except the taste isn't "the a taste of" protons. protons don't have taste. it's an experience that the brain generates, but we don't know how or why, and there's no isomorphism between sensory experiences and proton properties.
@@HighlyEntropicMind well, no, that's not an explanation of the experience's properties. "taste" or sourness is not a property of any subatomic particle, just like color, smell, sound, etc... aren't. we more or less know how signals are processed by the nervous system, but the brain is in a vat-our skulls, constructing experience from patterns of excitation. we don't know how that works. you should check out andy clark's recent Royal Institute lecture about predictive processing!
@@real_patternLanguage can be accurate without being precise. What you've said is just a very unpacked elaboration on "protons taste sour." In a similar analogy, it's fun to say that plants "eat" sunlight. That's not a technically accurate description of the process of photosynthesis, but it's a great place to start a conversation that's approachable to a very broad audience with different levels of interest, experience, and education.
@@MrKyltpzyxm i agree in that it's a bit nitpicky, but as far as understanding experience and/or how the manifest image is in consilience with the scientific image are concerned, we really don't know much. we agree that there is extremely tight correlation between experience and brain activity, but we don't have good theories that explain the nature of the correlation. photosynthesis can be described entirely in third person terms, and we usually don't attribute 'experience' -- first person perspectival point of view -- to photosynthesis. but sensory experiences like 'taste' and any experience in general, be it affective, interoceptive... are different from third-person non-experiential processes. 'taste' is something that (most probably) the brain generates, but there don't seem to be any necessary connections between actual taste experiences and physical/chemical properties of molecules. same for any sensory modality, eg. 'color' has nothing to do with frequencies of photon field excitations, it's an experiential phenomenon that is somehow generated, that arises anew, unpredictable from just knowing all we currently know about EM radiation.
proton soup would be an incredibly foul tasting substance
I literally asked ChatGPT this EXACT question when I learned that sourness was a response to H+ ion concentration on the tounge
I thought the only flavours locked into protons were _up_ and _down._ ;)
Another novel way to look at reality, compliments of this guy. Very grateful to have found this gentleman.
This is amazing! Love it
Wait, neutrons? How? Aren't those unstable?
Wow😮
you’re the best
Better than posting
except the taste isn't "the a taste of" protons. protons don't have taste. it's an experience that the brain generates, but we don't know how or why, and there's no isomorphism between sensory experiences and proton properties.
Why do know how and why that experience is created. It is created when the chemical receptors of specialized nerve cells react with an acid
@@HighlyEntropicMind well, no, that's not an explanation of the experience's properties. "taste" or sourness is not a property of any subatomic particle, just like color, smell, sound, etc... aren't. we more or less know how signals are processed by the nervous system, but the brain is in a vat-our skulls, constructing experience from patterns of excitation. we don't know how that works. you should check out andy clark's recent Royal Institute lecture about predictive processing!
@@real_patternLanguage can be accurate without being precise. What you've said is just a very unpacked elaboration on "protons taste sour."
In a similar analogy, it's fun to say that plants "eat" sunlight. That's not a technically accurate description of the process of photosynthesis, but it's a great place to start a conversation that's approachable to a very broad audience with different levels of interest, experience, and education.
@@MrKyltpzyxm i agree in that it's a bit nitpicky, but as far as understanding experience and/or how the manifest image is in consilience with the scientific image are concerned, we really don't know much. we agree that there is extremely tight correlation between experience and brain activity, but we don't have good theories that explain the nature of the correlation.
photosynthesis can be described entirely in third person terms, and we usually don't attribute 'experience' -- first person perspectival point of view -- to photosynthesis. but sensory experiences like 'taste' and any experience in general, be it affective, interoceptive... are different from third-person non-experiential processes. 'taste' is something that (most probably) the brain generates, but there don't seem to be any necessary connections between actual taste experiences and physical/chemical properties of molecules. same for any sensory modality, eg. 'color' has nothing to do with frequencies of photon field excitations, it's an experiential phenomenon that is somehow generated, that arises anew, unpredictable from just knowing all we currently know about EM radiation.
Yes our teacher in 10th standard told us this thing 😲
This isnt as flashy as Hank Green's "face eating proton" taste video, but very cool nonetheless!