Enhanced senses when one is weaker

[3____344340095e33-2]

Many papers are published claiming if one sense is weaker due to a disability than the other senses of the brain compensate.  If a person is blind they have better hearing.  This is what every mother tells her disabled child and so I was told it, too, as I was born blind.  You scientists have even published it in peer-reviewed journal and it's so simple to test that you are all lying or insanely manipulating the truth.

Test: throw a ball into a park with trees, a soccer ball, close your eyes, and try to find it after it's settled.  Not a single other sense other than visual will ever help you with this kind of problem.  No matter if you were born blind or became blind or had an eye disease.  I have tried this test at the age of 39, figuring I have better hearing than others and I couldn't find the ball.  But my friend with good eyes found it within 5 seconds.  I could have spent a full 24 hours searching with some logic the park and would have found it.

If you scientists have lied successfully about something this basic, and even mothers repeat it to us blind sons, then what else are you all lying about?  Can someone explain this to me?  If you don't believe me... try this.  Close your eyes for a week and train your ears.  Guess what?  You'll have the same hearing as a blind man except he can't train his eyes.

The brain absolutely does not compensate with any senses for a missing or damaged sense.  This is a folklore that people pass around to comfort those whom are disabled and it is quite an abusive strategy of comforting.  Please cease and dissist this manipulation and start publishing the truth already.  I can't even see any letters that I have just typed nor this vrey sentence.

[Strange]

 

1 hour ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

Test: throw a ball into a park with trees, a soccer ball, close your eyes, and try to find it after it's settled.

That is not a test of hearing (or whatever) being slightly better. You have chosen a task that is pretty much impossible without sight. 

That is not the same as some sense compensating for the lack of others. If such a thing happens: you haven't provided any references.

As a counter example: 

 

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

Test: throw a ball into a park with trees, a soccer ball, close your eyes, and try to find it after it's settled.  Not a single other sense other than visual will ever help you with this kind of problem.

As you say; not even superhuman hearing would help here.

So it's not a valid test.

A better test would  be so see if you can discriminate sounds better than your friend with good vision.

 

Having said that, there is some truth in what you say.
The best known example of the idea of blind children having better hearing was to get a person in a dark room to point to the source of a sound- say a bell- as it was moved round the room.

The expected response was that blind people would do this more accurately than those who could see.
It turned out that the blind  volunteers did slightly worse than the sighted ones (remember, this experiment is done in a dark room- sight couldn't help).

It's assumed that the blind people didn't have the same opportunity to practice linking sound to location.

But, in many cases- blind piano tuners are the folk-lore version-  people do compensate and there are functional MRI scanning experiments that show that blind people use the parts of the brain usually reserved for vision  to process auditory data.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173064

[Roamer]

6 hours ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

Many papers are published claiming if one sense is weaker due to a disability than the other senses of the brain compensate.

Compensation would mean the senses even out, and this is simply not true, what ís true is that braincells asssigned on handling a sense that no (longer) works get reassigned to helping out with another sense or brainfunction,

this does not mean the other senses become so much better that your senses together get on par with the senses of someone who has all senses.

[TakenItSeriously]

On 11/26/2017 at 3:45 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

Many papers are published claiming if one sense is weaker due to a disability than the other senses of the brain compensate.  If a person is blind they have better hearing.  This is what every mother tells her disabled child and so I was told it, too, as I was born blind.  You scientists have even published it in peer-reviewed journal and it's so simple to test that you are all lying or insanely manipulating the truth.

Test: throw a ball into a park with trees, a soccer ball, close your eyes, and try to find it after it's settled.  Not a single other sense other than visual will ever help you with this kind of problem.  No matter if you were born blind or became blind or had an eye disease.  I have tried this test at the age of 39, figuring I have better hearing than others and I couldn't find the ball.  But my friend with good eyes found it within 5 seconds.  I could have spent a full 24 hours searching with some logic the park and would have found it.

If you scientists have lied successfully about something this basic, and even mothers repeat it to us blind sons, then what else are you all lying about?  Can someone explain this to me?  If you don't believe me... try this.  Close your eyes for a week and train your ears.  Guess what?  You'll have the same hearing as a blind man except he can't train his eyes.

The brain absolutely does not compensate with any senses for a missing or damaged sense.  This is a folklore that people pass around to comfort those whom are disabled and it is quite an abusive strategy of comforting.  Please cease and dissist this manipulation and start publishing the truth already.  I can't even see any letters that I have just typed nor this vrey sentence.

I’m not a scientist but I do believe in science, but just not absolutely which I think is a mistake from any point of view.

It’s probably due to their being trained to believe only in the evidence that they can record which sounds good in theory but can cause them to sometimes overlook the obvious, but that’s just a guess on my part.

I tend to hear absurd expectations from many in these forums like I’m supposed to run out and buy some satelite time which I thought was a scientist being facetious until I realized most aren’t scientists but kind of avid followers of science like myself, though I never liked the term follower.

That’s because I have a thing about objective logic which is just the way my mind works. So I have to logically attack a problrm based on the evidence thats available and rethink my possible solutions  until I can finally see a reasonable solution that doesnt just fit the evidence, but makse a lot of sense given the evidence.

So as to be clear, this is just my opinion based on my own experimental experiences of closing my eyes and walking around and my use of objective logic to find a reaason that fits with the evidence and my experience.

But in my opinion, I would agree with the OP and say that our senses don’t suddenly become more acute as if we are experiencing evolution in realtime. But it’s far more likely that we are adjusting the acuteness of our focus on the remaining senses.in order to hear far more then we could with say when wearing earbuds playing music. 

I would even speculate that our brain becomes better at interpreting what our senses are telling us in order to adapt to our situation.

But thats just a laypersons point of view.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by TakenItSeriously