This is the theory that there aren't five sences as is taught by most but only one... the sence of touch.

- Light touches the eye to be percived.

- Sound waves touch the ear drums to be heard.

- Particles touch the recpetors of the nose to be smelt.

- Same particles touch the nerves of the toungue to be tasted.

Can this be refuted?

Also, what does this mean for extra sencory perceptions?Telepathy, clairvoyance and so on?

http://www.blackchat.co.uk/theblackf...m26/25744.html

HTP

RL

If the sense of touch is the only one,

why does these facilities for different kinds of touch happen more often in particular areas of the body and in different forms.

Without a nose I cannot smell and differentiate different odors. With plain touch I can differentiate different temperatures.

Without ears I can diffentiate quiet noises in the background. With plain touch I can feel the vibrations of hard noises but not simultaneous other quiet noises happening at the same time.

Unless I missed something.

[align=left]If the sense of touch is the only one,

why does these facilities for different kinds of touch happen more often in particular areas of the body and in different forms.[/align]
[align=left]Because they need to recive diffrent information.

Without a nose I cannot smell and differentiate different odors. With plain touch I can differentiate different temperatures.[/align]
[align=left]The receptors within the nose are much more acute than the nerves in your hand. It isn't your nose that smells its the nerves in the nasal cavity which can also detect heat, wouldn't try it as said they're more acute.

Without ears I cant diffentiate quiet noises in the background. [/align]
[align=left]Without ear drums no. They are made to recive sound waves which have to be picked up by the ear drum to send signals to the brain.[/align]
[align=left]All have the same recive and transmit function and need to recive the nessary information in its varying formats to then send the signal to the brain an object/vibration/light must all touch the receptors.
[/align]

What people call senses are in fact just electrical impulses in the brain telling you what the world is. It is not necessarily the truth of the space around you.

For instance sight. Seeing is as a result of electrical impulses telling the brain that a certain type of light has prejected onto your retina. The brain in turn tells you that you are seeing a colour. The world is actually theorised (obviously we cannot see it ourselves) to be actually on a grayscale meaning there are no colours as we know them, just the brain's interpretation.

This is the way it is for all of the "senses". They simply tell your brain that certain things are happening. Senses are an interpretation of the world surrounding you not an actuality.

I would explain more but am out of time. I'll get back to this thread with the technicalities.

Hmmm... a bit of a crummy theory, prehapsI could have worded it better. The europeans are taking to it in another forum;

-Will post-

defyfear wrote:
Even then those chemicals will be translated to signals to the brain for interpretation. I wish I had my biochemistry book to explain this using all of the jargon. Basically what I am saying is that the brain is what interprets all of these so called senses. If I smell the same scent as you do you will not smell the exact same thing as me. This is because of it is all relative. We exists as unified entities in our complete separateness. The reason why there are individual differences in taste, hearing, sight, feeling and odour intake is because we are so dependent on our brain for everything that we don't stop and realise, our whole existence is based upon how our brain interprets matter and not how the world really is.

I recommend y'all read these books.

An Anthropologist on Mars: by Oliver Sacks

The Man Who Mistook His Wife ForA Hat: by Oliver Sacks

They are books on neurology but ones that are very accessible and will explain a lot if you can figure out the jargon. Read them and you will never see this world in the same way again.

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