Do You Experience Number Forms ?

[WiFO215]

Does this mean 1 week = 7 boxes? Therefore each box = 1 day? Or something else?

Also, you said the boxes were thin. Can you estimate a ratio of height to length? Is the longer dimension horizontal or vertical?

I get the fact there is an involuntary grouping by seven that seems to serve no purpose, but I am trying to imagine what an individual group or box looks like and what's in it. Like, I'm asking myself: "Is one 'box' a tall, skinny column of seven consecutive numbers stacked on top of each other"?

The boxes are tall and thin, but I cannot measure the dimensions of the box no matter how good your scale is. It's somewhat fuzzy and that's all I can say. If you look at the numbers, I can tell you that 200 is "above" the 100 line of boxes and 800 is also "above" the 200 line. But this isn't any sort of above or below that you can see on a day to day basis. It isn't like you look up and see 800. There is just an obvious sense of 800 "below" 1000. This sense of above and below also fuzzes out after a certain number range. For "large numbers" (~million) I can't see anything. I can "zoom in" and do the math here, i.e. if the addition to large number is in the non-fuzzy region. I can just forget the million and "bring back" the boxes.

I've used a lot of quotes above, but all those words in quotes aren't what they mean generally. I'm just hoping I don't sound like a bloody fool, but this is the best I can explain this stuff. In a previous post, I added there was no above and below. I meant that there wasn't an above and below in a 'local' region.

 

[croesoswallt]

I'm interested to know how those who don't consider themselves to have numberforms manage to perceive abstract concepts.

I wonder if you could elucidate the degree of "realness" these things have.

This is a significant point, the forms seem possibly more real than anything I see with my eyes, yet their physicality is incomprehensible. How real are they for others?

How do those of you who consider yourselves to not have these forms perceive of say, the time of day? If someone says I'll meet you at 7:30 pm I imagine a time darkening with the day and somewhere high above my head, the morning is situated within my belly. Does a non-numberform-experiencer just see a clock? If so, that clock must be situated somewhere in relation to the personage surely? Or is it within?

I do have a strong feeling however that these forms are at learned at a very young age while the mind is still developing and is less inclined to attribute beliefs and reasonings to the world, however certain people are more susceptible to it, full blown synesthetes being the extreme end. The numbers, for example, may be grouped in a way that they were learned. 1-10 were learned together first, then the concepts of 11 and 12 are introduced, then the incline towards 20 is brought to our awareness, then the patterns which seem to be perceived in accordance with the 20s, 30s, 40s etc. are similar as their relation to one another required a similar teaching method.

The most information you're going to find is most likely in the book Wednesday is Indigo Blue. Amazon has it. I'm reading it now and the authors pay a good amount of attention to number forms.

I shall be purchasing it, sounds like a good read.

I have a friend who also experiences forms, he also has perfect pitch which he attributes partially to colour associations with notes. I'll link him to the thread and see if he wants to pop in and discuss it.

 

[croesoswallt]

The boxes are tall and thin, but I cannot measure the dimensions of the box no matter how good your scale is. It's somewhat fuzzy and that's all I can say. If you look at the numbers, I can tell you that 200 is "above" the 100 line of boxes and 800 is also "above" the 200 line. But this isn't any sort of above or below that you can see on a day to day basis. It isn't like you look up and see 800. There is just an obvious sense of 800 "below" 1000. This sense of above and below also fuzzes out after a certain number range. For "large numbers" (~million) I can't see anything. I can "zoom in" and do the math here, i.e. if the addition to large number is in the non-fuzzy region. I can just forget the million and "bring back" the boxes.

This is a great description, when I try and map out physically the shape of numbers or anything it doesn't seem accurate, it can only be experienced in it's fullest and most clear form in very temporary, unintended moments. Thinking about numbers will instantly draw up a form, but if one begins to consider the form itself, it disappears, or at least becomes a corruption of itself?

So is it safe to say you also experience a 'fourth dimensional' element to these forms? A within-ness and a point in space being simultaneously in two places?

 

[croesoswallt]

Forms for a keyboard and beginnings of number system I just drew up.

 

[rhody]

This is a general comment to all contributing in this thread, the subject of synesthesia and in particular "Number Forms" whether experienced as a synesthestic (by Cytowic's current definition) or in general, without obvious external stimulus. I believe there is much to be learned from observation and rigorous scientific experiment by experts, we are just scratching the surface, even in the face of everyone's ineffable and incongruous experience, unique to each individual.

Would anyone out there care to venture an educated guess as to the nature of what that might be ? A new underlying principle in agreement with or perhaps shattering to the agreed upon definition and validation of quantum mechanics as we know it ?

From the descriptions expressed of Number Forms it seems (to me at least) that there is some inscrutable (for the moment hehe) principle at work.

Rhody...

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm interested to know how those who don't consider themselves to have numberforms manage to perceive abstract concepts.

This is a good question. I can't speak for anyone else but in my case I "perceive" concepts because they are automatically hooked directly to an emotion. In most cases these "emotions" are subtle, barely consciously perceived.

