Philosophy Now Forum

Has it ever happened in a species where one sense switched with another, e.g. switching the sense of smell with the sense of taste?

PhilX

As far as I know, primates (like us) are the only animals who taste with their tongues. Most other mammals taste with their noses.
Snakes and lizards smell with their tongues. Who knows if any of their ancestors had it reversed? I'm not sure archeology can tell us that.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:43 pm As far as I know, primates (like us) are the only animals who taste with their tongues. Most other mammals taste with their noses.
Snakes and lizards smell with their tongues. Who knows if any of their ancestors had it reversed? I'm not sure archeology can tell us that.

Perhaps our (primate's?) taste sense (which is very much alive in our noses) fell to such a low level that augmentation via tongue was a benefit. Do you know if any primates have a good smell sense, say anywhere in league with a dog? I'm hardly an expert here. A dog is perhaps an unreasonable standard to reach.

As for the OP, the obvious example is seeing with one's ears such as dolphins and bats (and yes, humans) do. They have blind people get around with echolocation. Plenty do it with sounds they make themselves with tongue, fingers, or striking objects but it helps to have a little pulse generator. Doesn't help with reading the writing on the wall.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:49 pm Has it ever happened in a species where one sense switched with another, e.g. switching the sense of smell with the sense of taste?
PhilX

Why switch? Those two senses probably diverged from a single set of sensory receptors: both smell and taste receptors detect the concentration of chemicals, in air, in liquid and in solid foods. In all species with a complex brain, they still overlap. Taste buds - number and specialization - vary in mammals, according to their dietary needs - ie dogs have similar taste-buds to humans, but far fewer, while their sense of smell takes up a lot more of their nervous system; cats have poorly developed sweet sensors, because they're obligate carnivores; raccoons and pigs have diverse taste sensations, mush like ours, because they're also omnivores. Most species sniff unfamiliar potential food-stuffs before putting it in their mouth: an obvious precaution against toxins, spoilage or contamination. If the smell is particularly potent, even humans, with their atrophied olfactory sense, can literally taste the offending chemical on their soft palate. Familiar foods, we can all readily smell whether it's fresh and wholesome, or there is something wrong with it.

Skip wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:11 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:49 pm Has it ever happened in a species where one sense switched with another, e.g. switching the sense of smell with the sense of taste?
PhilX

Why switch? Those two senses probably diverged from a single set of sensory receptors: both smell and taste receptors detect the concentration of chemicals, in air, in liquid and in solid foods. In all species with a complex brain, they still overlap. Taste buds - number and specialization - vary in mammals, according to their dietary needs - ie dogs have similar taste-buds to humans, but far fewer, while their sense of smell takes up a lot more of their nervous system; cats have poorly developed sweet sensors, because they're obligate carnivores; raccoons and pigs have diverse taste sensations, mush like ours, because they're also omnivores. Most species sniff unfamiliar potential food-stuffs before putting it in their mouth: an obvious precaution against toxins, spoilage or contamination. If the smell is particularly potent, even humans, with their atrophied olfactory sense, can literally taste the offending chemical on their soft palate. Familiar foods, we can all readily smell whether it's fresh and wholesome, or there is something wrong with it.

Why switch isn't an important question to me.

Synesthesia is related to my OP. I think it's possible for one sense to take the place of another in evolution which I'm exploring. I can be wrong so I'm checking to see.

PhilX

I suspect synesthesia is not a function of the sensory organs, but of some cross-connections in the neural network. No idea whether any other species has this facility - obviously, we can't ask a dolphin how February sounds, or what colour the number 6 is (a quiet thrumming alternating A and G; dark, clear burgundy) . In evolution, it's easier to trace divergences, since life started out with no distinct sensory organs; primitive feedback mechanisms grew into more accurate receptors, as more information was required from increasingly complex environmental conditions. The more specialized organs become, the less they are capable of adapting to different uses. However, the brain is still both extremely versatile and interconnected, so the processing and interpretive functions can extrapolate information about one aspect of the environment from input about the other aspects. The brain makes patterns from all the information it can get and fills in the blanks (with conjecture, projections and guesses - sometimes wrong ones).

Hi philosophy explorer.

I know that people who take some psychedelics can " see the sounds and hear the color" and this is due to synestesia like u all seems to know. but i also read that synestesia could occur while deep concentration or méditation.

I once experienced a meditation when i was so focus that i could "see" some images of what i was thinking, like when you read a book and try to represent yourself the situation in your mind, like a dream but less powerful. I guess it's a kind of synestesia.

I also read that people with asperger syndrome, who can achieve really amazing cognitve process, see mathematics like images. For instance, they could see the number 4 represented by a house or something else and so their calculations become like a fusions of multiples images which itself represent the solution. may be these people have an extreme ability to focus and meditate on it.

I think we can relate this to evolution as a rare ability to volontary use synestesia to help solve problems which can, if useful, make animals more likely to survive. Especially since our ancestors didn't have languages like us to" help" them to think. It makes me wonder if by creating language as a tool of communications we may have forgotten the best tool for thinking.