Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Please stay with salt/salty so we don't need to get tangled in mere words. We can say "salt is essential to get", for this organism. We can say the organism needs salt and has detectors for salt or at least one of the ions. Go on.
I don't see much difference. Why is sugar/sweet bad?
OK, so we have ancestor who needs salt and is able to perceive salt by receptors. That's when "we" started to perceive it as salty. After we had already the receptors for salt.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
The organism is able to detect salt.
So a concept was developed ? Something like this ?
Stuff like that ?
Salt is better because you cannot just introduce a descriptive word ( "sweet" for things that are high in sugar ) for the taste or appearance, and thereby hand us an extra twist to the puzzle.
An abstraction removing differences, leaving only commonalities - in this way:
The many things that are detected to contain salt, have many differences - differences which are ignored in pointing to salty items ( items already experienced or tested). Items that are not salty are not mentioned ( in the set of salty items) .
So we have animals which have detectors> What's the next step ?
Steps to get in order to be saying that this crystal
is the same as this liquid
http://geotcha.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... n_wave.jpg
I think that what JackBean is saying, is that you do not need a conceptualization of saltiness or sweetness or whatever in order to associate emotions to it. i.e the actiation of the salt(sugar) receptor will be linked to the brain as the satisfaction of a need and as such will create a neural pathway that will link this activation of a receptor to a pleasurable sensation.
The fact that anything that activates the receptor, whether or not they are the right molecule or a neutral inducer (say a sweetener like aspartame) that do not fulfill any need would be a good proof that only the receptor activation is necessary. Concepts and intellectualization are unnecessary burden created by man.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests