'Aroma'. (Not Electrical?)... then again...

[GlennSprigg]

I didn't 'Choose' this topic. It chose 'me'...   OK, the 'electrical' bit first 
Every electrician/technician will have experienced certain smells/aromas, synonymous with their career!
Be-it the smell of solder/flux, a cooked winding, the Ozone produced by Sparks !!, that we all know so well.

'Aroma/Smell' is a damn powerful sense, that somehow triggers a direct Highway to parts of our 'Brain',
more so than any other sense.  And we don't give it enough credit !...

I'm in my mid 60's now, and I recently had cause to open a bottle of 'Linseed Oil', and sniff it...
WOW, I was instantly transformed to a time nearly 50 years ago, when I was a Teenager in a wood-
working class, learning about Meranti Wood, and fabricating something for my parents.
I could see it all !!??...  My bench, the other people, could smell the cut wood.

I then remembered how about 10 years back, when I had a sore throat, I bought some 'Butter-Menthols'
that I had not tasted since I was a little kid!!...   INSTANTLY, and not just in some distant 'thought', I
was back on my Grandma's porch with my first 'Yoyo', and sucking on a 'Butter-Menthol' my Grandma
gave me... (The last one ever that I had).  I saw all the surroundings, vividly, as if I was there !!
I was there by the way, as my mum was dying in hospital, and us kids were 'distributed' around...

It's amazing, that even if I was blind, I would 'know' I was in an old Book-Shop, just because of the
smell of the old paper, and although 'not' blind, I love to visit those old places, just for that smell !!
I remember the smell of my mothers gown, and the smell of seaweed from ancient holidays. The smell
of 'cracker-night', (Guy Fawkes night), when it used to exist here...

Aroma is a powerful thing, mainlined to our brain, and better than any damn drug !!!   

[RoGeorge]

True, memories are hardwired with the sense of smell, and memories retrieval are wired much stronger with smell than with any other sense, IMO.

I noticed that the memory flashbacks can fade away in intensity if they are retrieved too often.  That makes me wonder if the nostalgia feeling might actually come from the distance in time since we last thought about something, rather than from the memory itself.

Another very interesting thing that was discovered recently about smell is that the sense smell is, in fact, a detector for the frequency resonances of molecules (in my understanding, the spectrum of vibrations specific to each type of molecule, or mix of molecules), so our nose is nothing more than a personal spectrum analyzer for molecular vibrations.  Too bad we couldn't directly sniff RF. 

LATER EDIT: Found the link about smell as a spectrum analyzer.
This is a pathetically rotten video on YouTube (240p - 9 years ago this was a crisp-sharp video, whatever - but YouTube can still be easier to rich in some countries):



and here is a better quality video of the same talk, but from the TED Talks website (with human made translations in many languages):

[VK5RC]

One small point, the CNS input for smell is about the only sense that goes straight to the frontal lobe (emotion, logic thought etc) whereas almost all other senses have to go via the Thalamus. Perhaps this gives the impact that smell has over the other senses.

[GlennSprigg]

That is not a 'Small' point, (VKSRC), it is a large & important point.. thankyou

[In Vacuo Veritas]

What is it "with" all those "random" emphasis "quotes"? It's "annoying"..

[jpanhalt]

One small point, the CNS input for smell is about the only sense that goes straight to the frontal lobe (emotion, logic thought etc) whereas almost all other senses have to go via the Thalamus. Perhaps this gives the impact that smell has over the other senses.

Not sure I agree with that statement.   Maybe it was just an afterthought?

[Zero999]

One small point, the CNS input for smell is about the only sense that goes straight to the frontal lobe (emotion, logic thought etc) whereas almost all other senses have to go via the Thalamus. Perhaps this gives the impact that smell has over the other senses.

Not sure I agree with that statement.   Maybe it was just an afterthought?

I believe it's true though. The sense of smell is one of the most primitive of all. Animals could detect different chemicals, long before sight and hearing evolved.

