Can tulpas create feedback for senses that don't work anymore?

[motorheadlk]

 

A human can taste about five different flavours: bitter, sweet, salt etc. and smell up to 10 000 different odors. The smell reseptors in the nose and the taste reseptors in the mouth are linked with different parts of the brain, thus making them separate senses.

 

Yet again both are chemical receptors that work similarly. I don't see why "tasting the air" would be that far from smelling it.

[Onicron]

 

Yet again both are chemical receptors that work similarly. I don't see why "tasting the air" would be that far from smelling it.

 

It isn't "that far" at all, but still it isn't the same. There's a reason smelling actually IS a different sense compared to taste.

 

They are similiar enough however for someone born without either of them to have a vague feel of how the sense would work and that's enough for a tulpa (or the host himself) to simulate it given that they have enough imagination.

In a way, it's the same if a blind person uses something to create a sound and listens for the echos to navigate (I've read an article about someone doing this, will link if I find it later) or a deaf person feeling the vibrations of a powerful bass or close gunshots on his body.

It won't be the same at all, but it will be a close interpretation of the missing sense.

 

Edit: Found a Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation

It has loads of nice links at the bottom. Also a picture with a description saying "Echo-related activity in the brain of an early-blind echolocator is shown on the left. There is no activity evident in the brain of a sighted person (shown on the right) listening to the same echoes". There's no link where that picture came from however so it's not valid for use in this debate. Interesting nevertheless.

[motorheadlk]

 

It isn't "that far" at all, but still it isn't the same. There's a reason smelling actually IS a different sense compared to taste.

 

They are similiar enough however for someone born without either of them to have a vague feel of how the sense would work and that's enough for a tulpa (or the host himself) to simulate it given that they have enough imagination.

In a way, it's the same if a blind person uses something to create a sound and listens for the echos to navigate (I've read an article about someone doing this, will link if I find it later) or a deaf person feeling the vibrations of a powerful bass or close gunshots on his body.

It won't be the same at all, but it will be a close interpretation of the missing sense.

 

Edit: Found a Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation

It has loads of nice links at the bottom. Also a picture with a description saying "Echo-related activity in the brain of an early-blind echolocator is shown on the left. There is no activity evident in the brain of a sighted person (shown on the right) listening to the same echoes". There's no link where that picture came from however so it's not valid for use in this debate. Interesting nevertheless.

 

You do know that there is no actual concept of what smell is, and we can't say that what a apple smells like to me is the same for you, right? And that we can't say that the color blue for me is the same color for you, right? And that maybe if my favorite color is red and yours is blue it might be the same color, right? And that because of that there is no "real" sense, right? And that through sense we can't ever see the thing itself (Immanuel Kant)? And that this lead Nietzsche to say that a born-deaf man that sees Chladni sand figures will swear to himself that he knows and understands what man call sound, right?

 

It isn't important if what he will smell as a imposed smell will not be what he would actually smell if he had an actual sense of smell, for it will appear as "real" as a "real "smell would. And because there is no such thing as "the real sense of smell", for what we know it is a subjective experience that we can't know if it is the same for everyone, his experience, considering that it will be really close to what we sense, is as real as ours, for ours is not real too. Now let the deaf man think he knows what sound is for his notion of sound might be as close to reality as ours.

[Weird0]

 

Yet again both are chemical receptors that work similarly. I don't see why "tasting the air" would be that far from smelling it.

 

Because we got 2 separate organs for 2 separate senses. Ever got deodorant in you mouth and though: "oh that smells good.", or in your nose and though: "oh, that tastes horrible."?

Of course not.

Humans got 5 senses.

And not 4 senses - and one is the same but weaker.

When you taste the air you are NOT smelling it.

 

It's kinda like as i would claim that feeling the sunshine is like seeing but weaker and dull. Nonsense.

 

And that maybe if my favorite color is red and yours is blue it might be the same color, right?

 

No. Eyes work the same for each and every one. It's more likely that you got a 3rd perfect working eye as such a mutation that makes you see swapped colors.

SURE, there are differences here and there (colorblind people, green and blue weakness) but still.

Think of all the animals that use colors, such as warning signals or to recognize their food. If it would be swapped colors for everyone, they would most likely die. :(

And they most likely did. The animals with working eyes survived and those who hadn't, died. Evolution made sure we all see most likely the same colors.

[jean-luc]

Hasn't anyone ever thought "This literally tastes like shit"?

I have. I remember then thinking "But I've never tasted shit" and realized I was linking smell to taste.

 

So, they are similar.

