5 ms·
> Any molecule that can fool your tastebuds, can also fool some of the other receptors in your body Fool? Taste buds aren’t sentient. So maybe you mean “activa
by pkulak 4y ago
> Any molecule that can fool your tastebuds, can also fool some of the other receptors in your body
Fool? Taste buds aren’t sentient. So maybe you mean “activate”? But even then, just because something has taste, that doesn’t imply anything else at all.
- tsimionescu 4y agoThat is exceedingly pedantic, and not necessarily correct. The point is that taste buds exist to detect the presence of sugars like sucrose or fructose (and some other substances like sweet proteins), for their high caloric content and easy access to energy. Artificial sweeteners happen to activate those same receptors, but they are neither high in calories nor an easy way to access stored energy, so they are essentially "fooling" those detectors. Just like we can say that an SQL Injection payload is fooling the server to perform some operation, without having to attribute actual intelligence to a simple program.
- pkulak 4y agoIt's not pedantic, it's me fighting back against all these non-scientific logic shortcuts. Taste buds don't exist "to do" anything; they just exist. We can't anthropomorphize everything all the time, and then use those attributed human qualities to make our points. "Taste buds want do taste sugar because they know how many calories sugar has, but they are fooled by this mean chemical, and it makes them feel bad, so blah blah blah." It gets so tiring.