|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sense article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Sense.
What is coenesthesis?
"Coenesthesis" redirects here but there is no mention of that term in the article, not even an indication if it is a synonym or merely a vaguely related concept.--Lieven Smits (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Misuse of term 'animal'
Humans are by definition animals (we are in the kingdom Animalia), but the opening paragraph seems to use the word 'animal' in a way that excludes humans in error. "Animals also have receptors to sense the world around them, with degrees of capability varying greatly between species. Humans have a comparatively weak sense of smell, while some animals may lack one or more of the traditional five senses." 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Emanation and Reason behind these specific Senses
My question is unbiased in any form.
I am interested in the "origin" of the five senses. By this I don't mean who created it.
By this I mean to ask is that why these five senses emanated for us to interact with the world around us.
My question is not cryptic. It's a question after all.
How did it arrive to being these known five senses through evolution? And why these five? I cant seem to find any answer for it.
>>As the article makes clear, there aren't five senses. There are between ten and 15 in humans alone, depending on how you define "sense." For more on how and why they evolved, check the Evolution article. Sti11w4ter (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"Traditional Five" is not scientific.
In several places, this article gives the impression that some human senses are somehow less important, or are recent discoveries. The "traditional five senses" is a product of ignorance and cultural momentum, and reference to that ignorance should be a minor historical footnote, not the framework for the entire article. There is no evidentiary reason to make a distinction between the many senses. I did not edit the article because such a massive overhaul should be the result of consensus-building discussion, discussion which I expected to find here! Finding none, I'm starting it. After fixing the overall structure, we also need to fix all references to "touch," which is NOT a sense, but three senses that our forbears mistakenly conflated: thermoreception, mechanoreception, and itch (as described in the current article). Yes, it's arguable that itch belongs elsewhere, but currently the article is self-contradictory AND wrong. Let's fix both. Your thoughts? Sti11w4ter (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. In fact I was lying in bed last night thinking about how I can feel infrared radiation (long story, but I have the general topic on my mind) and thinking of how that's quite different than tactile touch, and the more I pondered the issue I could count 8 or 9 distinct external senses. Then this morning I corroborated my general impression in Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, and a quick we search shows that the issue is complex, but certainly the so-called "traditional" senses is not meaningful whatsoever, although maybe it deserves some mention for historical purposes. I vote for wholesale reconstruction of this article. I also think the article should be retitled as "Human sense" since in other animals the issue varies. LaurentianShield (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I changed my mind, I have a better idea: This article should be blanked and re-directed to Sensory system. Who agrees or disagrees? LaurentianShield (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Our rectum can detect the kind of matter that attempts or passes through anus. Examples: usually we know that a fart would actully be a shart before letting it out, and sometimes we can break the wind safely although we're in urgent need to poop. We also don't need to look at our poop to verify it's primary consistency after letting it out. Sorry about the crude terminology, but I am not an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Fancy names for the senses
On 12 March 2011, Sbbeef added to the lead text some "fancy names" for human sensory modalities: ophthalmoception, audioception, gustaoception, olfacoception/olfacception, tactioception, magetoception [sic] and kinesthesioception. These words were added along with the extant words thermoception, proprioception, nociception and equilibrioception. The words magetoception and kinesthesioception were, rightly, since removed. If you Google the first list of words today, you get hits, so what's the problem, right?
Turns out, although we've studied and described these senses for decades, somehow usage of these words only started appearing on the Internet in 2011, right around the time that the words were added to the Wikipedia lead text:
|Google hits (pages)||Google Scholar hits|
|before 11/3/2011||after 11/3/2011||2004–2010||2011–2016|
|Audioception||Sound||4 (Artiste name)||>10||0||47**|
|Gustaoception||Taste||2*||>10||1 (misclassified, actually 2011)||35**|
*The seemingly pre-2011 mentions of the invented words are misclassified by Google. Most of the listings represent the same pages, which mention all of the invented words. Manual inspection of the websites reveals that the content is post-2011. On the other hand, manual verification reveals that many of the pre-2011 mentions of the extant words (pruriception, etc.) are genuine.
For the first list of words, the timing, co-occurrence of the words and the nature of the pages suggest that the mentions of the words were the consequence of a single poorly cited addition made in 2011 in a prominent place in the Wikipedia article, and otherwise not present in the literature. This contrasts with the second list of words, which are genuine and present all along in the literature. Per WP:NOR, I motion to change the lead text to the following: "Sight (vision), hearing (audition), taste (gustation), smell (olfaction), and touch (somatosensation) are the five traditionally recognized senses." The words in parentheses are the standard words used in the literature, in the body of the Sense article, and in the respective articles for the sensory modalities.—Goh wz 00:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have carried out the proposed edits.—Goh wz 23:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Sense of Familiarity
I added a couple "senses" to the section "Perception not based on a specific sensory organ". For "Agency" I had some good sources and there's an existing article. For "Familiarity" though, I'm probably missing something. I found sources, but they're recent and very technical, being neuroscience studies. It seems wrong to spend most of the paragraph on purely reductive concerns, ie, which part of the brain produces the feeling of familiarity. Clearly there's some tradition of studying things like deja vu and capgras syndrome. The existence of the Mandler 1980 paper, and discussion in Ho et al. 2015, both suggest that the concept of a distinct sense of familiarity has been used in the cognitive sciences for decades. So I think there are probably things some much less technical things which could be said on the topic, but I can't particularly think of them. Dranorter (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)