- #1
fuzzyfelt
Gold Member
- 734
- 4
Following from the “Number Form” thread in GD, and also related to the “Synesthesia” thread in Medical Sciences, here-
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=400140
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=393977
there was a post with a link about a book named “Synesthesia in Art and Science”, and comments made.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=400140&page=10
Given ideas such as those mentioned by Ramachandran on page 456 in the link I gave in post 121 of the “Number Form Thread”, that they are moving away from other ideas, “perhaps to the idea we are all synesthetes to some extent”, and also taken from Dehaene’s speculation about versions of cross-modality, then such versions of cross-modality would be highly significant, particularly concerning aesthetics.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...nguage&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...page&q&f=false
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=400140
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=393977
there was a post with a link about a book named “Synesthesia in Art and Science”, and comments made.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=400140&page=10
Given ideas such as those mentioned by Ramachandran on page 456 in the link I gave in post 121 of the “Number Form Thread”, that they are moving away from other ideas, “perhaps to the idea we are all synesthetes to some extent”, and also taken from Dehaene’s speculation about versions of cross-modality, then such versions of cross-modality would be highly significant, particularly concerning aesthetics.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...nguage&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...page&q&f=false
Last edited: