Talk:Ideasthesia

Juxtoposition
I added an additional image showing grapheme with color and time unit-space union. Taric25 (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This image had a link to porn contexts. This is a sufficient reason to delete. There were also other problems. The content did not provide much additional information and pushed away relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.54.32 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See also, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Edhubbard (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Term
This term appears to be primarily from one person and they created this article. There is nothing on google books. I guess the question is, is this the same as "synesthesia" and should it thus be merged into that article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would thus propose a merge to there. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Evolution and Ideasthesia and Synesthesia
Ideasthesia and Synesthesia are Tested as neurological phenomena but are part of the Natural evolution of instinct, sensation, emotion, and mentation; our means for meaning... The effort to understand at this level of life's inducements, interactions and transformations can simplify or complicate observations of evolution...Arnlodg (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Kiki/Bouba effect
There was a statement in the article that said "it has been shown that the Bouba/Kiki phenomenon is a case of ideasthesia." The reference given requires payment to view the full article, however, the abstract gives no indication that an experiment was conducted to "show" that the effect is a result of connections at a cognitive level, rather than a synesthesic effect. Since it has been experimentally shown that young, pre-linguistic children demonstrate the effect, any claim that it results from ideasthesia will require extraordinary evidence. I changed the statement to read "it has been suggested that..."  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A theory of qualia? How exactly?
I have just added this tag to the 'ideasthesia as a theory of qualia'. In my reading of the section it makes the pretty grand claim that Ideathesia speaks volumes to the issue of qualia, but then does not sufficiently explain the way in which that is true. There is the claim that "experience is created by the process of activating the concept of that stimulus", but that only seems to raise more questions. How is a concept activated? What is the process? And most critically, how does this transform cognitive process into subjective experience? Some further fleshing out is needed here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Illustration not explained.
An image cited only as "the uploader's own work" (WP:OR?) bears the caption: "An example of time unit - space synesthesia/ideasthesia." Okay, but what is "time unit - space synesthesia/ideasthesia"? The article fails to provide that answer. An earlier comment above, Juxtaposition, mentions an illustrated example of this topic that was deleted because: "This image had a link to porn contexts." Is this the same image, reinserted?


 * To summarize, the image needs a source to prove it's a real example of the stated topic and isn't just a child's drawing utilizing color as a decorative element that may simulate the topic.


 * The article should cover the topic of "time unit - space synesthesia/ideasthesia" to support the image. If it cannot, remove the image.

Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

-- This should be fixed now [Danko Nikolic] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.217.197 (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Introductory definition
"Ideasthesia (alternative spelling ideaesthesia) is a neuroscientific phenomenon..."

I am replacing "neuroscientific" with "neuropsychological" for the following reason:

Neuroscientific means "pertaining to the discipline/domain of neuroscience". In that neuroscience is a term denoting a certain domain of activity - and explicitly denotes nothing other than that - it is not appropriate to use the adjective "neuroscientific" as if neuroscience were a actually a system of classifying phenomena falling under its purview. For that, one needs to identify a level (i.e., subdomain) of neuroscientific research in which ideasthesia is directly studied and theoretically conceptualized and thereby gets meaningfully classified. Ideasthesia is a phenomenon studied within the research subdomain of neuropsychology (i.e. is a subset of neuropsychology's spectrum of investigative foci), and so pertains to its spectrum.

If one were to apply the term "neuroscientific" as a valid classifier of phenomena pertaining to its domain of activity, then logically, its classifiable phenomena would be particular examples of activity that neuroscientists generally engage in or are accountable for, e.g. holding and attending symposia, conducting research projects, neuroscientific journals and writing papers for publication therein, labs created for research, fund-granting bodies, etc. Trusting my point and action is deemed reasonable. Elagabalicus (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)