Can Science Measure Sensations?

[Kumar]

Hello all,

The folowing quote gives differant classification of our senses:-

Senses Distinquished by Aristotle --

Vision
Hearing
Smell
Taste
Touch


Senses Distinquished by Sherrington (Functional)

Teleceptors
Exteroceptors
Interoceptors
Proprioceptors


Anatomical Classification

Special senses (Receptors or end organs in the head) Vision Hearing Taste Smell Vestibular (equilibrium)

Skin senses (Receptors or end organs in the skin) Touch, pressure Temperature Pain

Visceral senses (Receptors or end organs in the internal organs) stomach
bladder
Throat

Deep senses (Receptors or end organs in muscles, and so forth; also called kinesthesis, meaning sensitivity to body move- ments) Muscles (stretch):Tendons (contraction)
Joints (prerssure changes)

http://online.sfsu.edu/~psych200/unit6/61.htm

We may also be having some recognizable & other not recognizable sensations within our brain's capacity, eg; IR/UV rays or non-visble wave-lengths etc. We should be interacting with both types & getting some effects & results.

Now, I want to know;

Whether, science can measure interactions, effects & results of minute to deep sensations through our sense organs?

Eg; suppose, we see any colour, sense some smell, hear some sound, feel some pain/temp. or taste something etc.. Can science measure these sensations & tell, what exactly we have sensed & results thereof?

What about non-recognizable sensations? Can science measure our interactions with these?

You may also add;

Whether our thoughts, imaginations, dreams etc. are measurable or not?

All the measurements should be without asking anything from the related person.

Rest is same.

Best wishes.

 

[Mercutio]

All the measurements should be without asking anything from the related person.

That's gonna make things a bit difficult, given that such private events (not "mental", but "private") are observable only to them. The science of Psychophysics does everything you ask in your OP, except to measure "without asking anything from the related person". But we can, through the approach of signal detection theory, measure sensitivity, bias, absolute and relative thresholds, in a process in which the subject is blind to crucial manipulations. (for instance, in determining sensitivity to differences in brightness or hue, some trials will ask you to choose which is brighter when one is slightly brighter, some will ask you to choose which is brighter when they are in fact the same brightness. This way we can tease a part sensitivity from a bias to choose the first or second stimulus. This is but one very simple example; there are elegant methodologies by which more can be know.) If we need, of course, we can also have the experimenter blind to conditions.

But of course, it cannot be done without asking the perceiving person, so the parameters of your request preclude you from getting an adequate answer. Fortunately, the parameter which is the sticking point is not a useful objection, so psychophysics does a fine job anyway.

 

[Kumar]

Psychophysics is concerned with describing how an organism uses its sensory systems to detect events in its environment. This description is functional, because the processes of the sensory systems are of interest, rather than their structure (physiology). One psychophysical theory, the Theory of Signal Detectability (TSD), uses a combination of statistical decision theory and the concept of the ideal observer to model an observer's sensitivity to events in its environment. TSD is stimulus-oriented, because properties of the stimuli are used to determine the theoretically best, or ideal, observer for a given detection task. This observer may then be used to compare the performance of human, and other, observers. For instance, the ability of humans to detect simple acoustic waveforms can be modeled as a linear system consisting of a filter, rectifier, integrator, and sampler.
http://www.psychophysics.org/

Mercutio,

Welcome & thanks for indicating technical name & its definition. I could get above quoted definition.

Do all these tell that psychophysics may get some indiations without asking the perceiving person(i think alike lie detector) but can't know, what exactly is in mind/brain? In other sense, psychophysics(or any other science) can't decode/copy/translate, what is in our memory. Science is still dependant or mostly dependant on 'asking the perceiving person' for the same.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Mercutio,

Welcome & thanks for indicating technical name & its definition. I could get above quoted definition.

Do all these tell that psychophysics may get some indiations without asking the perceiving person(i think alike lie detector) but can't know, what exactly is in mind/brain? In other sense, psychophysics(or any other science) can't decode/copy/translate, what is in our memory. Science is still dependant or mostly dependant on 'asking the perceiving person' for the same.

We have to measure what an organism remembers and with people it's easiest to ask them. Other tests are needed when measuring the memory of a rat, pigeon or planarian.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio,

Welcome & thanks for indicating technical name & its definition. I could get above quoted definition.

Not bad as a one-paragraph definition. To fully understand that definition, though, I think you might need a pretty substantial textbook or several.

Do all these tell that psychophysics may get some indiations without asking the perceiving person(i think alike lie detector) but can't know, what exactly is in mind/brain? In other sense, psychophysics(or any other science) can't decode/copy/translate, what is in our memory. Science is still dependant or mostly dependant on 'asking the perceiving person' for the same.

Note that your definition mentioned that this is a functional, rather than a structural, investigation--as such, "what exactly is in mind/brain" is defined functionally, by the behavior (verbal or otherwise) of the subject rather than by some experiential deal. As Jeff mentions, there are other behavioral measures of memory or response to stimuli which do not rely on verbal behavior...but frankly, the same "problem" arises--if we are looking, say, at response generalization or discrimination to a classically conditioned stimulus, we are still looking to the behavior of the organism for our answer. The only difference is that it is not the verbal behavior, and frankly, that is trivial.

Your requirement that we do not use the response of the organism in assessing its perception is a bit like asking us to do astronomy without actually looking at stars, or geology without actually examining rocks. I am curious as to why you make that a condition of your question. The question is about a behaving organism, and yet you will require us to avoid looking at the behavior of the organism in answering?

