M . Hubbard and V . S . Ramachandran Refining the Experimental Lever A Reply to Shanon and Pribram

The commentaries by Shanon (2003) and Pribram (2003) on our original article (Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001) are stimulating and make a valuable contribution to the knowledge and thinking about synaesthesia, and indeed the mind in general. We were gratified to see the overall level of agreement with our general framework. For example, both of the authors endorse our connection between the perceptual phenomenon of synaesthesia and the cognitive phenomenon of metaphor. Shanon not only endorses our view, but also provides additional data supporting parallels between synaesthesia and metaphor. Pribram is especially complimentary concerning our hypothesis concerning the neural basis of representations, and our suggestions that map-to-map interactions are critical for translations between these representations. In this reply, we would like to focus on the remaining points which still separate us. Rather than discuss the commentaries point by point, we would like to offer some of our own thoughts in response to their comments. There are four areas we would like to discuss and elaborate on: (1) trends in synaesthetic colours, including the fact that synaesthetic triggers are highly specific, categorical stimuli, such as calendars, numbers and letters, and specific musical pitches; (2) further details of our hypothesis concerning the origin of synaesthesia; (3) the evidence suggesting that synaesthesia is, contrary to Shanon’s arguments, genetic; and (4) the connection between synaesthesia and psychedelics.