I experience nothing "sensory", nothing visual, tactile, auditory, gustatory, nothing involving any of the normal senses. There are no charts, no visuals, no positions in space, no sense of motion. Wednesday is distinguised from Thursday in my mind primarily by the extremely slightly different emotional reaction I have to it.

If you ask, I can free associate on the concept "Wednesday", and a huge archive of memory snatches will come up that are attached to Wednesday, per se; as a day of the week. When I casually think of Wednesday, what I'm doing is lightly grazing the tip of that archival iceberg, and a small distinguishing emotion is felt.

The same goes for numbers, months, letter of the alphabet, all that: they evoke a very subtle emotional reaction which is the tip of the iceberg of the number, month, letter of the alphabet "archive" of the memories I have that are associated with it.

It's not completely accurate to say this isn't "sensory" because emotions obviously cause physical sensations, but these sensations are peculiar to "emotion" for me and don't involve anything I can identify as a normal "sense". They are "feelings" in my torso. I suspect they indicate changes in blood flow, breathing, muscle tension, etc.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is a significant point, the forms seem possibly more real than anything I see with my eyes, yet their physicality is incomprehensible. How real are they for others?

That's the thing: I can't tell. It's been impossible for me to get a feel for the degree of sensory vividness attached. 100% vivid would mean there is no difference between it and reality. The schizophrenic who lives in my building says the voices he hears are 100% vivid: no different than the way my voice sounds to him. Same thing with people who have musical hallucinations. When they start having them they assume without question the source is a radio or CD player someone left on, and they spend a lot of time trying to find where the hell it is: 100% vivid.

Number forms and synesthetic experiences rarely seem 100% vivid from the descriptions, so I have a hard time grasping what the experience is like.

My other response may help synesthetes understand what isn't understood, although other non-synesthetes should try to describe their manner of mentally dealing with concepts as well. I have no idea if I'm typical.

I do have a strong feeling however that these forms are at learned at a very young age while the mind is still developing and is less inclined to attribute beliefs and reasonings to the world, however certain people are more susceptible to it, full blown synesthetes being the extreme end. The numbers, for example, may be grouped in a way that they were learned. 1-10 were learned together first, then the concepts of 11 and 12 are introduced, then the incline towards 20 is brought to our awareness, then the patterns which seem to be perceived in accordance with the 20s, 30s, 40s etc. are similar as their relation to one another required a similar teaching method.

One hypothesis is that we're born with all senses linked and experience multimodal synesthesia up to about six months of age. As we develop the connections are pruned back. Synesthetes would represent people whose connections became fixed before they were pruned to the "norm". This makes sense, (but it's just a hypothesis at this point).

I have a friend who also experiences forms, he also has perfect pitch which he attributes partially to colour associations with notes. I'll link him to the thread and see if he wants to pop in and discuss it.

That'd be nice.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Forms for a keyboard and beginnings of number system I just drew up.

I can't help but notice quite a few of the tones have the same color. Then Gb and F# are the same, but Eb and D# are as opposite as possible: complimentary colors. Also F has alternate colors? Are these the colors of keys or of notes?

Your number line is mysteriously bifurcated at the start, from 1 -12. 10 exists on an anomalous connecting "rung". What's that about?

 

[zoobyshoe]

The boxes are tall and thin, but I cannot measure the dimensions of the box no matter how good your scale is. It's somewhat fuzzy and that's all I can say. If you look at the numbers, I can tell you that 200 is "above" the 100 line of boxes and 800 is also "above" the 200 line. But this isn't any sort of above or below that you can see on a day to day basis. It isn't like you look up and see 800. There is just an obvious sense of 800 "below" 1000. This sense of above and below also fuzzes out after a certain number range. For "large numbers" (~million) I can't see anything. I can "zoom in" and do the math here, i.e. if the addition to large number is in the non-fuzzy region. I can just forget the million and "bring back" the boxes.

I've used a lot of quotes above, but all those words in quotes aren't what they mean generally. I'm just hoping I don't sound like a bloody fool, but this is the best I can explain this stuff. In a previous post, I added there was no above and below. I meant that there wasn't an above and below in a 'local' region.

This may or may not help you to describe some of this:

There is a sense you have that you may not know you have, which is called "proprioception". This is like the sense of touch (pressure sense) except it is internal, and it is sometimes characterized as the "internal sense of touch", but the very important function it serves is to tell you where your body parts are located relative to each other. It is, somewhat more accurately, the "sense of body position".

You can prove you have it by closing your eyes and "feeling" the position of your body. You should be able to describe the position of every limb, finger, toe, everything, without having to look and see where they are. You can move any limb and immediately know the new position, again without having to look. With your eyes closed you can assume any posture you want, put your arms straight out to the side, or straight up, or straight out in front of you, or bent at the elbow, and you will always know where they are without having to look at them. You can just "feel" where they are.

The reason I'm explaining that is because I'm wondering to what extent any of the "above" or "below" relationships of any of the numbers in your number form seem to be "sensed" via proprioception.

 

[croesoswallt]

I experience nothing "sensory", nothing visual, tactile, auditory, gustatory, nothing involving any of the normal senses. There are no charts, no visuals, no positions in space, no sense of motion. Wednesday is distinguised from Thursday in my mind primarily by the extremely slightly different emotional reaction I have to it.

