Question About Consciousness

[Mr.Funsocks]

Actually, synesthesia (the mingling of senses) is pretty common. Almost everyone has it to a degree (there's a terrific lecture on this by V.S. Ramachadran, a neurologist, on TED: Ideas worth spreading but the example he uses to prove it is entirely about audible language-shape associations, and may not make sense to the deaf. That and there are no captions/subtitles/written words at all in most of the TED lectures), and research seems to indicate creative people, ie poets, authors, musicians, have it more frequently and to a greater degree. All sorts of variations on it. Which is what makes this subject so difficult to parse from the two very different experiences of being deaf and being hearing, and what images you think of.

For me, words (and their associated objects) all have a shape, a sound, and object. Music immediately makes me see movement, sometimes abstract but easily associated with, say, a human body. If I weren't a martial artist, I probably would have just been the world's worst dancer

And so, if you're an especially creative person (deaf or hearing), language probably isn't very far separated from about 16 of your senses (there's about 23 senses total by some counts). So, figuring out if you "hear" your inner monologue, or "see" it in sign, can be a tricky business.

 

[Bottesini]

Actually, synesthesia (the mingling of senses) is pretty common. Almost everyone has it to a degree (there's a terrific lecture on this by V.S. Ramachadran, a neurologist, on TED: Ideas worth spreading but the example he uses to prove it is entirely about audible language-shape associations, and may not make sense to the deaf. That and there are no captions/subtitles/written words at all in most of the TED lectures), and research seems to indicate creative people, ie poets, authors, musicians, have it more frequently and to a greater degree. All sorts of variations on it. Which is what makes this subject so difficult to parse from the two very different experiences of being deaf and being hearing, and what images you think of.

For me, words (and their associated objects) all have a shape, a sound, and object. Music immediately makes me see movement, sometimes abstract but easily associated with, say, a human body. If I weren't a martial artist, I probably would have just been the world's worst dancer

And so, if you're an especially creative person (deaf or hearing), language probably isn't very far separated from about 16 of your senses (there's about 23 senses total by some counts). So, figuring out if you "hear" your inner monologue, or "see" it in sign, can be a tricky business.

An incidence of approximately 1 in 2000. Although in schizophrenics it is more common.

 

[Mr.Funsocks]

From Wikipedia:

It is estimated that synesthesia could possibly be as prevalent as 1 in 23 persons across its range of variants.

Like I said, some scientists say everyone has it, to SOME degree. Kind of how everyone has a li'l ADD in 'em. The 1 in 2000 statistic is usually used to describe people who're synesthetic to the point that it borders on hallucinations.

 

[Bottesini]

From Wikipedia:

It is estimated that synesthesia could possibly be as prevalent as 1 in 23 persons across its range of variants.

Like I said, some scientists say everyone has it, to SOME degree. Kind of how everyone has a li'l ADD in 'em. The 1 in 2000 statistic is usually used to describe people who're synesthetic to the point that it borders on hallucinations.

We disdain Wiki as a credible source here. Wait for Jillio to return. She is a PhD in Psychology and will have this information at her fingertips.

 

[Mr.Funsocks]

Fine, I'll cite the actual article that statement is from :-P :

Simner J, Mulvenna C, Sagiv N, et al (2006). "Synaesthesia: the prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences". Perception 35 (8): 1024–33

I disdain disdain for Wikipedia, when you can find all the citations they use pretty easily

Woops, forgot to link the abstract:

http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=p5469

 

[Bottesini]

Fine, I'll cite the actual article that statement is from :-P :

Simner J, Mulvenna C, Sagiv N, et al (2006). "Synaesthesia: the prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences". Perception 35 (8): 1024–33

I disdain disdain for Wikipedia, when you can find all the citations they use pretty easily

Woops, forgot to link the abstract:

Perception abstract

Sorry we don't accept that either. Has to be the whole article. Just hang on and wait for expert help.

 

[Mr.Funsocks]

I could try to dig up a quote from V.S. Ramachadran, a pHD in neuroscience (a bit more qualified to talk about synesthesia than a psychologist :-P ) if you really want... but it'll have to wait 'till I'm on my home computer, navigating things on my dad's Powerbook with the broken up arrow makes my brain cry tears of stupid.

 

[Jolie77]

It is really absurd to be arguing about using the wiki as a source. We all know that Wiki can be a great source to use only for a research basis or to obtain general information but however, to refute it in a debate or to refute it on for the qualifications as such - it isn't a great idea to use/obtain it.

Anyway, So, back to the topic --

Mr. Funsocks - If you would like, I'd suggest you to read this thread. It may have some more answers to what you're looking for.

http://www.alldeaf.com/our-world-our-culture/56010-question-human-mind-words-thinking.html

 

[Jiro]

Fine, I'll cite the actual article that statement is from :-P :

Simner J, Mulvenna C, Sagiv N, et al (2006). "Synaesthesia: the prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences". Perception 35 (8): 1024–33

I disdain disdain for Wikipedia, when you can find all the citations they use pretty easily

Woops, forgot to link the abstract:

Perception abstract

hey there. just saying that you'll need to actually read the whole article. just because what you read in abstract doesn't mean it's in support of your statement/assumption. That's what "taken out of context" means.

here's a link to full article

 

[Bottesini]

hey there. just saying that you'll need to actually read the whole article. just because what you read in abstract doesn't mean it's in support of your statement/assumption. That's what "taken out of context" means.

here's a link to full article

Thank you Jiro. I see in the article that Ramachadran the authority mentioned by our new member, did estimate a possiblity of 1 in 200.

