Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: the only five senses, or maybe not?

  1. #1
    consolidation is offline Godwin's is straw
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    103

    the only five senses, or maybe not?

    I was recently asked a straight forward question , "How many senses are there?" to which I quickly replied the 5 we all are taught :
    ophthalmoception, audioception, gustaoception, olfacoception, and tactioception.

    However I was especially challenged ( more than usual anyway!) when the asker threw in thermoception, proprioception, nociception, equilibrioception and kinesthesioception.

    I did a quick check and saw there is quite some debate.

    To me even if one of these is correct it is a real awakening to the errors of this basic sensory teaching.

    Now what bothers me most with this is the idea (definition) that is a common thread in most dictionaries, is that each sense has its own dedicated organ.
    Balance and acceleration have me perplexed most as they use the same organs as other so called (but maybe not) traditional idea of only 5 senses.
    Does his mean the accepted definition does not really apply to hearing?
    If it fails just once, it fails! in my opinion.
    Your thoughts or guidance are appreciated?

  2. #2
    littleroundman is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17,330

    Re: the only five senses, or maybe not?

    The debate you mention is largely related to arriving at a standardized definition of the word "sense" before the debate can move on to actually arriving at a number.

    Similarly, the definition problem extends to determining whether the "ear" involved in the sense of hearing is separate from the vestibular labyrinthine system of the inner ear which is the generally accepted "organ" involved in the "sense" of equilibrium and whether the thermoception "organ" includes the skin AND internal skin passages.

    As with most things to do with "medicine" the devil is in the detail (including defining the word "medicine") and the level of detail at which the debaters are operating.



    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

  3. #3
    consolidation is offline Godwin's is straw
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    103

    Re: the only five senses, or maybe not?

    Exactly!
    Thanks LRM for joining in however,
    You have done a great job of concisely paraphrasing my original query and the rationale behind it.... but not actually added anything to the debate or question.

  4. #4
    littleroundman is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17,330

    Re: the only five senses, or maybe not?

    Why would I ???

    Your original statement included the observation: "I did a quick check and saw there is quite some debate" and you're quite correct, there IS quite some debate.

    And ????
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

  5. #5
    consolidation is offline Godwin's is straw
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    103

    Re: the only five senses, or maybe not?

    Thanks LRM, you again have proven my point.
    Being prolific without actually saying anything has certainly shown to be a great skill of yours. Forums gererally classify this type of behaviour as troll-like and it can certainly boost entertaiment and participation rates as the issues never are discussed and it inevitably degrades into a sideshow like is the norm on the other site.
    Unfortunately it's not one that I feel I should spend energy much upon as I left the other site and came here to avoid / reduce that type of non-poster who argues emptily against anything without any hint of facts to back them up.
    I suppose on internet forums it is a participation admission price that must be acknowledged and accepted.

    CU all for now and enjoyi yourself here at realscam.com it has been fun!

    SBM any chance of being deregistered? I am trepidatiously willing to use the word cupcake?
    I had to ask! (tongue in cheek and no disrespect intended)
    Last edited by consolidation; 04-09-2011 at 10:45 PM. Reason: punctuation and clarity

  6. #6
    littleroundman is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17,330

    Re: the only five senses, or maybe not?

    Well, that worked well.

    Don't ya just love it when a plan comes together ??
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

  7. #7
    winglazier is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1

    Re: the only five senses, or maybe not?

    Damage to the inner ear can affect your sight. The body's parts are all
    interconnected to some degree so maybe there is only one sense, the totality of
    your conscious and unconscious perception.

  8. #8
    oldfriend's Avatar
    oldfriend is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    91

    Re: the only five senses, or maybe not?

    Quote Originally Posted by consolidation View Post
    I was recently asked a straight forward question , "How many senses are there?" to which I quickly replied the 5 we all are taught :
    ophthalmoception, audioception, gustaoception, olfacoception, and tactioception.

    However I was especially challenged ( more than usual anyway!) when the asker threw in thermoception, proprioception, nociception, equilibrioception and kinesthesioception.

    I did a quick check and saw there is quite some debate.................

    ....................Your thoughts or guidance are appreciated?
    I don't see how this is such a tremendous debate....(?)
    Thermoception - the sense by which an organism perceives the rate of temperature flux.
    Proprioception - the sense of the relative position of neighboring parts of the body and strength of effort being employed in movement.
    Nociception - triggers a variety of autonomic responses and may also result in a subjective experience of pain in sentient beings.
    Equilibrioception - sense of balance.
    Kineshesioception - interchangeable by and large with proprioception

    The above terms seem to simply further define the sense of touch, or create a sub-group under one of the 5 senses....

    Where's the mystery? Where's the debate? Unless this is just as LRM states - that it is a debate over definitions - one of semantics.

    To the part I didn't quote you on, that each sense has its own dedicated organ. If a person has his eyes plucked out, he cannot see. Eyesight requires eyes.
    If a person has their ears damaged enough, they cannot hear. If the body experiences enough damage that the nerve endings are destroyed, the sense of touch might be lost.

    I don't see how any of the added definitions/words in this "debate" change this.....

  9. #9
    Beacon is offline Antiauthoritarian skeptic
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Is Eireannach mise
    Posts
    1,231

    Re: the only five senses, or maybe not?

    Quote Originally Posted by winglazier View Post
    Damage to the inner ear can affect your sight.
    Especially if the damage is caused by a bullet going through your skull.

    On the cop out opted by Consolidation who began a discussion and then ran from it:

    I think the "five senses" can be traced to aristotle
    A
    ristotle proposed five senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. Modern physiologists subdivide the "touch" category into "tacticion", the sense of pressure perception, which is really what Aristotle was talking about, but also "thermoception", the sense of heat, "nociception", the perception of pain, and "equilibrioception", the perception of balance. Some add "proprioception", the perception of body awareness (eg if you close your eyes and move your hand about you continue to know where it is even though it isn't being perceived by any of the traditional senses). There are other candidates, eg the senses of hunger and thirst, and direction, so that the number suggested varies between 9 and 21.

    There are also senses which some animals have but we don't: "electroception" detects electric fields, "magnetoception" detects magnetic fields and is used in avian navigation systems, "echolocation", the "lateral line" used by fish to sense pressure, and infra-red vision.

    Which if any of the above "Facts" does consolidation assert is not backed up?

  10. #10
    consolidation is offline Godwin's is straw
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    103

    Re: the only five senses, or maybe not?

    Aaah ..the "good" old days..


    Off again for a While :-)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on this website are solely those of their respective authors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42