If you ask, I can free associate on the concept "Wednesday", and a huge archive of memory snatches will come up that are attached to Wednesday, per se; as a day of the week. When I casually think of Wednesday, what I'm doing is lightly grazing the tip of that archival iceberg, and a small distinguishing emotion is felt.

The same goes for numbers, months, letter of the alphabet, all that: they evoke a very subtle emotional reaction which is the tip of the iceberg of the number, month, letter of the alphabet "archive" of the memories I have that are associated with it.

I imagine that most if not all people will experience these 'memory snatches' you describe so well. I suggest they are an indication of the internalization process we all go through at a young age. Relating this to what you said about infantile multimodal synesthesia, I think it is reasonable to suggest that synesthesia is developed in order that those who struggle more with abstract concepts create a system to help them understand. So maybe the more elaborate a synesthete's graphemes are, the harder they initially found it to grasp abstract concepts. Could this possibly relate to autism?

On the other end of the scale and your 'minimalistic' emotional responses, I think that these are probably universal but for a synesthete these responses are expanded to encompass something spatial or chromatic. There could well be people who have absolutely no method or association of which to speak, whose weeks and months are instantly processed without any perceivable 'middle-man' of emotional response or numberforms. Could this also be related to autism?

What I'm digging at is the possibility of a synesthesia scale on which everyone is placed in accordance with the level of ordering they use for addressing abstract concepts.

 

[croesoswallt]

I can't help but notice quite a few of the tones have the same color. Then Gb and F# are the same, but Eb and D# are as opposite as possible: complimentary colors. Also F has alternate colors? Are these the colors of keys or of notes?

This is partly due to the limitations of my understanding of customising colours on paint (!) but indeed I see a lot of green, though they are all different shades (Eb is mintier, G is deep foresty). I don't know how far your theoretical music knowledge extends but the accidentals (sharps and flats) are referred to as being enharmonic, they sound the same (theoretically) but their name and role is dependant on whether you're in a sharp or flat key. For this reason, I think of a different colour for most of the enharmonic accidentals, depsite their sounding exactly the same when isolated.

Gb and F# both act as the turning point in the cycle of fifths (cycle of keys), neither is often used and they are interchangable as reading them is equally challenging - they both have 6 of their respective accidentals. I think that my mind has come to use grey to represent the ambiguity and equality of that note.

These colours represent both the feel of individual notes and keys I associate with them. When i think of the note C in the key of F or G it is yellow, but when It will be slightly tainted with the colour of the key it is appearing in. F seems both green and orangey red, and maybe a brown colour between the two. I could choose a secondary colour for several notes, F just happens to be one I'm more undecided on.

Your number line is mysteriously bifurcated at the start, from 1 -12. 10 exists on an anomalous connecting "rung". What's that about?

This bifurcation is representative of a sense of movement, but perhaps more importantly it is a poor visual representation of the dual nature of that line of numbers. 1-10 seems to be traveling in two different directions simultaneously, but ending at the same point which is after 12. The rung at 10 is a 'cap' of sorts, an important milestone where the diverging pathways come together, yet they are still not totally reunited until 13. 11 and 12 roll into one number, they share a similar character. Hard to explain! I'd ideally draw a few more double helixes.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think it is reasonable to suggest that synesthesia is developed in order that those who struggle more with abstract concepts create a system to help them understand.

This seems to make sense in the case of number forms; one could suppose they're an attempt to grasp concepts, but when you get into pairings like taste -> touch or sight ->sound, you can see that there is no abstract concept that needs to be struggled with. A second sense is just inexplicably triggered along side the first.

Cytowic has a couple pages about autism in the book I mentioned . He calls it "the opposite of synesthesia". His argument is that various kinds of tests show that autistic people demonstrate far less neuronal "cross talk" than normal, while a synesthete has far more than normal.

Number forms don't seem to be "developed": people can't tweak them or improve them. They're not "inventions" with a purpose. They seem, as far as I can see, to just happen somewhat haphazardly. In most cases reported in this thread they don't seem to be a helpful thing to have. Cytowic reports cases of calendar and clock number forms that seem to be helpful, but no number lines that have been of benefit.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is partly due to the limitations of my understanding of customising colours on paint (!)

Ah! Paint is a horrible graphics program. Maybe someone will lend you a photoshop disc. There are also some free ones online that are better than paint. Photoediting programs often have a large graphics capability compared to Paint.

The rest of it made more sense as well.

This bifurcation is representative of a sense of movement, but perhaps more importantly it is a poor visual representation of the dual nature of that line of numbers. 1-10 seems to be traveling in two different directions simultaneously, but ending at the same point which is after 12. The rung at 10 is a 'cap' of sorts, an important milestone where the diverging pathways come together, yet they are still not totally reunited until 13. 11 and 12 roll into one number, they share a similar character. Hard to explain! I'd ideally draw a few more double helixes.

The verbal explication helps understand the graphic. I can see it's still too ineffable to completely articulate.

 

[EnumaElish]

When doing simple addition and don't want to think abstractly (or from memory), I count the "limbs" on digits 1 through 5. For example, I visualize 3 as ≡ and count the limbs, top to bottom, as "one, two, three." So, 9 + 3 = "ten, eleven, twelve" = 12.