[jpanhalt]

I believe it's true though. The sense of smell is one of the most primitive of all. Animals could detect different chemicals, long before sight and hearing evolved.

Chemoreception is divided into taste and smell (olfaction).   Taste (in the sense of chemoreception)  is a very old sense and evolved even in single cell organisms.   Its fibers also go through the thalamus in vertebrates as do fibers from other early sensory cells.

My comment was regarding the "conclusion" by a member that since olfaction does not go through the thalamus, it must be more important than the other senses that do go through thalamic nuclei.   I disagreed and suggested tongue in cheek that olfaction was just an afterthought.

Well, you can believe what you want.   However, if you believe in evolution, olfaction evolved much later than taste.   It's late evolution may explain in part why its fibers do not connect to thalamic nuclei.  Moreover, even in mammals, those that live in water (e.g., whales and dolphins) and humans have lost much of the sense of smell compared to other mammals, such as mice and dogs.  It is an expendable sense in humans, unlike proprioception and pain.   The daily lives of people who have lost most or all sense of smell are barely affected.

Going back to your belief that olfaction is so important -- perhaps the most important sense -- that it has a direct connection to our brains, why have modern humans evolved to have even less sense of smell than our ancestors had?

[Zero999]

I believe it's true though. The sense of smell is one of the most primitive of all. Animals could detect different chemicals, long before sight and hearing evolved.

Chemoreception is divided into taste and smell (olfaction).   Taste (in the sense of chemoreception)  is a very old sense and evolved even in single cell organisms.   Its fibers also go through the thalamus in vertebrates as do fibers from other early sensory cells.

My comment was regarding the "conclusion" by a member that since olfaction does not go through the thalamus, it must be more important than the other senses that do go through thalamic nuclei.   I disagreed and suggested tongue in cheek that olfaction was just an afterthought.

Well, you can believe what you want.   However, if you believe in evolution, olfaction evolved much later than taste.   It's late evolution may explain in part why its fibers do not connect to thalamic nuclei.  Moreover, even in mammals, those that live in water (e.g., whales and dolphins) and humans have lost much of the sense of smell compared to other mammals, such as mice and dogs.  It is an expendable sense in humans, unlike proprioception and pain.   The daily lives of people who have lost most or all sense of smell are barely affected.

Going back to your belief that olfaction is so important -- perhaps the most important sense -- that it has a direct connection to our brains, why have modern humans evolved to have even less sense of smell than our ancestors had?

I agree. I don't believe smell is the most important sense and never said it was. I thought taste and smell were both the same part of the brain, but I stand corrected.

[helius]

Not to digress too far, but most mammals (such as the whales and dolphins mentioned) have two distinct organs for smell, the olfactory epithelium and the vomeronasal organ. The latter is hypothesized to exist in humans as well, but if it exists it is very small and hard to detect. Its existence is controversial. In other animals, it is used for detection of pheromones, which makes the existence of human pheromones also controversial.
In whales, the vomeronasal organ is much larger than the main olfactory bulb, hinting at an evolutionary requirement for greater pheromone sensitivity in the oceanic environment.

[GlennSprigg]

What is it "with" all those "random" emphasis "quotes"? It's "annoying"..

Dear  'Vacuo Veritas'...
There was a famous quote from 'John Lydgate'...
“You can please some of the people all of the time, and please all of the people some of the time,...
but you can not please all of the people, all of the time”...

MOST, (as in 'everyone else!') who commented here, was understanding, and contributed in a positive
way, including the friendly & loving way this was all intended. (Though possibly too deep for you...)

I sincerely hope (know!) that 'you' are not an ambassador for your country. YOUR personal problems,
in conjunction with your affiliation with 'certain' people, is a very poor excuse for getting your 'Jollies'
by ridiculing those that you think are 'lesser' people than your amazing/powerful self.

I hope 'you' feel 'proud'... and your family/friends bows to you...  Excuse me, if 'I' don't.....   

[Mr. Scram]

Dear  'Vacuo Veritas'...
There was a famous quote from 'John Lydgate'...
“You can please some of the people all of the time, and please all of the people some of the time,...
but you can not please all of the people, all of the time”...

