Is Ian a Fart Smeller

[Dancing David]

Sory Mr. Interesting,
But I have to disagree with a whole line of logic which you have propossed in your debate with Stimpy.

The smell of a fart is only a physical process in the brain.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no creature to percieve it, it makes a noise but not a sound.

Why should this be so?

There is an inherent dichotomy in perception, there are

a.physical/mediums that transmit information (photons, chemicals, the speed of particles(ambient temperature), pressure waves in gases)

b. there is then the interaction between these mediums and the receptor cells in the being which has a sensation leading to perception.

If a robot releases a captured fart, and there is no being to inhale the chemicals of the fart, then there are just chemicals in the air. But there is no smell.

If there is a being to interact with said roboticaly released fart (RRF), then there is a cascade leading to the perception of smelling said RRF.

a. chemicals in the RRF interact with receptors in the being which shall percieve (BWSP)

b. the receptor then sends a chemical impulse to other neurons in the BWSP

c. these neurons interect with the information processing areas in the brain of the BWSP.

d. the brain of the BWSP then generates the perception of the smell.

in short chemical reaction leads to neural transmission leads to brain activity leads to smell.


So please in term that a being with low intelectual capacity like myself can understand, explain to me how does the smell of a fart exist outside of the brain of the being which percieves it?

[Mercutio]

How do you know that the smell is not inherent in the chemicals, and that all that brain activity simply accesses that smell? After all, your step d implies "a smell" that has some form of existence--why is that possible at step d, rather than prior to step a?













[/ian]

[Dancing David]

Mecrutio? I am not sure your whole post arrived.

My point is that smell , like sound is a perception. There are chemicals in the enviroment but they are not a perception until they interact with the perciever.

Just like color, it is not a free standing thing, it is a percieved or a defined thing, the photons exist but they don't have meaning until they ineteract with the perciever.

There is no sound, there is no color without perception. Qualia such as 'garlic odor' are a result of the interaction with the perciever, they are not free standing.

[Mercutio]

Sorry, DD...I do understand, I was just quibbling on your referring to "the perception of the smell" (in step d) as if it were a noun. It is my automatic behavourist reaction to cognitive entities. As written, you do imply that "the perception" exists at that point (within the mind of the perceiver, perhaps). If it can exist as an entity at that point, why can it not exist as an entity at II's earlier point?

II's view is every bit as logically sound as the cognitivist view that puts perception in the mind of the beholder. My own view is that the very concept of mind is a fiction...but that is another story.

Sorry, I did not mean to yank your chain...I'll just slink away...

[Dancing David]

No slink, please thou art not the leggless snake to abase yourself so. Nor art thou craven, thou art most likely my better and one from who I might gain greater knowledge.

And you do draw a very reasonable point , which a man would have to be a lackwit or a buffoon to deny.

A perception and a sensation can , and are the same thing! To argue that there is a perception from the moment that the chemicals interact with the receptor would be a most seemly and cogent argument , displaying a continuity of thought.

However in this threda I will draw the line at the interaction with the receptors, the media may exist and have information. But it only becomes a 'smell' by interacting with the perciever.

[Tricky]

Slightly off topic, but it contains an interesting fact that I found only recently.

I have been trying to keep the squirrels out of my bird feeder, but they are tricky little devils (and so, I respect them greatly), however, I don't want to have to refill the feeder every day.

Recently I went to a store that specializes in bird feeders and bird baths. They sold me a bottle of squirrel repellant. What is squirrel repellant? It is extremely hot pepper. You mix it in with the bird feed. This works because birds cannot taste or digest the pepper. It was funny as hell watching a squirrel jump up on the feeder for the first time, shake its head violently, and dash away, presumably in search of a beer to wash down the pepper taste. The birds continued to chow down.

So the "taste" of pepper is not just in the a chemical combination of the pepper. It at least requires the ability of the individual to process the pepper chemicals, and perhaps to perceive the processed result.

Thus, a "smell of a fart" is not the chemicals in the air, but the ability to process and perceive those chemicals.

[Chareen]

Originally posted by Dancing David
My point is that smell , like sound is a perception. There are chemicals in the enviroment but they are not a perception until they interact with the perciever.

Incorrect. If we refer to the trusty dictionary we find that you are correct about smell, but not about sound.

smell ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sml)
v. smelled, or smelt (smlt) smell·ing, smells
v. tr. To perceive the scent of (something) by means of the olfactory nerves. To sense the presence of by or as if by the olfactory nerves; detect or discover.

sound1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sound)
n. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
Such sensations considered as a group.

Smell requires something to perceive it, sound only requires the perceivable frequencies to exist.