 

[DaveC426913]

When doing simple addition and don't want to think abstractly (or from memory), I count the "limbs" on digits 1 through 5. For example, I visualize 3 as ≡ and count the limbs, top to bottom, as "one, two, three." So, 9 + 3 = "ten, eleven, twelve" = 12.

How does that work for 2, 4 or 5?

 

[zoobyshoe]

How does that work for 2, 4 or 5?

With 2 you count the beginning and end and ignore the "corner".

With four you count the two "corners" and the beginning and end.

With 5 you count the beginning, end, two corners, and promote some point on the bottom backward C to a corner.

I know exactly what he's talking about, I used to do this too. In fact, I once invented a new system of numerals to make this obvious and easy. 6,7,8,and 9 all had their respective proper number of counting points in this new, improved system. However, no one was interested.

 

[EnumaElish]

In my visual system, 2 is sort of two hand movements, one continuous (think of writing ? without the dot) and _. But essentially I've come to see 2 as = without a diagonal connector, just like I see 3 as ≡ and ignore the vertical connector.

Four is:
/_|
...|
(just ignore the dots, they are the typographical equivalent of 'blank space" in PF edit window).

5 is:
._
|_
._|

I had no idea others might have the same or a similar system, and it's good to know so. I see that zooby's system is more advanced than mine; I never took it beyond 5.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In my visual system, 2 is sort of two hand movements, one continuous (think of writing ? without the dot) and _.

Four is:
/_|
...|
(just ignore the dots, they are the typographical equivalent of 'blank space" in PF edit window).

5 is:
._
|_
._|

I had no idea others might have the same or a similar system, and it's good to know so.

Oh, I get it. You're (sort of) counting the motions it takes to write the numeral.

Yes, it's interesting to see someone else came up with something similar.

 

[EnumaElish]

The only numeric form (in the OP sense) that I can think of having is the circle; it pops up when I visualize trig problems.

Another question is, whether number forms change when one switches languages. If the number "ten" is yellow and one step northeast of a green five, does the same apply to "dix" or "diez"?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Another question is, whether number forms change when one switches languages. If the number "ten" is yellow and one step northeast of a green five, does the same apply to "dix" or "diez"?

Hmmmmmm. I dunno.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Another question is, whether number forms change when one switches languages. If the number "ten" is yellow and one step northeast of a green five, does the same apply to "dix" or "diez"?

That is a good question for the number formers here. I’m not one and also have trouble thinking of numbers at all.

I’ve read that this sort of question is a topic of interest regarding synaesthesia, and may be related to which sense or mode evokes the experience.

In "Synesthesia- A Window into Thought, Langauge and Perception”, Ramachandran and Hubbard, regarding synaesthetes, and not necessarily number formers, Roman Numerals and dot clusters were not effective in evoking the experience, with exceptions. Also tactile and auditory stimuli were ineffective unless visualisation also occurred, leading to the summation that it is vision and not concept triggering the experiences mentioned.

In another text describing synaesthetic script rather than numbers, or number forms, experiences were evoked by one and not another script in bilinguals, for an interesting example, a first language, English, didn’t evoke any experience, whereas a second language, Hebrew, or Hebrew script, did. I think I’ve read this is consistent with an idea from lesions, that different languages may be mapped in different regions.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=...q=ramachandran hebrew second language&f=false
(last paragraph, page 446)

 

[billiards]

I wonder whether Jean-Robert Argand might have experienced this phenomenon?

 

[EnumaElish]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=...q=ramachandran hebrew second language&f=false

Wow, quite a read!

I may not have number forms, but FWIW, I visualize climatic seasons in color (winter = white, spring = greenish bluish whitish, summer = orange glow, fall = rust) -- no big surprise there. Perhaps more notably I see days of the week in color: Monday = blue, Tuesday = yellow, Wed. = red, Thu. = dark blue, Fri. = off-white/beige, Sat. = white, Sun. = orangy red.

 

[Chi Meson]

The only numeric form (in the OP sense) that I can think of having is the circle; it pops up when I visualize trig problems.

Another question is, whether number forms change when one switches languages. If the number "ten" is yellow and one step northeast of a green five, does the same apply to "dix" or "diez"?

That's an interesting question, and the answer for me is "no they don't change."

I learned Spanish cardinal numbers at the age of seven, and got into Roman numerals at 8, and also learned numbers through twenty in French, Japanese, German and Greek. In all cases, the numbers, regardless of the language, and regardless of their form, all sit in exactly the same space on the number form (I'm still stoked by the fact that it has a name!).

 

[zoobyshoe]

(I'm still stoked by the fact that it has a name!).

And, despite, or to spite, the fact I was trying to keep Cytowic's classifications in order, he has gone and changed them on me in Wednesday Is Indigo Blue. Number forms have been upgraded to a form of synesthesia, and:

"These objectified three-dimensional sequences are commonly called 'number forms', although more precisely the phenomenon is called 'spatial sequence synesthesia'. Formally we note it as sequence -> location."

p.109

So, all you number formers may now refer to yourselves as synesthetes having "spatial sequence synesthesia".

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Wow, quite a read!