MOST, (as in 'everyone else!') who commented here, was understanding, and contributed in a positive
way, including the friendly & loving way this was all intended. (Though possibly too deep for you...)

I sincerely hope (know!) that 'you' are not an ambassador for your country. YOUR personal problems,
in conjunction with your affiliation with 'certain' people, is a very poor excuse for getting your 'Jollies'
by ridiculing those that you think are 'lesser' people than your amazing/powerful self.

I hope 'you' feel 'proud'... and your family/friends bows to you...  Excuse me, if 'I' don't.....   

Be careful not to shoot the messenger. Your writing style is unusual and consequentily a bit hard to follow. Don't take it as a personal assault, but as constructive criticism.

[ebastler]

[...]
I hope 'you' feel 'proud'... and your family/friends bows to you...  Excuse me, if 'I' don't.....   

Glenn, please realize that quote marks (whether single or double) are not used for emphasis when writing or typing English -- or most other languages. They are used to indicate that you actually quote someone, or that you are referring to a "so-called xyz", or are referring to something in an ironical sense.

Your liberal use of quotes to emphasise, or to imply some other meaning which I may not have figured out yet, is indeed distracting. If you need to emhasize words, I recommend the use of italics or underlines; the forum's little editor makes that easy.

[GlennSprigg]

Well, I thank the last 2 commenters for being passive & polite.
(And I know this probably doesn't belong in this Post!...)
I tend to 'bite' (quote-marks deliberate there...) sometimes, because I have experienced certain people
in the past who/(whom! have not just mentioned my Grammar, but have a problem with 'me', (again
deliberate) personally!.  Putting all that aside though...

I'm aware of bold, italics, & UPPERCASE, and 'single' & "Double" quotes etc. and their uses.
Firstly, I hate too much uppercase writing too, as people say it is YELLING!, but sometimes I use it just
to emphasize a particular key-word, but strongly so, like...  "We should not EVER go down that road!".

I don't (generally, unless unaware?) use Double-Quotes, unless I'm quoting someone or something,
like...  My Father used to say... "Never give up an opportunity to shutup" (Actually a Dr. Phil quote haha).

I didn't think that what I was typing was so unintelligible, when I use Single Quotes though?
To 'me', (deliberate emphasis there :-) ), it can be just a replacement for bold & italic,  when
considering that RAW text using the likes of 'Notepad' in Windows, is just that. Pre-Formatted.
And I use Notepad a lot, for fast note-taking, copying/pasting/saving, before submitting simple text.

To me, in such Forums, I'm not writing a book. I'm condensing a few sentences into something that I
wish to convey, so emphasis on certain words is what I intended, for those that 'gloss' over things!!??
I guess I'm wrong though. (And I take heed!!!).  Let's assume I said this... (& no line limits)...

"The other day the company that you just mentioned treated me the same and I was most pissed off, but I persevered with them until my accountant told me to not have anything to do with the Mechanical-Genious company any more, especially after they were taken over by the
new Metal Fabrications business that is now prevalent in our neighbor hood, so our business was shut down..."

To 'me', it's about key words ...
"The other day, that 'Mechanical Genious' company screwed me TOO!!
My Accountant warned me about the take-over by 'Metal Fabrications', but to no avail...
'Our' small business had no power to fight them, and we are now 'Shut Down' ?"

I'll try to 'moderate' ( )  it. In the mean time... I'm just 'me'... Glenn.

[ebastler]

Thanks for taking my comment constructively, Glenn.

There are kind-of-standardized ways to indicate emphasis in plain ASCII text, which may be a bit easier to read. (Simply because more people are used to seeing them  -- at least those of us who are old enough to have posted on Usenet...  )  You can enclose a word in *asterisks* to indicate general emphasis, and _underlines_ to indicate, well, underlines.

Turns out that this is even machine-readable by a relatively modern parser: Markdown language, a simple, easy-to-type and reasonably easy-to-read way to format text in plain ASCII.  https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#em