[Shinytop]

Oh, I love watching a circle................oh, never mind.

[Dancing David]

Hi Chareen,
Welcome to the Island, most of the natives are friendly, some are not but beware the trolls.

I would say for clarities sake that a noise would be an unpercieved sound. But to make my pont clear, qualia require a preciever.

Which dictionary did you use, I prefer the American Heritage myself or the OED.

Peace

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Chareen


Incorrect. If we refer to the trusty dictionary we find that you are correct about smell, but not about sound.

smell ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sml)
v. smelled, or smelt (smlt) smell·ing, smells
v. tr. To perceive the scent of (something) by means of the olfactory nerves. To sense the presence of by or as if by the olfactory nerves; detect or discover.

sound1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sound)
n. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
Such sensations considered as a group.

Smell requires something to perceive it, sound only requires the perceivable frequencies to exist.

i disagree. sound is a qualia. noise is what that dectionary should have been defining.

[RebeccaBradley]

I think the pathology of smell may be a little relevant here. There are olfactory disorders where the sufferer can't smell anything - or smells things that aren't there (i.e., are not perceived by others) - or gets smells mixed up (say, smells coffee as ammonia, or roses as s**t) - or perceives every smell as exactly the same as any other - etc. etc. The causes can be pretty various, from polyps in the nose, to hormonal imbalances, brain damage, or neurological disorders. The other senses can all be screwed up by similar pathologies. When the apparatus is in working order, we can pretty well agree that coffee is coffee and roses is roses - but it looks to me like brain function is the ultimate arbiter.

[American]

That makes you the second person on my Ignore list, Dancing David, the other being Interesting Ian himself for once stating emphatically that he "blasts loud farts."

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

heh

I thought the thread read

"Is Ian a Smart Fellar"

Origionally posted By Rebecca
When the apparatus is in working order, we can pretty well agree that coffee is coffee and roses is roses - but it looks to me like brain function is the ultimate arbiter.


hmm very interesting


I would wonder if our recognition of a smell, such as coffee or roses, may be a matter of an experience that we learn from and remember. For example, mother says to child "smell the rose" .

Let me babble on:

Assuming the olfactory nerves are functionaing properly, the rose may not smell the same to the mother and child. An association may be made based on a common experience, rather than on any definate absolutes, such as: what the mother smelled, the child smelled.

Could the experience (and several reinforcing experiences following) be recalled when a similiar smell is encountered again? If two or more people say of a smell "that is a rose", is it because the smell is the same to all, or that they are recalling, from similar learned experiences, a smell they all associate with a rose.

The interpretation of the smell may be influenced by visual cues, if the source of the smell is seen.

How much does sight influence what our expectations are of how a rose will smell? When mother showed the rose to the child, visual cues may have been associated with the smell.

Any rose we smell after our first may be expectated to smell as the first did, and that may influence how we interpret the smell of other roses we encounter.

Though two or more people may agree on the interpretation of a smell, what kind of an experiment could be set up to determine if these people smell the same thing? Is there anything measurable, that can be quantified?



These are the kinds of thoughts that kept me out of the good schools. ( shamelessly stolen from George Carlin)

[Mercutio]

Ok, maybe I'm really, really slow, but I only just now got the spoonerism in the title of this thread...fart smeller...smart feller...


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

(edited to add...I started this before PPG posted...)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by American
That makes you the second person on my Ignore list, Dancing David, the other being Interesting Ian himself for once stating emphatically that he "blasts loud farts."

What an honor, I am on your ignore list, and for what?

I am thrilled!

First JK and now you!

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Tricky

Recently I went to a store that specializes in bird feeders and bird baths. They sold me a bottle of squirrel repellant. What is squirrel repellant? It is extremely hot pepper. You mix it in with the bird feed. This works because birds cannot taste or digest the pepper. It was funny as hell watching a squirrel jump up on the feeder for the first time, shake its head violently, and dash away, presumably in search of a beer to wash down the pepper taste. The birds continued to chow down.

I have squirrels raiding my pepper garden all the time. I try to ward them off by putting the hot peppers on the perimeter, which works to some extent. They'll eat an entire sweet pepper, but take one bite of a hot one before dropping it. Unfortunately, they often do this to several peppers on the same plant before they get the message, I came home a few weeks ago to find one jalapeno plant nearly devoid of peppers, w/ a dozen or so laying around it w/ teeth marks in them.

I once saw an ingenious solution to the bird feeder/squirrel problem though. The bird feeder was on a rope between 2 trees. On either side of the feeder, strung like beads, were 4 or 5 plastic bottles. The squirrels couldn't get by the bottles, as they would just spin if the squirrel attempted to walk over them.