Oops, I should have mentioned the information I used was from the last paragraph of page 446. :)

 

[fuzzyfelt]

That's an interesting question, and the answer for me is "no they don't change."

I learned Spanish cardinal numbers at the age of seven, and got into Roman numerals at 8, and also learned numbers through twenty in French, Japanese, German and Greek. In all cases, the numbers, regardless of the language, and regardless of their form, all sit in exactly the same space on the number form (I'm still stoked by the fact that it has a name!).

That is a fascinating answer! If no one form or language alone is uniquely associated, does it beg the question, what does seem strongly associated with the experience?

 

[Chi Meson]

That is a fascinating answer! If no one form or language alone is uniquely associated, does it beg the question, what does seem strongly associated with the experience?

I don't know if this answers your question, but when I think of a number, the location on the form is what I associate it with. When the location "pops out," there is no numeral or name on it, only its position.

So regardless of what language I "think" it in, or which numerals, a 3 is a three is a tres is a drei is san is a III is a trois; they are all the same number that comes after 2 and before 4.

I also noticed that the astronomical numbers cause a sense of of disturbance in me because they simply cannot "find a place on the form." They are only numerals. If it is a number like
53,000,000,000,000,000, I can say "fifty three quadrillion." The "fifty three" initially jumps out, but then evaporates when "quadrillion" comes in. I have a vasensation of staring off into the distance, but here I am not sure if it is my projection, or simply "zooming out too far."

"Billions" is the last order of magnitude that can hold onto a position, and perhaps that is because I learned of "billions by the age of seven (when there wer 3 billion people in the world).

 

[EnumaElish]

So regardless of what language I "think" it in, or which numerals, a 3 is a three is a tres is a drei is san is a III is a trois; they are all the same number that comes after 2 and before 4.

This reminds me of the "kiki/bouba" experiment described in Ramachandran & Hubbard (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=...q=ramachandran hebrew second language&f=false, p. 457) -- relative geometric forms were found to be associated with relative sounds, regardless of language.

In Chi's case, cardinal magnitudes are associated with spatial positions, again regardless of language.

 

[rhody]

I don't know if this answers your question, but when I think of a number, the location on the form is what I associate it with. When the location "pops out," there is no numeral or name on it, only its position.

So regardless of what language I "think" it in, or which numerals, a 3 is a three is a tres is a drei is san is a III is a trois; they are all the same number that comes after 2 and before 4.

Chi,

This begs the question then, what if you were to study say French again, and the names of numbers 1 - 20 were changed from what you originally taught yourself and commited to memory would the location as you describe it above be the same as the original position of 1 - 20 ? In other words once the official words and locations are assigned in nearly life, can a new association break the one that you sense synesthestically now ?

Example: For the number 2, if Deux were replaced with Daix, and you believed that Daix is now the official number two would it still occupy the same place in your position space ? Does the new sound of the word keep it from occupying the same space ? What if Diux were used instead, which is closer to the original word Deux ? Is it the shape and number of letters that helps establish the location, just the sound of the word, or the combination of them together ?

Additionally, is tagging the meaning of Deux = 2 = etc... another factor in establishing where it appears to you synesthetically ?

Rhody...

 

[Noja888]

This thread is a very interesting read. I never knew number forms existed in a sense like this. My memory is very visual but I have no number forms. Many times back in high school I have recalled a page out of a textbook in visual memory. From my mental picture I could come up with enough information to pass the test/quiz. If I was lucky I could read some of the words from the page out of my head - but this was very rare. If someone is talking, mental images of whatever they are saying appears - which can be good or bad depending on the subject.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In some forms of synesthesia it's clear that a concept is triggering the sensory experience.

For grapheme -> color synesthesia Cytowic says:

"...what happens when a synesthete looks at foreign letters written in non-Roman scripts such as Hebrew, Arabic, Cyrillic, or Chinese? Typically the newly learned shapes are not accompanied by a color experience. As Cassidy C writes, 'They look like little black shapes on a white background. They have no color effect whatsoever.' But most synesthetes report once they have learned a language (even as an adult), the new graphemes take on colors. Often there is some correlation between the sound of a letter and it's associated color in both alphabets."
...Indigo Blue p.67

So this strongly indicates that it is the concept of a letter, not it's shape, that is the operative property.

"It now seems clear that for the majority of synesthetes it is the concept inherent in the grapheme that induces color - not the visual shape itself. To demonstrate this, note that capitalization and font style generally do not change an induced color: j, J and J all evoke the same synesthetic color."
p.75

This dependence of the color on the concept in grapheme-> color synesthesia seems to translate to a dependence of the position on concept with a number form, as described by Chi Meson: the position is held by the concept of 2 or the concept of 45, not by the sound of the word used to symbolize that concept verbally. Therefore switching languages doesn't affect his number form.

 

[Chi Meson]

Chi,

This begs the question then, what if you were to study say French again, and the names of numbers 1 - 20 were changed from what you originally taught yourself and commited to memory would the location as you describe it above be the same as the original position of 1 - 20 ? In other words once the official words and locations are assigned in nearly life, can a new association break the one that you sense synesthestically now ?