 

[Donks]

Kumar, since all your topics miraculously end up in the same topic, I'll take a wild guess:
Are you asking this to see if science could miss the effects of homeopathy/TRS because it has a weakness/misses in measuring the senses?

 

[gnome]

I think you may be asking if science can measure the subjective...

Measure, may be too strong of a word. Test? Yes indeed. That is precisely what a double-blind test is designed for.

 

[rppa]

Science can certainly measure the results of sensory input on the brain. When animals are involved, science can measure the brain processing in great detail. Society frowns on doing such invasive tests on humans, so most of what we know about processing in the brain comes from non-invasive, less-detailed measurements such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET).

 

[T'ai Chi]

We have to measure what an organism remembers and with people it's easiest to ask them.

How can you be sure the people aren't lying?

 

[Jeff Corey]

How can you be sure the people aren't lying?

We can't. If you are in a memory experiment and are asked to memorize a series of items and are tested at a later time, you could always fake forgetting all of them.
Most people in these experiments are motivated to do their best and not to look stupid.
With other animals, it's a bit clearer because they are usually motivated by the lack of food.

 

[Donks]

With other animals, it's a bit clearer because they are usually motivated by the lack of food.

With lab mice, World Domination is also a good incentive.

 

[Jeff Corey]

With lab mice, World Domination is also a good incentive.

That's why they are unsuitable for behavioral studies. You can't very well dole out a bit of World Domination at a time for each appropriate behavior.
Besides, they make fine zylophones.

 

[T'ai Chi]

We can't. If you are in a memory experiment and are asked to memorize a series of items and are tested at a later time, you could always fake forgetting all of them.

Since one can't rule out deception, I'd view the results of said experiments with a lot of skepticism.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Since one can't rule out deception, I'd view the results of said experiments with a lot of skepticism.

Well, there has been over a century of repeatable results in memory research and there is no reason to suspect any significant effect of deception as a confounding variable, since the subjects are unaware of the independent variable(s) being studied.
And as I said before, the subjects are generally motivated to do as well as they can.

 

[gnome]

Since one can't rule out deception, I'd view the results of said experiments with a lot of skepticism.

In a properly blinded test, "deception" is reduced, if not impossible. The person cannot skew the results to a desired outcome if they do not know which response gives that outcome.

The only way I can think that deception could be a factor is by randomly choosing a response, in which case with a sufficient sample these will simply wash out in favor of the ones that were sincere.

 

[Kumar]

Not bad as a one-paragraph definition. To fully understand that definition, though, I think you might need a pretty substantial textbook or several.
Note that your definition mentioned that this is a functional, rather than a structural, investigation--as such, "what exactly is in mind/brain" is defined functionally, by the behavior (verbal or otherwise) of the subject rather than by some experiential deal. As Jeff mentions, there are other behavioral measures of memory or response to stimuli which do not rely on verbal behavior...but frankly, the same "problem" arises--if we are looking, say, at response generalization or discrimination to a classically conditioned stimulus, we are still looking to the behavior of the organism for our answer. The only difference is that it is not the verbal behavior, and frankly, that is trivial.

Your requirement that we do not use the response of the organism in assessing its perception is a bit like asking us to do astronomy without actually looking at stars, or geology without actually examining rocks. I am curious as to why you make that a condition of your question. The question is about a behaving organism, and yet you will require us to avoid looking at the behavior of the organism in answering? [/B]

It means, when we conduct any test to measure effects of any medicine, physical effects can be measured but mental effects can't be measured without verbal response of the organism. Why it is functional? Whether some chemical reactions & changes on atomic/molecular levels, do not occur in brain on application of any sensation & in memorizing it & storing this information?

 

[Kumar]

Kumar, since all your topics miraculously end up in the same topic, I'll take a wild guess:
Are you asking this to see if science could miss the effects of homeopathy/TRS because it has a weakness/misses in measuring the senses?

You have indicated a good point for these discussions. It is thought that potentised remedies work via nervous system & if we can't measure sensations, structurally but just depend on verbal response/survey of patients, it is there in tons in homeopathic clinics. So interpreted/thought as placebo effect, can also be mistaken due to this weakness.

 

[Kumar]

Science can certainly measure the results of sensory input on the brain. When animals are involved, science can measure the brain processing in great detail. Society frowns on doing such invasive tests on humans, so most of what we know about processing in the brain comes from non-invasive, less-detailed measurements such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET).

Are there any atomic/molecular changes in brain on getting, processing & memorizing/storing any sensation? Do you have any idea that, if effects of so thought as 'energy based healings' as homeopathy, were ever measuted on animals in line of tests as you indicated above? Can these invasive tests measure, every processing in brain--getting, processing & storing any sensation?

 

[Donks]

You have indicated a good point for these discussions. It is thought that potentised remedies work via nervous system & if we can't measure sensations, structurally but just depend on verbal response/survey of patients, it is there in tons in homeopathic clinics. So interpreted/thought as placebo effect, can also be mistaken due to this weakness.

I knew it...

No.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Well, there has been over a century of repeatable results in memory research and there is no reason to suspect any significant effect of deception as a confounding variable, since the subjects are unaware of the independent variable(s) being studied.

My point is that in that field one still cannot be certain people aren't lying or being deceptive, so there is room for doubt.