Although some consider these modalities [ synaestheia] abnormal, it is more likely that these examples demonstrate the contextual and socially learned nature of sensation...
What is considered a strange blurring of sensation from one perspective, is a normal and 'natural' way of perception of the world in another, and indeed many individuals and their cultures develop sensoria fundamentally different from the vision-centric modality of most Western science and culture.
This sounds like psycho-babble nonsense, and quite distinct from most of what mainstream science has to say.
Any defenders, before I elide this?
Guess you decided not to elide it as your comment is a few years stale now, but for future comers, I think it is more than defensible. Note that of course it is against mainstream science in the West, which is not free from culture-bound notions of what appropriate sensoria consist of. The content you cite mentions this. Regardless, I think the cutting edge of both perceptual and neurological research supports these notions. You can particularly find suggestive research on infants. Finally, and most importantly, do not so easily dismiss those in other disciplines and their perspectives...at least in anthropology and ecology, these represent reasonable views about the development of perception in humans. Furthermore, there is evidence that for those who are not scientists in the West, these views reflect their sense of the world. Unless one wants to dismiss willy-nilly anyone whose experiences do not mesh with one's own, I think elision in this case would be regretable indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)