Example: For the number 2, if Deux were replaced with Daix, and you believed that Daix is now the official number two would it still occupy the same place in your position space ? Does the new sound of the word keep it from occupying the same space ? What if Diux were used instead, which is closer to the original word Deux ? Is it the shape and number of letters that helps establish the location, just the sound of the word, or the combination of them together ?

Additionally, is tagging the meaning of Deux = 2 = etc... another factor in establishing where it appears to you synesthetically ?

Rhody...

It's more as though the location is the fundimental concept of the number itself. Any way of describing a number is translated into its location on the form. Any variation is projected onto the location. If I learned the numbers in any new language, as I learned the equivalent to 17 for example, It would project directly to the "17" location, and not exist as a translation of the English language "seventeen."

To try to say it another way, "17" is a concept independent of the language, and the "definition" is visual, rather than textual. I think I'm figuring this out as I'm saying it. It's quite exciting!

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's more as though the location is the fundimental concept of the number itself. Any way of describing a number is translated into its location on the form. Any variation is projected onto the location.

The "concept" of a number is not quantity, but location. Pretty fascinating.

 

[rhody]

It's more as though the location is the fundimental concept of the number itself. Any way of describing a number is translated into its location on the form. Any variation is projected onto the location. If I learned the numbers in any new language, as I learned the equivalent to 17 for example, It would project directly to the "17" location, and not exist as a translation of the English language "seventeen."

To try to say it another way, "17" is a concept independent of the language, and the "definition" is visual, rather than textual. I think I'm figuring this out as I'm saying it. It's quite exciting!

Chi,

I only have one comment that both you and I have expressed numerous times,

Holy Crap !

Rhody...

P.S. This thread and the one on synesthesia supplies all the elements of a great learning exercise, exploration, wrong turns, dead ends, debate, clarification, surprise, amazement, and a willingness to keep digging. If I were a college student committed to the study of biology or neurology, this would inspire me for sure.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I don't know if this answers your question, but when I think of a number, the location on the form is what I associate it with. When the location "pops out," there is no numeral or name on it, only its position.

So regardless of what language I "think" it in, or which numerals, a 3 is a three is a tres is a drei is san is a III is a trois; they are all the same number that comes after 2 and before 4.

I also noticed that the astronomical numbers cause a sense of of disturbance in me because they simply cannot "find a place on the form." They are only numerals. If it is a number like
53,000,000,000,000,000, I can say "fifty three quadrillion." The "fifty three" initially jumps out, but then evaporates when "quadrillion" comes in. I have a vasensation of staring off into the distance, but here I am not sure if it is my projection, or simply "zooming out too far."

"Billions" is the last order of magnitude that can hold onto a position, and perhaps that is because I learned of "billions by the age of seven (when there wer 3 billion people in the world).

That answers my question brilliantly, thanks!

I’d mentioned before, that a strong association with a particular form, which I guess was Arabic numerals, had conjured colours, and had led to the idea that a strong association with a concept would be dismissed in that particular example. Interestingly that isn't case here, and it seems you have also discounted nominal and aural stimulus.

I was wondering if instead then, the trigger was indeed conceptual. I understand it must be extremely difficult to isolate an influential part of a thought process. That you describe an experience elicited by a learnt, cultural concept is brilliant!

To rephrase you, I hope this is right- the concept of number/units, rather than any image or sound, elicits a spatial and visual (sequentially linear and formal) positioning, although limited by magnitude.

I’ve found a few papers about whether in cases studied, the link is between number/units and a matter of position (a location in a sequence) or a matter of magnitude (ordinality/cardinality- I think?) in some and not others or whether both properties are required to some degree, and these papers all seem to contradict one another! So your description of your experience is impressive. I'm not sure how it fits, but it seems to fit well. It is a fascinating insight into the minds of those “gifted with a strong tendency towards schematisation” (Flournay), or into numeracy cognition, these sorts of things.

Here is one-
http://www.unicog.org/publications/HubbardRanziniPiazzaDehaene_NumberSpaceSynesthesia_Cortex2009.pdf

 

[WiFO215]

To rephrase you, I hope this is right- the concept of number/units, rather than any image or sound, elicits a spatial and visual (sequentially linear and formal) positioning, although limited by magnitude.

I don't know about Chi, but I'd agree that's what happens to me. Whether I do Sanskrit, Hindi or Tamil, the numbers' place is the same.

 

[WiFO215]

The reason I'm explaining that is because I'm wondering to what extent any of the "above" or "below" relationships of any of the numbers in your number form seem to be "sensed" via proprioception.

I don't know, Zooby. I can't 'feel' the numbers in any unconscious way. I just know they're there when I need to use them.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I don't know about Chi, but I'd agree that's what happens to me. Whether I do Sanskrit, Hindi or Tamil, the numbers' place is the same.

That is great! I'm relieved to hear it! :)

 

[Chi Meson]

To rephrase you, I hope this is right- the concept of number/units, rather than any image or sound, elicits a spatial and visual (sequentially linear and formal) positioning, although limited by magnitude.

