I think is is about time to get down to the core of this topic.
First, there is a misunderstanding by the word usage of "touch". When people might think of this word, they might envision it in the active sense instead of the more passive sense. The "touch" of this topic is more accurately synonymous with "feel".To feel is to be receptive and to be receptive is to receive, so holistically there is one sense of reception, but in the details there are varying spheres of reception. The lowest sphere of perceiveable reception being what is called known to most as the "five senses", but these senses of the lower sphere are only physically based, but most see it as all that we do have in relation to receptional senses, but there are higher sphere senses known as extra-sensory (seen as extra to the lower sphere of senses) perceptions.

Science tries to disprove spiritual-realm "things", by only viewing them from a carnal viewpoint, but science without spirit(uality) is dead and limited science, when both are connected truly with each other and holistically congruous.

That last line especially.

Always said on here, science needs to grow to function, new things need to be found and invented and these things were thought of as impossible, unscientificbeforehand only to then be proved in some way or another and accepted. Science has to have its roots in a creative force to propell it into new fields.... everything does...arace of people need their roots in a creative force to keep from becoming stagnant... both culturally and genetically. That creative forceacts asthe oil toa set of cog works, it keeps things that would otherwise rust from becoming stagnant, keeps them moving.

(sorry, I'm on the ball and its rolling banana.gif)

So the rigidity of science is not needed, if new things have to be found and proven to exsist they have to be allowed into the realm of science in the first place... of course they surgically removed spirituality from science as it was all a part of the ''occult'' until not so long ago and its now become a religion unto itself, suppressing spirituality and human nature along the way but as they say, a skeptic has to at least partially belive in, have an initial intrest in, what he dedicates himselftodisprovingand creates a void for himself if/when he finally doesandscience has to move forward in order to survive or risk becoming stagnant.

You more or less said what I couldn't with the whole topic HLF.I couldnt put it together, got confused. Thanks. All the sences are physically based and function off of feeling,all functionby means ofthe same sencory perception, not the given five.

Themost abstract of the, 'five'is sight but even then light is described as an electromagnetic spectrum and vibrates at its own frequency which is 'felt'by the brain as it percives depthwith shadow through reflection andjudges distance by 'feeling' the reflected scale of objects surrounding it. Light and the function of the eyes can then be related to the function of the ears because they both translate in the same way. Both reciving their source externally andtranslating it with the same basic functions.

Depth of soundis high,low and middle frequencies used to judge distance etc etc.

Depth in relation to light is the casting of shadow andthe high/low frequency of light emmited from an object used to judge distanceand what not.

In the same way soundenters the ear to be translatedthe mind can be tricked at times in its perception of lightwhen it recives diffrent feelings of depth and shadow/light frequencyetc etc.Can't find those tricks they have with the lines around two objects making one seem smaller than the other. Won't go into melaninbut of course it has to do with all functions of the sences.

..... Still, could emotion then be counted as a sence? Its used to judge in the same way as the others...Feeling isemotive... or would itsomehow fall into the extra-sensory category?Or is that simplythe ampflication of the standard sences?

HTP

RL