Topic started by Ellen (@ c-66-177-115-58.se.client2.attbi.com) on Fri May 2 16:21:52 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

I got curious from the "Does God exist" thread.

"De gustibus non est disputandum". (There is no disputing in matters of taste.)

>>Sweetness comes from a specific molecular structure; and one can analyse it by molecular analysis (biochemistry). (Rohit)>>


This stuff, I totally copied and pasted, IOW, not my own!

Taste transduction involves the interaction of molecules with taste receptor cells, which reside in specialized structures known as taste buds...

Sweet
The sweet taste is more complicated, as shown by some of the compounds listed in Table III. There is evidence that these act on the same set of receptors, since the sweet taste of all of them is blocked by pre-treatment of the tongue with gymnemic acid, an extract of the plant Gymnema sylvestre (Bartoshuk et al., 1969). This compound tastes like strong tea, and rinsing the tongue blocks all sweet tastes for about one hour without affecting salt, sour or bitter. The gymnemic acid occupies the sweet receptors in the mouth, preventing other sweet-tasting compounds from stimulating them.


Table III. Sweet-tasting compounds
________________________________________________________________
Sugars OHC-HCOH-HOCH-HCOH-HCOH-CH2OH
Alcohols OH-CH2-CH2-OH
Glycols HO-C=C-OH
Saccharin CO
/ \ / \
| | N
\ / \ /
SO2
Leucine (CH3)2-CH-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH
Lead acetate Pb(CH3-COO -)3
Beryllium chloride BeCl2
Aspartame N-Aspartylphenylalanine
_______________________________________________________________

The sweet taste may be due to the formation of a double hydrogen bond between the tastant molecule and receptor complex on the surface of the taste cell, as shown in Figure 14. This theory was put forth by Shallenberger (1971), and succeeded in explaining the sweet tastes of several different compounds, some ionized and some not. It is assumed that the tastant has a hydrogen-donating site within 3 Ångstroms of a hydrogen-accepting site, and that these have complementary donating and accepting sites on the receptor membrane, also spaced 3 Ångstroms apart.

For instance, in saccharine the nitrogen atom can donate a hydrogen ion and the oxygen can accept. Metal compounds in solution are hydrated and in this configuration can donate and accept H-ions.

Source:

www.dent.ucla.edu/sod/courses/OB422c/LECT07.doc

Responses:

• From: Ramadas (@ dclient80-218-23-75.hispeed.ch) on: Sat May 3 01:52:39 EDT 2003
  
  You mean to say that because of all these properties the thing tastes sweet to all the beings? A kangaroo, a monkey, a bird, an insect, an ameoba, a crab, a frog, etc.? Is the taste called by me as "sweetness" the same sweetness you taste? How can we prove that? Suppose there is an arbitraty tribe in some corner of the world. From time immemorial they have never been introduces to this taste of sweet. Suppose they eat food but never a sweet one (just suppose). One of our "modern, civilized" people go to their land and capture one native and bring him to our place. We give him sugar to eat. Will he enjoy it, will he call it sweetness?.. I do not know. I am just thinking. You gave such a big lecture on why something is sweet, but how can I prove that the "sweet" what I am tastimg is the same "sweet" you are tasting?
  
  
• From: TamilNattan (@ cvg-65-27-251-73.cinci.rr.com) on: Sat May 3 02:04:37 EDT 2003
  
  DheiyvamE !
  
  
• From: Jez (@ cache-loh-af03.proxy.aol.com) on: Sun May 4 01:25:46 EDT 2003
  
  The main thing, to answer Ramadas, is you could examine one person's responses to sweet stuff against another's. If they differ in their responses you might hypothesise that the differences are either taste bud variations, of which there some might be generally expected, and explore which are caused by dietary and other possible factors. You could also propose that we've learnt in overlapping groups to react in certain ways to foods, like a preference for more or less sugar with coffee. Differences in description? It's one for a food expertissimo.
  
  
• From: Ramadas (@ dclient80-218-23-75.hispeed.ch) on: Sun May 4 02:29:42 EDT 2003
  
  What proof do we have that what one "examines" is the same as another person examining the response of the person? What you call a "cup" (say) is the image of that object as understood by your brain of the image made by the eyes. How can I prove that the image of that same object as understood by my brain is the same as yours? We may give it the same name, say cup, but the image may not be the same!(Another corollary to this is whether the sound of the word "cup" makes the same image in my brain and yours?). Suppose a person is born blind and have never "seen" the cup (he has felt it and has an image of it, in his own way, in mind and somebody has taught him it is a cup. Suppose this guy by some medical miracle got the power of sight at the age of say 40. If you show him the cup would he believe it as the cup? He has to be re-taught the cup again! Because he has only a spatial "feeling" image of the cup until the age of 40. Right?
  
  
• From: :) (@ d150-35-51.home.cgocable.net) on: Sun May 4 10:17:59 EDT 2003
  
  a typical example for taste is paahakkai, some love it some hate it, some find it bitter, some dont
  
  
• From: Jez (@ cache-loh-af03.proxy.aol.com) on: Sun May 4 11:43:11 EDT 2003
  
  Ramadas, I like this kind of questioning but I will take it seriously the day I argue with someone over 'cup' - making the word fit the thing personally and universally is one of the aspirations of all language use. Meanings synthesise unless we take an approach based on self-doubt and lock ourselves away (saving others the trouble). The blind man cured doesn't relearn the cup, but learns to perceive new aspects of the qualities of cups. He continues use it for it's main function in much the same way.
  
