Whats the deal with synethesia, the ability to taste/ smell words

They all taste it differently. So they dont taste the same shit

>>19306940
Even scientists don't really know why some people have synesthesia, how would some high school dropout on /x/?

I actually have synethesia myself. It manifests as visable "shockwaves" for sound. The shockwaves don't orriginate from the sound source though most of the time. It usually is more in line with a "flutter"of the edges of my vision. During the day when i have alot of audio stimulus it tends to be not perseptable to myself, but when it is dark and/or quiet, it can be rather dramatic and jarring for myself to have a sudden sound ( like the cat knocking over something or the neighbour slamming their door).

>>19306940
everyone has this to a degree.
maybe numbers or letters seem to have certain personalities?
maybe certain sounds are lighter or darker? higher or lower?
anyone else with a weird example?

>>19306940
I thought everyone could do this until I realised I'm the only one who associated tastes with words/sounds

>>19306940
That'd honestly be a cool disorder to have, at least for awhile
>tfw you'll never know what 5 tastes like
>tfw you'll never learn the scent of purple

>>19306984

I can see different coloured shapes associated with electronic sounds, kind of like a basic music visualizer

if there is a bass, drums and lead i can see all the sound shapes at once overlapping

Oh, I have this! For me, all noise, numbers, letters, words and personalities have a colour I can visualise. I don't have any of the cool ones like tasting sound or whatever :(

I have a really shitty variant of this condition, misophonia. Fear of sound.

Basically any sound I don't like activates an instant fight-or-flight response. Mostly fight. Babies and kids are my biggest trigger. I fucking. Hate. Children. Unfortunately, once my Hulk Rage gets activated it takes a long time for me to relax again. I don't go out without industrial earplugs to basically deafen myself.

I intuitively hear everything I see. It's a blessing and a curse. Mostly a curse, because society doesn't build things for people who can hear motion.

It's like having a superpower with a super weakness. Good for specific scenarios, bad for many other things in general.

File: 1500294280909.png (197KB, 500x591px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 500x591px

>>19307611
Ex gf had this. Seemed like a pretty shitty time considering how most people don't understand you have no control over it.

>>19307701
Yeah, it's more debilitating than people realize. And it's really hard to explain, as well. I get verbally abusive when I'm in an episode, and I'm constantly worried that one day I'll lose control and hurt someone.

>>19306984
That's less synesthesia and more a way your brain can better process and draw meaning from stimuli. People who aren't math oriented will sometimes assign "bad" or "good" to certain functions to better remember how they work (addition and multiplication being "good", subtraction and division being "bad").
If you've ever listened to a highschool chem teacher they'll sometimes ascribe feelings or conscious action to atoms and molecules that facilitate chemical reaction. It just makes it easier for the human brain to process before it grows accustomed to accepting how chemical reactions occur.
Synesthesia on the other hand is more like when one part of your brain tries to compensate for another part that's missing, even if it isn't. It's the same reason phantom limb exists or why people who go blind will naturally heighten their other senses over time. Just your brain rewiring, crossing over, and misconnecting.

Weird, I never come on /x/, though I should.
I wrote a paper about this in grad school a few years ago, here's the rough draft introduction (not sure where the final draft is anymore):

What is synaesthesia? The most mundane description—which we will expand on—of this apparently extraordinary condition is that it is a crossing of the senses where, as examples, a person can taste weight, hear colours, see words and numbers as three dimensional objects, etc. I have found that there are two general kinds of responses that people, who have not yet examined this phenomenon closely, immediately have when we begin to talk about this state: dismissive incredulity or cautious curiosity. The goal of this paper, besides to elucidate how it can be that synaesthesia is a factual characterization of a person’s mode of being, will be to account for that “eye-rolling” attitude that is so persistent. To do this, we must examine the facts about how we are in the world, which account for both synaesthesia and incredulous reactions to it. I will show that synesthetes, contrary to one dismissive line or reasoning (Cytowic and Eagleman 4), are not consciously inventing correlations between the senses in some arbitrary way; it is rather the case that they cannot help but take up the world the way that they do. In a not dissimilar way, the sceptics are not simply cynical, closed-minded ignorami—but rather; there is s legacy and a standardized way of being in our society, which I will discuss, that leads sceptics to interpret synaesthesia as itself being an interpretation. In the end, I will show that the relationship between sceptics and the synesthetes is indicative of a certain ambiguity that colours our reality—and that is not a bad thing.

