." Deconstruction is exactly what mankind did for the visual system, when the completely arbitary “system-level” division of the colors into 6 basic colors (red ... purple) gave way to the fact that only three different color sensor cell exist.

(Fact that only 3 color cells exist could have been inferred long ago from fact only three monochromatic lights are required to give almost* any color sensation. Likewise, fact that many, many distinct taste cells types exist can be inferred from fact that it is impossible to even come close to reproducing "almost all", or even many different, taste sensations accurately with any mixture using any set of many different chemicals.)

More quotes from that same source, with bold & italics added by Billy T:

“The bitter receptors fell first to the onslaught of the UCSD–NIDCR team and other molecular biologists. In 1999, the ability to taste propylthiouracil, a bitter tasting compound, had been linked to a locus on human Chromosome 5p15. Reasoning that this variation might be due to alterations in the coding sequence for a bitter receptor, the UCSD–NIDCR researchers used the draft of the human genome to search for sequences that resembled GPCRs on Chromosome 5p15. ‘That was how we found T2R1, the first bitter receptor, and, subsequently, a whole family of T2Rs’, says Zuker. …it is no surprise that there are many bitter receptors but probably only one sweet receptor. ‘There are so many poisons and it makes perfect sense to have many receptors feeding into a common transduction pathway. Sweet is a different problem. In nature, there are many molecules with structures similar to sugar that we must not eat because we cannot metabolise them. So I would have predicted one or at most a few highly specific sweet receptors’….Damak is not alone, however, in thinking there may be more than one umami receptor (and additional sweet receptors).”

BTW Humans can also be divided into two different genetic groups based on the exact coding of one of the three color cell types (green or blue peaking cell - I forget which). The absorption curves of this retinal pigment of the two groups are different, use slightly different genetic codes for the different dye molecules. The two groups are detectable by simple non-invasive optical measurements. Fortunately, "big brother" and right wing / religious racists do not know this yet, so we can all still go to the same schools. :rolleyes:

Final comment: Man is still in the “dark ages” when it comes to understand non-ionic taste receptors. Not only is there the “duration of binding” to the taste bud variation, but probably dozens of new distinct taste discriminating cells will be found in the next decade if the present rate of discovery continues. It is silly to claim there are only four or five taste discriminating cells, now than at least twice that number are known. This claim comes from confusing taste SENSATION descriptors with physiologically different taste CELLS.
________________________________
*The "brown sensation" and a few very extreme colors can not be made by only the same set of three monochromatic lights, which can produce most other colors.