I’ve found a few papers about whether in cases studied, the link is between number/units and a matter of position (a location in a sequence) or a matter of magnitude (ordinality/cardinality- I think?) in some and not others or whether both properties are required to some degree, and these papers all seem to contradict one another! So your description of your experience is impressive. I'm not sure how it fits, but it seems to fit well. It is a fascinating insight into the minds of those “gifted with a strong tendency towards schematisation” (Flournay), or into numeracy cognition, these sorts of things.

I'd say that's right. This is not exactly what I'd always understood as "synesthesia." For me, numbers have absolutely no color nor sound.

Everything seems to be spatial to me. Music also conjures spatial forms. I remember in a 6th grade art class, we all had to "paint what the music sounds like." While I suspect I was the first person to understand what the teacher meant, I had the hardest time of anyone. While others were making these static, abstract paintings, I was trying to figure out how to paint something that wouldn't stop moving and swirling.

And in retrospect, it seems that the lack of color made things difficult for me, too. I don't do color so well.

But the visual aspect of music always seemed to be a fairly common sensation, is it not?

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is not exactly what I'd always understood as "synesthesia." For me, numbers have absolutely no color nor sound.

"Synesthesia" has never been limited to color and sound. Cytowic became famous for describing a man whose sense of touch was triggered by the taste of food. This was so important to him that he cooked according to how the food "felt" to his fingers, and on his arms and face. Rhody posted a comprehensive list of known pairings in the synesthesia thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2704648&postcount=102

Regardless, this association of concept with an automatic sensory reaction has only recently (sometime between 2002 and 2008) been promoted to being regarded as a form of synesthesia: Spatial Sequence Synesthesia, as I mentioned (At least that's what Cytowic asserts. I don't even know what that means: did all the synesthesia researchers have a conference call and take a vote? I dunno). I personally never heard of number forms until Rhody linked to a video of Cytowic lecturing at a book signing in which he talks about what's discussed in Wednesday is Indigo Blue a couple/three weeks ago. Anyway it makes perfect sense to me that you could have a number form, have heard of synesthesia, and still not connect them in your mind.

 

[rhody]

Chi, anirundh215,

Let me get this straight then, if you picked up a new language and committed to memory and then used the numbers, no matter what their form they would be in an ascending ordered space, in their proper position (in your mind's eye so to speak), correct ? (except for truly large numbers in the billions range and beyond as you mentioned previously (Chi))
Is the same true for you anirundh215 ? Are you multilingual in math as well ?

Second, Chi, can you easily switch from one language to another with numbers, if so, do the numbers spatially occur next to one another (shared in hierarchical space) or in their own separate space ? anirundh215, if this applies to you same question as well.

I invite you both to watch this http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/arthur_benjamin_does_mathemagic.html" of Arthur Benjamin, a mathemagician: fast forward to 10:40 where he attempts to square two 5 digit numbers. He uses words to help keep track of intermediate calculation values and then retrieves the number from the word association (at 14:15, 77862 becomes cookie efficient), he uses 3 or 4 word to number associations in order to arrive at the correct answer.

Listen carefully because he runs through this very quickly. After watching this short segment, if either of you does math with large numbers in your heads, do you use number -> word association, then back from word -> numbers to arrive at the correct answer ?, or a different method due to your synesthetic hierarchical spatial organization with numbers ? In other words if you do higher math problems in your heads, how do you do it ?

Rhody...

 

[Chi Meson]

Chi, anirundh215,

Let me get this straight then, if you picked up a new language and committed to memory and then used the numbers, no matter what their form they would be in an ascending ordered space, in their proper position (in your mind's eye so to speak), correct ?

yes, that's correct.

Second, Chi, can you easily switch from one language to another with numbers, if so, do the numbers spatially occur next to one another (shared in hierarchical space) or in their own separate space ? anirundh215, if this applies to you same question as well.

the same number, no matter whatever the language, or form (Roman numerals, tally marks, written out, or numerals), the same number is always in exactly the same location.

Listen carefully because he runs through this very quickly. After watching this short segment, if either of you does math with large numbers in your heads, do you use number -> word association, then back from word -> numbers to arrive at the correct answer ?, or a different method due to your synesthetic hierarchical spatial organization with numbers ? In other words if you do higher math problems in your heads, how do you do it ?

Rhody...

I can NOT do higher order math in my head. I teach physics, and even the basic algebra that I have been teaching for ten years, the easiest possible stuff, I still need to write it out to be sure. The number form is a liability for math skills.

 

[zoobyshoe]

FYI, everyone, Rhody just unearthed a fascinating new form of synesthesia:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2714867&postcount=121

 

[Chi Meson]

Here's another thing I've just considered:

decimals and fraction have no place on the form. This could be why I have a more-difficult-than-it-should-be time with wrench sizes. I have to pause and think, for example to figure out which size socket is larger than 3/8 , for example. I have to translate everything into "16ths."

There is also NO PLACE for PI!

Another problem is that 1.75 meters is not in the same place as 175 cm. So the scale of the unit has no bearing at all on the position. This means I must absolutely ignore the damn thing when doing math, but it still clouds my numerical intuition.

 

[rhody]

Chi,

When you said:

I can NOT do higher order math in my head. I teach physics, and even the basic algebra that I have been teaching for ten years, the easiest possible stuff, I still need to write it out to be sure. The number form is a liability for math skills.

