Reply to comment

As we were discussing potentials this week, in particular action potentials, I was particularly interested in the many different receptors that our nervous system maintains to detect stimuli (e.g. light, temperature, gravity, etc.) and convert them into an electrochemical potential.  Further, I thought it was interesting that our nervous system may 'know' more stimuli than we are consciously aware of. 

Albeit awesome, in the most literal sense, the nervous system has limits, or so I gleaned from the discussion: our model of sensory reception seems to say that we can detect all stimuli for which we have receptors (proteins) that are made that detect those stimuli.  This circular construction reminds me of the adage of medical microbiology who insist that antibiotics kill only the bacteria that they can kill, and not new strains that evolve resistance to the antibiotics.  In this vein, I am curious about a few things of sensory reception:

1.  Could we, humans, in theory, have all of the receptor for 'all' stimuli.  Since we perceive and 'create' our world in our 'mind's eye', is this not a reasonable proposition?  If so, could the fact that some people are more sensitive , in a broad sense, not just an emotional one, than others be a product not of their bodies maintaining a wider array of receptors, but that the same receptors they have and others have just may be activated by different thresholds of stimulus?  For whatever reason, could it be that the individual differences in perception are only a product of our different thresholds of sensation?  I vaguely remember reading about the psychology of pain, and how a current model posits this idea of thresholds to explain why different people perceive pain differently.

2.  I'm a sap for evolution, so here goes my evolutionary tangent to all of this.  Assuming that the threshold model is void, or largely 'more wrong' than other models, and that differences in perception between individuals, and species, are due more to differences in the acquisition of different receptors, then I am curious as to how more standard models of phylogeny (i.e. 16S, or 18S) compare to those that measure the occurence of certain receptors (i.e. cannabinoid, opioid) in some species rather than others.  Does it put birds closer to us than other mammals, for instance?

3. Also, could the different 'doors of perception' to quote William Blake be a source of madness (e.g. schizophrenia)?  Could it be that those who many would perceive as 'abnormal' or outliers because they 'feel' and 'sense' things that others do not are in fact just suffering from having different receptors than others?  Could it be that some schizophrenic patients do in fact sense things that others do not?  There's no conclusive way to tell, at least not one that i can think of.  If this were deemed 'true' in some sense, wouldn't this align more closely with the Ancient Greeks' notion of madness as something divine and well-respected because they believed that one who was 'touched' (e.g. Oracle at Delphi) could give insight to the rest of us that we couldn't figure out for ourselves.

OR, could it be that those 'mad' individuals are just more evolutionarily 'advanced' than the rest of us.  In a certain sense, could they be smarter because they sense things most do not.  Certainly that's a thought i think some believe after hearing of accounts  of madness like John Nash's.

4.  Also, why stop at sensory receptors that we know about.  Could there be receptors for a certain kind of logic, intuition, or intellect?  Just  a thought.