Re: In what language do you think?

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:33:50 GMT, "heliogabalus" <forbidden@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Padraic Brown" <elemtilas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:00cqs2pk57pf39h0cpm33978h43k5nd3nt@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:25:49 GMT, "heliogabalus" <forbidden@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Padraic Brown" <elemtilas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:v16ls25at6lqs9jr6fvjm9gl83gc0799k6@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:29:15 GMT, "heliogabalus"
<forbidden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't think I'm alone in finding it odd that you can't recall the
taste of something while you can recall sight of something.


I also owe Marc an explanation. Why can't we 'represent' our tactile,
olfactory and gustative perceptions? Because the primary stimuli are
'present' in our body, they don't need a 'medium' to be perceived:
when we sniff the smoke of a distant forest fire, the molecules of the
real burned trees come in contact with our nose, and such is the case
of the other two senses too. When the molecules arise again, we can
recognise them, thanks to the memory of our previous experiences.

All of the senses are perceived via the same medium, which is the
nervous system. And I don't agree that the stimuli are "present in our
bod[ies]", all those stimuli are really external.

Let me see. Ah, well: "Vertebrate brains
receive signals through nerves arriving from the sensors of the
organism. These signals are then processed throughout the central
nervous system". So, the medium isn't the same, being constituted
by "the sensors of the organism", the various receptors. And the nervous
system isn't the medium of perceptions; but a part of it, the central
nervous system, is the central processor unit of the data provided by
different media (the receptors), so the path is: external object,
receptor, translation into a physiological signal, signal processing.
But let me see the work of a particular receptor, the olfactive one.
"The process of how the binding of the ligand (odor molecule or odorant)
to the receptor leads to an action potential in the receptor neuron is
via a second messenger pathway depending on the organism. In mammals the
odorants stimulate adenylate cyclase to synthesize cAMP via a G protein
called Golf."
Now, how can we perceive the scent of a rose if an odor molecule of this
flower doesn't come in contact with the receptor neuron of the olfact?

You don't. In the same way that you don't perceive the sight of the
rose of its photons don't strike your retina. You don't perceive the
fell of its thorns if they don't contact your skin. Etc.

One way or the other, if you don't come in the right kind of contact
with the object, you can't perceive it. You would have no experience
of it. Once you have experienced it, you form a memory of the
experience, and this memory can be recalled, whether it's the sight of
a rose or the taste of a chocolate.

Can we call a ligand external to our body, when it binds to the receptor
neuron?

Sure, external "things" become incorporated into the body -- this is
what nutrition is all about, for example.

But when we see a tree, or hear the sound of its leaves, there are not
molecules that detach themselves from the plant to hit our eyes or our
ears. So, the senses of vision and hearing are special: light and
sound waves aren't the real object which comes in contact with our
body, but its presentation by a medium. Now, the presentation by a
medium, the indirect one, has to be called a representation (if you
prefer, a bypresentation), and mind acts by using representations as
its first matter.

Neither are smell and taste contacting the "real object" either. None
of our senses bring "the real object" into our brains.

Of course: the real object (I'm talking of touch, olfact and taste) has
to contact a receptor, to be translated into a physiological signal,
then it can join our brains.

Vision is the closest, because light photons that emanate from the
object (obviously the original source of light is not necessarily the
object itself) enter the eye and stimulate the brain pretty directly.

I don't think so: "the visual system has the complex task of
(re)constructing a three dimensional world from a two dimensional
projection of that world. In addition, this organ system must solve the
correspondence problem (given two or more images of the same 3D scene,
taken from different points of view, the correspondence problem is to
find a set of points in one image which can be identified as the same
points in another image), as well as deal with the complexities of
binocular vision."

The brain is a wonder and no mistake. It takes the images seen from
either eye and incorporates them into a single 3D image. If everything
is working right. If one of the eyes is enough misaligned, it goes
"blind" and becomes useless, because the brain ignores its input.


I know this doesn't help you with your seeming inability to taste
chocolate without any actual chocolate in your mouth!

So, I hope your theory will prove true, because I'm still forced to buy
chocolate to taste it :)

I'm still sorry to hear that. Smilies notwithstanding, perhaps you
should consult with a neurologist. It may well be you have a deeper
issue. I find it difficult to believe you can't recall flavours. How
would you know something is chocolate flavoured if you had no
recollection of what chocolate tastes like? If, as you claim, you have
no idea what chocolate tastes like unless you eat it, I give you
chocolate flavoured white bread, how would you know the flavour is
chocolate?

Padraic


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In what language do you think?
    ... nervous system". ... But let me see the work of a particular receptor, ... Neither are smell and taste contacting the "real object" either. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Advice: Amp building
    ... reproduction system has an objective measure to do with comparing what ... You mean their 'chocolate' flavour doesn't taste like chocolate then?? ... It tastes like vanilla. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Advice: Amp building
    ... So don't switch on a sub and you won't miss it - the sound is plenty good ... You mean their 'chocolate' flavour doesn't taste like chocolate then?? ... It tastes like vanilla. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Twilight Delight
    ... It is interesting to me how our taste changes over time. ... started with Trader Joe' Dark Belgian Chocolate, ... the Droste's 73% Extra Dark Chocolate Pastilles at Trader Joe's. ... All in all an excellent progression--the higher the cacao content, ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: chirality and fragrance
    ... Same discourse is true for the mouth taste. ... about "savory" as one of the fundamental types of taste receptor. ... to molecular shape, but then it is only a very simple spatial relationship ... This is why, for example, chloroform triggers your sweet receptors--even ...
    (sci.chem.analytical)