  
• From: TamilNattan (@ cvg-65-27-251-73.cinci.rr.com) on: Sun May 4 12:00:36 EDT 2003
  
  >> He continues use it for it's main function in much the same way. <<
  
  Jez, everyone (the blind and the enlightened) use the cup for the same "function". That's not what is discussed here. Also you are not going to argue with anyone that it's not a cup. Let us say your brain uses some notation to understand a cup (XPK55GBU). My brain may be using a different notation (89KPK5DU) for the same thing. This is an internal understanding. When someone asks for a cup we will both give him the same thing. We will not be arguing or using it as a thermometer.
  
  
• From: Jez (@ cache-loh-af03.proxy.aol.com) on: Sun May 4 12:14:39 EDT 2003
  
  The code is what I'm on about, TamilNattan. The components of the code are mostly similar and useful in identifying 'cup' - probably round, hollow, perhaps with a handle, seen to contain liquid etc. I'm saying that if the introduction of a new sense aids that objective it demonstates not differences but the fundamental similarities in perception. Saying that we are seeing the same thing IS language.
  
  
• From: TamilNattan (@ cvg-65-27-251-73.cinci.rr.com) on: Sun May 4 12:25:09 EDT 2003
  
  >> The components of the code are mostly similar and useful in identifying 'cup' > it demonstates not differences but the fundamental similarities in perception <<
  Same case..
  
  By the way I am not saying we are using binary or numeric codes internally to perceive things. I am just using the example to clarify what the argument is about.
  
  
• From: TamilNattan (@ cvg-65-27-251-73.cinci.rr.com) on: Sun May 4 12:25:49 EDT 2003
  
  "The components of the code are mostly similar and useful in identifying 'cup'"
  
  You are corect that the perception codes are useful in identifying the cup, and also its function. But how do you know "they are mostly similar"? Because they mean the same outwardly object they are "mostly similar"? How do you know? Or like Ramadas ANNa will say "is it even possible to know?"
  
  "it demonstates not differences but the fundamental similarities in perception"
  
  Same case..
  
  By the way I am not saying we are using binary or numeric codes internally to perceive things. I am just using the example to clarify what the argument is about.
  
  
• From: Jez (@ cache-loh-af03.proxy.aol.com) on: Sun May 4 12:35:49 EDT 2003
  
  Unicorn. Black hole. If we understand these things differently we end up trying to concretise points of agreement and build enough similar terms of reference to have the same understanding. Differences in how we refer to these things internally - how, not everyone, but the blind man cured, perceives form and function - are absolutely no reason for misunderstanding, so while I don't think you're both entirely wrong, I see it as an irrelevant question like 'do we exist'. Hence my previous answers ;)
  
  
• From: Jez (@ cache-loh-af03.proxy.aol.com) on: Sun May 4 12:37:18 EDT 2003
  
  Oh yeah, I should have written Unicorn. Black Hole. Sugar.
  
  
• From: Ellen (@ c-66-177-115-58.se.client2.attbi.com) on: Sun May 4 12:43:35 EDT 2003
  
  minus unicorn ;0
  
  
• From: TamilNattan (@ cvg-65-27-251-73.cinci.rr.com) on: Sun May 4 12:52:46 EDT 2003
  
  Jez,
  
  Look at Ramadas aNNaa's first post.
  
  I throw a ball and ask a 8 year old child to bring it back. I also ask my dog to do the same. They both work on the same object (ball) and they do the same thing (bring it back).
  
  I am glad my dog and I have developed a common understanding through similar terms of reference and language :-)
  
  
• From: TamilNattan (@ cvg-65-27-251-73.cinci.rr.com) on: Sun May 4 12:57:05 EDT 2003
  
  I would like to ride a Unicorn into the black hole while I eat some sugar :-)
  
  
• From: Jez (@ acbfbea0.ipt.aol.com) on: Sun May 4 15:35:15 EDT 2003
  
  So the dog has some limited responses to your external language. Give your 8 year old some credit.
  
  
• From: safe (@ 202.9.168.93) on: Mon May 19 04:53:08 EDT 2003
  
  
  I would like to ride a Unicorn into the black hole while I eat some sugar :-)
  
  
• From: neo_morpheus (@ ppp-219.65.98.60.chn.vsnl.net.in) on: Mon May 19 06:36:32 EDT 2003
  
  
  I would like to ride a unicorn into the black hole while eating sugar, and 'praying' to 'god'!
  
  gosh! relativity can be used to debunk all our 'proven','normal' 'conclusions'!!.
  
  
• From: Neck (@ ) on: Sat Jul 5 16:54:02
  
  Fraudster - covering up
  
  Here it is:
  
  i)have a plan
  ii) carry out that plan
  iii)make it less obvious
  iv)open other threads to stray people away from i-iii
  
  
• From: geno (@ ) on: Tue May 4 18:25:05
  
  Interesting thread!
  
  And thats why its not a surprise that it was sent to archives in double-quick time!
  
  :=)
  
  

Want to post a response?