Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyCoconuts
But it is about how one PERCEIVES the scent
The same input is not received the same in each person due to the difference in their neural pathways based on their introduction to the scent.
|
Sorry, but I don't see the relevance. For example, how I perceive a brick in a metaphysical sense is irrelevant, in my view, when we're talking about corroborating views of a brick. There exists a common intersubjective/objective universe, I'm sure we could all agree. If I say something is red, you'd understand what I mean and agree that it's red, even if we might perceive 'red' differently.
If you're saying I might see a brick and identify it as an elephant, and you might ass a brick and identify it as a boat, in a way that it's impossible to corroborate scents, I disagree.
That fact that we could connect food ingredients is proof. I could taste or smell bacon, and identify bacon. It doesn't matter how I perceive the smell of bacon, the fact that I understand that it's bacon is enough.
If you mean that we use different analogies as reference when identifying scents, I don't see what the problem would be. It takes a little imagination to recognize similar components between smells, since often times something would have multiple odorants anyways. But it would be odd to say that one could not corroborate a single odorant.
We might have different analogies when we describe the scent of 1,8-cineole or geraniol, but when we smell 1,8-cineole again in a different context, it would elicit the same description. There is corroboration. It's not random.
Hybrid Mode