Interesting also was the high prevalence among females and the possiblity of death in utero to males with what is believed X linked.

 

[jillio]

From Wikipedia:

It is estimated that synesthesia could possibly be as prevalent as 1 in 23 persons across its range of variants.

Like I said, some scientists say everyone has it, to SOME degree. Kind of how everyone has a li'l ADD in 'em. The 1 in 2000 statistic is usually used to describe people who're synesthetic to the point that it borders on hallucinations.

Having a few symptoms that are seen in an actual disorder is not having the disorder. To say things like "everyone has a lil ADD in them" is not only to misrepresent the nature of the disorder, but it does a service to those that are actually diagnosed with the disorder by minimizing the impact that it has on their life in all areas.

No, the 1 in 2000 statistic is the acurrate statistic. Synesthesia is not a disorder of hallucinations. It is a perceptual difference. The 1 in 2000 figure represents the population that has diagnosable synesthesia.

If you are going to use incidence and prevalence statistics, I suggest that you use a reputable source for those statistics, not Wiki. Otherwise, you end up giving incorrect and misrepresented information that can actually cause harm to those who have been dignosed with a specific disorder.

And Bott is correct. Synesthesia is seen more often in the population that has been diagnosed with scizophrenia. However, it is not a feature of scizophrenic hallucinations. It is a separate phenomenon that is frequently seen as a comorbid condition.

 

[jillio]

Fine, I'll cite the actual article that statement is from :-P :

Simner J, Mulvenna C, Sagiv N, et al (2006). "Synaesthesia: the prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences". Perception 35 (8): 1024–33

I disdain disdain for Wikipedia, when you can find all the citations they use pretty easily

Woops, forgot to link the abstract:

Perception abstract

You would perhaps be better able to discuss the topic if you actually read the article rather than simply cutting and pasting the citation. And abstracts are useless for the purpose of supporting your points.

 

[jillio]

It is really absurd to be arguing about using the wiki as a source. We all know that Wiki can be a great source to use only for a research basis or to obtain general information but however, to refute it in a debate or to refute it on for the qualifications as such - it isn't a great idea to use/obtain it.

Anyway, So, back to the topic --

Mr. Funsocks - If you would like, I'd suggest you to read this thread. It may have some more answers to what you're looking for.

http://www.alldeaf.com/our-world-our-culture/56010-question-human-mind-words-thinking.html

Thank you, Jolie. Wiki is useful only as a starting point for general information. For in depth understanding of a topic, one must actually take the time and make the effort to do much more in depth research.

 

[jillio]

We also need to keep in mind that this research was done based on self report questionaire, and we have discussed the limitations of such a method many times previously. Additionally, the sample used was not true random, but opportunistic. These methods both leave open the possibility of false positives.

Additionally, this is a single article, based on a single incidence of research. There are volumes of research devoted to synethesia and actual statistics regarding the incidence and prevalence of the phenonmenon that refute the findings of this single article. Therefore, one must view its findings with scepticism unless one can find additional research to support those findings. To date, the vast amount of the research and findings on prevalence and incidence do not support these findings.

BTW, thanks for the link, Jiro. You saved me about 15 minutes!

 

[jillio]

Thank you Jiro. I see in the article that Ramachadran the authority mentioned by our new member, did estimate a possiblity of 1 in 200.

Interesting also was the high prevalence among females and the possiblity of death in utero to males with what is believed X linked.

I question the 1-200 incidence based on the vast amount of research and actual statistics on diagnosed cases that refute it. But it has been long known that the phenonmenon is X-linked, and that there is a higher incidence in the female.

 

[Bottesini]

I question the 1-200 incidence based on the vast amount of research and actual statistics on diagnosed cases that refute it. But it has been long known that the phenonmenon is X-linked, and that there is a higher incidence in the female.

I think I did remember the higher female incidence. I was so surprised about the death in utero of male fetuses with the phenomenen.

Probably a stupid question, but how could they know if they died before birth?

Or did I read that wrong?

 

[Lighthouse77]

I don't know about most of you, but I don't usually think about words. Sometime I do but most of the time, my thoughts are pictures.

We don't really need to think about hand signal in our head, we just know what it means. Although when I see the word "hi" I do picture someone waving hi

 

[jillio]

I think I did remember the higher female incidence. I was so surprised about the death in utero of male fetuses with the phenomenen.

Probably a stupid question, but how could they know if they died before birth?

Or did I read that wrong?

Actually, he is just assuming that males who die in utero from known X chromosomal disorders also would have synesthesia. It's a leap he made. There is nothing to support the fact that the female bias is due to males dying in utero that carry the disorder. Only that many males who suffer from X chromosomal disorders die in utero. Of course, many females who suffer from X chromosomal disorders die in utero as well, because a great deal of the pathology created by chromosomal disorders is incompatible with life.

 

[Bottesini]

I don't know about most of you, but I don't usually think about words. Sometime I do but most of the time, my thoughts are pictures.

We don't really need to think about hand signal in our head, we just know what it means. Although when I see the word "hi" I do picture someone waving hi

Yes , I think that way too.

 

[Bottesini]

Actually, he is just assuming that males who die in utero from known X chromosomal disorders also would have synesthesia. It's a leap he made. There is nothing to support the fact that the female bias is due to males dying in utero that carry the disorder. Only that many males who suffer from X chromosomal disorders die in utero. Of course, many females who suffer from X chromosomal disorders die in utero as well, because a great deal of the pathology created by chromosomal disorders is incompatible with life.

Aha! Thanks. You are good at concise explanation!!