A fair question to ask then is, do the spatially separated hierarchical numbers help, hinder, provide distraction, or are merely a curiosity (pets, as zooby fondly refers to them) to your everyday activities.
Have you every used them for anything, and if so what for ? Bookkeeping, reminders, things like that... ?

Rhody...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's another thing I've just considered:

decimals and fraction have no place on the form. This could be why I have a more-difficult-than-it-should-be time with wrench sizes. I have to pause and think, for example to figure out which size socket is larger than 3/8 , for example. I have to translate everything into "16ths."

There is also NO PLACE for PI!

Another problem is that 1.75 meters is not in the same place as 175 cm. So the scale of the unit has no bearing at all on the position. This means I must absolutely ignore the damn thing when doing math, but it still clouds my numerical intuition.

Number forms do not indicate high mathematical ability or deficiency, nor do they seems to be correlated with any specific intellectual talent or mental dullness. However, the automatic positioning of integers can interfere with more complex mathematics, such as algebra or calculus, as in the wayward numbers of the student cited above. "For one thing," notes Marti, "they are not evenly or consistently spaced. There is also some fluid or jelly-like movement to them." Magnitude can also be problematic because, for Marti, 6 is physically the highest number in her visual representation. Therefore, 6 and numbers containing 6 have the highest degree of magnitude. In other words it does not "make sense" to her that 11 is "larger than" 6 or that 234 is "greater than" 66. To her, magnitude comparisons are literally physical: when she thinks of someone older than herself she looks "up," whereas younger people are seen not "down" but "in back" of herself.

"...Indigo Blue" p.28

I can empathize with this number former. I had a great math crisis right off the bat in first grade when the teacher was teaching us to write and understand numerals. She called on me and asked which was "greater", 2 or 3. I hesitated. She said, "I mean which is larger." That didn't help at all. Reverting to some size estimating skill I didn't know I had, I pondered and determined that the numeral 3 was probably larger in size than the numeral 2, and gave that as my answer. "Right", said the teacher. I remained completely confused about the relevance of the physical size of the numeral to anything and really couldn't understand why she asked about it.

 

[Chi Meson]

Chi,

When you said:

A fair question to ask then is, do the spatially separated hierarchical numbers help, hinder, provide distraction, or are merely a curiosity (pets, as zooby fondly refers to them) to your everyday activities.
Have you every used them for anything, and if so what for ? Bookkeeping, reminders, things like that... ?

Rhody...

I think I went over all that earlier in the thread. In short, it is useful for simple addition and subtraction. I stated earlier that I can fold the form like an old carpenters ruler when playing considering multiples of fives, but after consideration, I think that is a spatial invention that I built way back long ago. Using the "fives" number form feels different than the "natural" one.

The greatest use is in remembering simple quantities, some dates, and I am punctual to a fault.

 

[zoobyshoe]

(pets, as zooby fondly refers to them)

That wasn't me, that was Jim McNamara and his "whatever-they-are eelights":

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2703729&postcount=58

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I'd say that's right. This is not exactly what I'd always understood as "synesthesia." For me, numbers have absolutely no color nor sound.

Everything seems to be spatial to me. Music also conjures spatial forms. I remember in a 6th grade art class, we all had to "paint what the music sounds like." While I suspect I was the first person to understand what the teacher meant, I had the hardest time of anyone. While others were making these static, abstract paintings, I was trying to figure out how to paint something that wouldn't stop moving and swirling.

And in retrospect, it seems that the lack of color made things difficult for me, too. I don't do color so well.

But the visual aspect of music always seemed to be a fairly common sensation, is it not?

I have the same problem with the name, and think “atypical intra-modal and cross-modal binding” is better, and I’m interested in how atypical it is. I hope not to detract anything from the verifiable, incredible experiences like those described in this thread, nor from a difference between such actual percepts in some and a bound ‘feeling’ in others, and then perhaps further differences in others generally, but to your question at the end- combining aspects of the arts is common, including combining vision and music. (However, not necessarily always involving the modal binding like that being discussed here, and also not as common as, say, seemingly normal cross-modal facial recognition, I guess.)

Painting music is a usual exercise, and, interestingly cross-modal painting often involves a line a bit like yours. I remember the first time we were asked to do this, we were asked to paint “pain”. We weren’t told, but it was expected we render pain as something intrusive upon an otherwise untroubled line, the line representing temporal progression in space. Fortunately, I ( I was the only one, too!) did think to use such a line, but unfortunately, my line spiralled inward, for various reasons I had, which lessened the impact and so wasn’t deemed successful enough.

If it is interesting, I think rather differently, and do do colour. As mentioned before, I don’t do measure and I think there are a lot more practical things to do than colour! I understand you find your spatial experience hasn’t been so helpful, but that it helps with memory, and I imagine it helps possibly with a feeling of conversancy? I can’t imagine what impact not doing colour would have, but guess it is like a pronounced absence of the things I just mentioned when regarding colour?

I’d like to ask more about the musical-spatial form, and for that matter, croesoswallt’s colour-musical tone diagram, but don’t wish to stretch the OP too far.

Maybe a quick question for croesowallt- does it mean that you have perfect pitch?