>>19308878

(Here, have the conclusion, too 1/2)--

Some Concluding Remarks
This paper certainly has not exhausted the possibilities of analyzing the “McGurk Effect” while drawing from the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, but I do hope it has at least made some progress. The conceptual framework that has been argued for is that the facticity of our bodies necessitates that we pre-reflectively engage in a sketching out of generic meaning in the world and that our “sensory fields” are encapsulated in this bodily schema. At base all our sensory fields are a style of being-towards-the-world and are fundamentally united on this basis. Things in the world are perceived in an optimal articulation, in their most self-evident reality, through a pre-reflective habituation of an inter-sensory attitude. The possibility of this inter-sensory attitude to become habituated in this manner is made possible through the unity of the thing in the world, in which all its “qualities” are expressive of its essence and can come into communion with our orientation towards the world in which the thing can be perceived in its reality. And lastly, the act of focusing on any particular quality of a perceptible thing, in affect imposes a reductive screen, through which the essence of the thing is de-constructed and abstracted from its expressive totality.

>>19308883
(conclusion 2/2)
In the context of this phenomenological schema the “McGurk Effect” has been explored; hearing and sight have been made sense of as pre-reflectively participating in an inter-sensory union through which there is a movement towards the optimal perceptibility of the thing. It is on this basis that the perceptible “ba” and “fa” that appear in the “McGurk Effect” have been made sense of as distinct things revealed through our sensory orientation, rather than as an illusion which demonstrates that our senses can be deceived. The “effect” of the “McGurk Effect” has been made sense of as a sort of reductive screen in that the “objective” audibility of “ba” is conceptually superimposed onto the “fa” object and that this thus provides the basis for thinking of the “McGurk Effect” as a sort of illusion. The perceptual fluctuations made possible through the attitude of our inter-sensory orientation towards the “McGurk Effect” are made possible through the fragility of the perceptible “fa” which seems to have a relatively narrow range of optimal perceptibly and seems too rapidly transform as a result of a focusing on it while neglecting the “visual field”. One interesting aspect of the “McGurk Effect” that has not been addressed though seems directly relevant to the claims of this paper is how its two different variations should be made sense of in relation to one and other. In one case, the perceived “ba”, the heard sound appears in coherence with what the speaker’s mouth is “lip-syncing”. In the other case, the perceived “Dill”, is distinct from both the “objectively” audible and visual perceptions of it. Clarifying this seems like it would necessarily require a more subtle analysis of how the distinct things (ie. “ba” and “fa”) in the “McGurk Effect” become distinct and would likely result in a more subtle understanding of this phenomenon.

I have this with music, certain key signatures have "colours" that I picture in my head. The key of E is blue, A minor is orange, G is black or grey, D is green.

Also the whole "numbers have personalities" thing like 8 is happy, 9 is evil, really comes out when you do stuff like LSD. I think it's just some kind of confusion of stimuli on the senses.

>>19307593
I have it too. ask me anything.

>>19308596
Ever thought about permanently deafening yourself? I know that sounds extreme, but seriously, if sound caused me that much suffering, I know I would at least think about it sometimes.

I associate numbers and words and letters with colors and genders and personalities, but it doesn't benifit me at all. Just something I thought everyone did. It's not that fancy

>>19309979
What kind of music is the most fun to listen to?

Ive experienced this on psychedelics. Surfer rock has an aqua pink color that sweeps through the room like whisps of smoke

>>19306940

You can gradually acquire it. At least I did, to a lesser extent. Only saw sound-to-vision once, sight-to-smell was my most common experience. Not sure of any others, though these "abilities" faded. It could be fun to attempt to get them back again.

>>19306961
I dropped out of my mother's womb that's why I home this baord.

>>19306984
i swear every time i hear Another One Bites The Dust it sounds purple