In the age of naming, all facets of the name were understood. The speaking brought the essence to form.
Neuro- science is discovering much about how the brain handles sensory data and which sensory “modules” interface with others. They have identified some non-sensory functions from being able to study data relating to brain injury, and by performing experimental surgery on creatures whose brains are roughly analogous to our own. There are some things that are stumping them. From what I have seen so far is they are dismissing them as an “emergent” quality of the function of the brain.
What do they mean ’emergent?’ Incidental by-product of other concrete processes, data residue, like the notion we have of being free willed.
What about if it is functions of higher level awareness and not five senses? I will get into that, but they can’t find evidence in the brain for it. One example is deriving the qualia or subjective experience of what we call “pitch.” It’s what gives rise to perceptions like someone’s tone of voice. There is nothing concrete in the quality of sounds we hear when someone speaks that would let us distinguish the tone from any other incidental noise. It isn’t volume, not amplitude or frequency. What they theorize is that we derive perceptions of pitch from our ability to anticipate auditory shifts, not rhythm. It seems to be tied up, according to their research, in the processes we use to experience our notion of self.
Perhaps on a tangentially related note, the theory that autistics lack empathy, from a deficit in the neurons that allow it, is being discredited. There is no loss of the related neurons. They mirror others just fine. An alternate theory is that they mirror others too well, and struggle to distinguish self-awareness from observations of others. They do say it has something to do with the orderly nature of a sound, but how those sounds register between individuals is subjective. Noise to one is a muted, apparently single tone, to another.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.