An artificial sixth sense
Wired has a story about new sensory prosthetics giving people a sense of magnetic north, “tactile vision”, etc. Subjects report that they even dream in their new senses. Here is a piece from the article: Direction isn’t something humans can detect innately. Some birds can, of course, and for them it’s no less important than […]
Wired has a story about new sensory prosthetics giving people a sense of magnetic north, “tactile vision”, etc. Subjects report that they even dream in their new senses.
Here is a piece from the article:
Direction isn’t something humans can detect innately. Some birds can, of course, and for them it’s no less important than taste or smell are for us. In fact, lots of animals have cool, “extra” senses. Sunfish see polarized light. Loggerhead turtles feel Earth’s magnetic field. Bonnethead sharks detect subtle changes (less than a nanovolt) in small electrical fields. And other critters have heightened versions of familiar senses — bats hear frequencies outside our auditory range, and some insects see ultraviolet light.
We humans get just the five. But why? Can our senses be modified? Expanded? Given the right prosthetics, could we feel electromagnetic fields or hear ultrasound? The answers to these questions, according to researchers at a handful of labs around the world, appear to be yes.
Really interesting research! Synaesthesia has been studied and written about for many years, and I think most people involved in rehabilitation, as well as people running the more high-level communications training, have noticed that certain senses seem to be “up for grabs” when a person attempts to learn a new skill, or strives to attain a awareness of previously-unconscious processing.
I’ve found it fascinating that in seeking to be aware of or “read” another person’s internal state, that some people may, rather than visually noticing, instead sense a smell or a body sensation that correlates with the state.
This article is also interesting in that it makes the point that the brain seems to have learned from the experience of utilising the machine. The machine is merely a teaching tool, not a prosthetic in the true sense of the word.
What are the limits of our perception, I wonder? This is a question which should be asked/debated, or we risk sidetracking into unhelpful metaphysical arenas, or being perceived as supporting anti-scientific paradigms.
New-age bouncing bunnies are notorious for hijacking good science and utilising it in the next snake-oil scam.