DogMa wrote:
> I didn't mean to start an argument; just share a possibly useful
> observation and suggest some possibly interesting explanations.

No argument, just discussion. I actually may have come off too strong,
I try to really filter my statements because it is hard to show true
intention and inflection by simply typing. If we had been sitting in te
same room discussing this it would have been conversational and a bit
lively... but far from an argument in my mind. I like to hear peoples
theories and thoughts, regardless if I believe them 100% or not.
Sharing ideas and thoughts is always #1 to me, I would never want to
stop discussion or prevent someone fro speaking their mind. Heck, even
if you were a believer in homeopathy and were applying a similar theory
here... I'd listen and accept your theory... I just wouldn't agree with
it.

> I never claimed to be the discoverer of the putative effect, except on a
> personal basis. And please be more moderate in your generalizations
> ("the only option") and imputations. I consider homeopathy to be bunkum
> as a methodology beyond the undeniable placebo effect. I thought I had
> offered a pair of plausible inferences: salts as flavor potentiators via
> modified chemical transduction at the taste buds, modification of
> local neurochemistry, and/or cortex-level synthesis. The part I found
> most interesting was the persistence effect. To address this, I further
> proposed that ions may be stored in taste-related tissues - nothing
> mystical about that, and lots of scientists probably already know if
> this is the case..

I never stated that you had claimed this, it was just the direction it
seemed to be going especially in the conversation with Alex about your
theory. That was why I was hoping you would revisit the topic and make
your true intentions known. That was all. I'm sorry if my "only option"
comment seemed harsh, but basically those are the only two options.
Salts as flavor potentiators is what I had mentioned, and is known
fact. And then the neuro/cortex side of things (I thought) fell into
the homeopathic beliefs. I'm sure there are others such as you have
stated, but from the initial proposal that was what I had taken away
from it.

> > I knew that anyone who could back DogMa's original statements had to
> > have some connection or belief in homeopathy because that was what it
> > was all basically based around.
>
> I am not offended, but you are incorrect.

I never intended to offend anyone, but that comment was directed to
Alex. I actually left my comment quoted above, if you reread it I think
it was clear. For someone (not you) to so heavily back this as a
"discovery" of any magnitude would have to fall into believing in the
second half of the neural/cortex/persistence side of things. And it
turned out I was basically right, since I had no knowledge of Alex or
his work/colleagues and pretty much nailed it. I was just reading
between the lines about the comments made about your statement, not you
or your statement directly.

Hope that clears things up a bit, I like open discussion and always
enjoy it... so please don't take this side discussion as a negative
thing, also I don't want to derail the actual discussion in any way.

- Dominic