Fake, yes, and not fake. Fake when reductionism is applied outside the particular fields where it is useful.
"Muscle" is a singular system of force generation and attachment points that act as a gestalt. In practice, muscles never move in isolation unless you apply a targeted electrical shock. So, from a functional perspective, it is better to think of there being merely "muscle", or "one muscle", applied to a task.
But there are situations where it is useful to talk of singular muscles, such as in repairing damage in medicine or in weightlifting (where the "muscle" involved is more accurately the location of most force generation).
Similarly,
"Sensation" is a singular system of receptivity and emphasis that is a blend texture as a gestalt. In practice, sensations are never received in isolation unless you apply a highly targeted stimulus. So, from a functional perspective, it is better to think of there being merely "sensation", or "one sensation", applied to a task.
But there are situations where it is useful to talk of singular sensations, such as detecting locations of sensory limitation in medicine or in media targeted at a specific sensation, (where the "sensation" involved is more accurately the location of most prominent sensation).
Reductionism outside the narrowly appropriate fields is indeed damaging to sensation and action in life.
These phenomena are well researched, not sure why apply “we are not allowed to notice” social conspiracy.
All our senses are all the same in cortical columns and they get intertwined all the time, forming mixed bag emotionally-bookmarked memories. This is an evolutionary mechanism of a basic kind.
The fact that general public is not interested in neuroscience is not a taboo of any sort. It’s just a bit complex and arcane still.
You’re right to bring them up as memes, to stoke curiosity in readers.
There are all kinds of weird things in the world that we don’t care about and then go “whoa”.
You’re basically saying that the symbolism associated with a font choice is the same as a person that sees numbers as a series of multicolored shapes in their head?
I don’t know
I’ve got to think about that
I feel like there’s a lot of history we have picked up with letter shapes
But numbers = colors seems a lot more random
I’d want to know if a lot of deep synesthetes — who have wild math powers because of the visions numbers give them — see similar things in their heads or not
Unrelated but fun example of synesthesia: if you are blindfolded, and you wave your arm/hand in front of your face, you'll kinda see it. arm-shaped percept barely distinct from background (black on black). Sensor-fusion, prioperceptive data feeding into visual field.
o1 claims I'm wrong, yet I can clearly remember reading some paper about the phenomena. And I do experience it - there's clearly actual qualia. It's probably not mental imagery because I don't get qualia from these.
> There’s no established scientific consensus that this specific phenomenon constitutes synesthesia. What you’re likely experiencing is a blend of proprioceptive awareness and faint internal imagery rather than genuine cross-sensory perception. Even with eyes closed, the brain knows your arm’s position (proprioception) and may generate a subtle, schematic “visual” sense of where it is. This isn’t considered true synesthesia—just a common interplay of sensory and spatial information.
Fake, yes, and not fake. Fake when reductionism is applied outside the particular fields where it is useful.
"Muscle" is a singular system of force generation and attachment points that act as a gestalt. In practice, muscles never move in isolation unless you apply a targeted electrical shock. So, from a functional perspective, it is better to think of there being merely "muscle", or "one muscle", applied to a task.
But there are situations where it is useful to talk of singular muscles, such as in repairing damage in medicine or in weightlifting (where the "muscle" involved is more accurately the location of most force generation).
Similarly,
"Sensation" is a singular system of receptivity and emphasis that is a blend texture as a gestalt. In practice, sensations are never received in isolation unless you apply a highly targeted stimulus. So, from a functional perspective, it is better to think of there being merely "sensation", or "one sensation", applied to a task.
But there are situations where it is useful to talk of singular sensations, such as detecting locations of sensory limitation in medicine or in media targeted at a specific sensation, (where the "sensation" involved is more accurately the location of most prominent sensation).
Reductionism outside the narrowly appropriate fields is indeed damaging to sensation and action in life.
These phenomena are well researched, not sure why apply “we are not allowed to notice” social conspiracy.
All our senses are all the same in cortical columns and they get intertwined all the time, forming mixed bag emotionally-bookmarked memories. This is an evolutionary mechanism of a basic kind.
The fact that general public is not interested in neuroscience is not a taboo of any sort. It’s just a bit complex and arcane still.
You’re right to bring them up as memes, to stoke curiosity in readers.
There are all kinds of weird things in the world that we don’t care about and then go “whoa”.
Kids, we are.
You’re basically saying that the symbolism associated with a font choice is the same as a person that sees numbers as a series of multicolored shapes in their head?
I don’t know
I’ve got to think about that
I feel like there’s a lot of history we have picked up with letter shapes
But numbers = colors seems a lot more random
I’d want to know if a lot of deep synesthetes — who have wild math powers because of the visions numbers give them — see similar things in their heads or not
If they do, that would be convincing
Unrelated but fun example of synesthesia: if you are blindfolded, and you wave your arm/hand in front of your face, you'll kinda see it. arm-shaped percept barely distinct from background (black on black). Sensor-fusion, prioperceptive data feeding into visual field.
o1 claims I'm wrong, yet I can clearly remember reading some paper about the phenomena. And I do experience it - there's clearly actual qualia. It's probably not mental imagery because I don't get qualia from these.
> There’s no established scientific consensus that this specific phenomenon constitutes synesthesia. What you’re likely experiencing is a blend of proprioceptive awareness and faint internal imagery rather than genuine cross-sensory perception. Even with eyes closed, the brain knows your arm’s position (proprioception) and may generate a subtle, schematic “visual” sense of where it is. This isn’t considered true synesthesia—just a common interplay of sensory and spatial information.