 

Also,

Humans have more than five senses. Although definitions vary, the actual number ranges from 9 to more than 20. In addition to sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing, which were the senses identified by Aristotle, humans can sense balance and acceleration (equilibrioception), pain (nociception), body and limb position (proprioception or kinesthetic sense), and relative temperature (thermoception). Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, fullness of the stomach, need to urinate, need to defecate

read: need to shit/piss

, and blood carbon dioxide levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Human_body_and_health

tl;dr

There are more senses then the five!

[motorheadlk]

 

Because we got 2 separate organs for 2 separate senses. Ever got deodorant in you mouth and though: "oh that smells good.", or in your nose and though: "oh, that tastes horrible."?

Of course not.

Humans got 5 senses.

And not 4 senses - and one is the same but weaker.

When you taste the air you are NOT smelling it.

 

It's kinda like as i would claim that feeling the sunshine is like seeing but weaker and dull. Nonsense.

 

Like the man up there said, you are wrong.

 

No. Eyes work the same for each and every one. It's more likely that you got a 3rd perfect working eye as such a mutation that makes you see swapped colors.

SURE, there are differences here and there (colorblind people, green and blue weakness) but still.

Think of all the animals that use colors, such as warning signals or to recognize their food. If it would be swapped colors for everyone, they would most likely die. :(

And they most likely did. The animals with working eyes survived and those who hadn't, died. Evolution made sure we all see most likely the same colors.

 

Dude, you completely misunderstood me. Chill. Think of the color red. Now I think of the color red. They are both what we see as red and call red, but how can you tell that the color we are calling red actually appears the same to us? We can't, that is largely known, I think I had one physic teacher talking about light and a biology teacher saying the same thing already. Because of that, what I call red, if we were able to see what others saw with their eyes and brain, could be called blue in my perception. So, no. Just because we both see a color and learn to call it red, it doesn't make our brain interpret it as having the same looks to both of us, despite our eyes and light decoding working similarly.

 

So the red you see and the red I see might appear different, which means that my favorite color, if it was red, could look the same as your favorite color, if it was blue, since because my eye and brain decode the ray of light of X frequency into what my brain interpret as red and I learn to call it red, and your brain and eye decode the ray of light of Y frequency into what my brain makes red look like, but for you it appears to be blue, then if it's your favorite color, my red and your blue may look to ourselves the same thing, even if they are different.

[waffles]

Except that the wavelength of the light that we call 'red' is the same, the receptors in our eyes send the same signals in response to receiving it, and our visual cortexes likely process this signal in the same way. What makes you think that it might be different?

[motorheadlk]

Except that the wavelength of the light that we call 'red' is the same, the receptors in our eyes send the same signals in response to receiving it, and our visual cortexes likely process this signal in the same way. What makes you think that it might be different?

 

Wow. I already edited the wavelenght before you posted. Great minds think the same I guess. lol

Anyway, no, just because the wavelenght of light is the same, it doesn't make what we see be the same. It is a phenomenom largely know that we can't tell that what we see as red looks the same to us, and that we taste like the taste of a hamburguer is the same and all. I know that because I heard it both from one of my physics highschool teacher and a biology teacher, the physics teacher on a class of rays of light and the biology when talking about "bastonetes" and cells of the eye. I have no idea how it translates to english.

 

Edit: "then if it's your favorite color, my red and your blue may look to ourselves the same thing, even if they are different."

I meant: "my red and your blue may look to ourselves the same thing, even if they have different frequencies."

 

I'd modify it, but I need you to see that I didn't include the light frequency/wavelenght to cover your question, I just add it because I didn't finish my post yet.

[waffles]

There's no reason to think that normal people perceive different colours differently because every step along the way is similar. It's not reasonable to doubt something because you cannot be ansolutely sure. Sure, there's no way of truly verifying what another experiences. Take that a step further and you've got: there's no way to verify anything outside of your own mind. It's really a moronic statement, and I'd like to see it applied in a useful context.

[Sands]

Not the exact same color of red if you just think of red, but it's still red and not blue. Everyone sees all the shades of red differently I guess as we can't exactly compare, but I guess what we see would be pretty similar seeing that we actually can say what shade some color is if we have studied the same color whatevers.

 

But people with color blindness can see things weirdly I guess. Remember that one time when I was talking with someone when we were painting, there was this kinda ugly dull minty color the rest of us could call that (making even remarks how it would be nicer if it would be a tad more vibrant) and then this one friend of mine going oh, looks pretty gray to me. It was a dull color so not too far from gray in my eyes, but it wasn't gray. It was mint.