{ plastic bags, various wires, a few DC adapter/chargers, the $10 soldering iron's AC cord, a used paper napkin that smelled like the sub sandwich it came with, crumpled up sheets of paper that are thrown and chased and batted around for some time, peanut butter, American cheese, tortilla chips (with or without Valentina and refried pinto beans and melted cheese), the spaghetti sauce or chili residue on the bowl, fluffy white rice, beef jerky (any flavor incl. peppered), roasted salted peanuts, dried fruits from trail mix, fresh voles }
Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
151–160 of 167 posts
Re: Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cats can be motivated by texture, so that may be part of it.
That's my theory. Every cat I've had had some level of addiction to licking/chomping plastic. All kinds of plastic, so I don't buy the made-with-tallow theory. Grocery bags, cling wrap, rubber bands, 6-pack rings. One of the current ones likes to chew holes in the plastic shower curtains. Little freak. :-)
This is great. I have a partner whose cat loves chewing plastic, rubber bands and hair elastics, foam... we always thought it weird but I haven't heard of others with this experience til today. So now I wonder if his other peculiarities are common.
The cat is very attached to my partner, and won't let anybody else touch him (always ready with tooth and claw). Not quite as possessive as a parrot, but he's a bit of a terror. He gets especially violent when he's hungry -- you're allowed to walk past his bowl once, but if you don't return with food, watch out.
Re: Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
#153I found this out when asking myself the question "are animals fooled by artificial sweeteners". The rabbit hole that that led into is not only do we not know the answer to that question, many animals don't even taste "sweetness" (or if they taste it they don't like it or don't prefer it). Not even all primates, if I recall correctly. And we've seen drift -- apparently we used to be able to bait cockroaches with sweet…
Whoa. Smell was more important than sight for brain evolution? Is there somewhere I can read more about this?
Sight is pretty confined dimensionally. R,G,Bx100x100 + focal plane gets you basically all the resolution you need.
We can’t even model smells.
Re: Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
#154Some of the stuff I've seen our cat eating, it's both obvious and a blessing that he doesn't have much of a sense of taste. Goes nuts for the plastic wrappers you get around Pepsi cans and won't stop licking them. Little weirdo.
I had a cat that went nuts for spaghetti. He'd jump up on the counter and slurp the noodles. Same cat also loved cucumbers.
My mom's cat prefers to drink water from a glass like a human. Either that, or from the toilet (to which he can open the door).
Re: Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I can confirm that it tastes quite nice as well - thought fortunately I am working at home today so nobody saw me conduct that particular experiment!
Interesting! Now I have to try this.
Be warned that my patent for dried coffee licking powder is now in the works! Prior art be damned.
;-)
Re: Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a cat who loves to lick crinkly plastic wrappers and bags. I use shopping bags for my bedroom trash can and I'll wake up to him just sitting there licking the folded over edge for upwards of 10 minutes. Two theories I've heard are that beef tallow is sometimes used in the manufacture of such bags so they might be smelling that. Or it could be as simple as they enjoy the sensation and/or sound of licking the ba…
Ah beef tallow, hadn’t thought of that. Good suggestion. The best theory I had was that he was getting a buzz from solvent in the ink or the plastic itself. Or that he was just odd.
From memory, I think the tallow is used to lubricate the rollers in bag making machines. Though if that were the case I'd expect dogs to do the same. Those dummies will eat anything.
Re: Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dealing with smells was so hard that brains evolved to deal with the problem, and then it was just evolution asking the question "what else can we do with this giant block of computational power -- what about ... memory? vision? hearing?" Hmm, interesting. If I remember correctly, Stephen Jay Gould argued something similar about the human brain, except it wasn't about smell , it was about walking upright. He argued…
> He argued -- or quoted people who argued this -- that it's likely human intelligence arose as a side-effect from the brain structures needed for an upright stance. As stated this doesn't pass the smell test because a long list of animals are able to "stand" and walk upright (cats, primates, bears, what have you...) if they so chose. Not to mention kangaroos, birds (who are also capable of things like flight with ge…
You raise some good points, for which I don't have the answer. However:
> Walking upright really seems like something you don't need "much of a brain" for. You don't even need to teach a monkey to do it.
You do need much of a brain for it -- not intelligence, but brain; Gould argued that "intelligence" and higher brain functions arose as a side-effect. Keep in mind that AI researchers found out "the easy things are hard and the hard things are easy" (i.e. locomotion and fine-grained motor skills are harder than they seem, while logic games, chess and go are easier than they seem).
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox):
"Moravec's paradox is the observation by artificial intelligence and robotics researchers that, contrary to traditional assumptions, high-level reasoning requires very little computation, but low-level sensorimotor skills require enormous computational resources."
> As stated this doesn't pass the smell test because a long list of animals are able to "stand" and walk upright (cats, primates, bears, what have you...)
None of those walk upright as their primary means of locomotion, nor are they capable of walking exactly like humans do.
> Not to mention kangaroos, birds (who are also capable of things like flight with generally much smaller brains), etc.
Good point. I don't have an answer for this. Guess you'll have to read some Stephen Jay Gould. I recommend his writing, which is fascinating :)
Re: Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no fat in the jam or preserves that my cat likes.
I strongly suspect that many cats develop an enjoyment of certain textures. Mine is completely uninterested in most greens, but delights in chewing on broccoli.
I had a cat who loved gnawing on grape stems. Not grapes. Just the stems.
Re: Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mine loves cantaloupe. I’m curious which part of that she likes other than the sweetness.
This is probably the first time I've seen someone else say this online. The cat I grew up with (lived 21 years) loved cantaloupe as well. It would smell it from far away and come trotting into the kitchen. Seemed to be able to eat as much of the fruit as we were willing to chop for it.
Me three.
Re: Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He argued -- or quoted people who argued this -- that it's likely human intelligence arose as a side-effect from the brain structures needed for an upright stance. As stated this doesn't pass the smell test because a long list of animals are able to "stand" and walk upright (cats, primates, bears, what have you...) if they so chose. Not to mention kangaroos, birds (who are also capable of things like flight with ge…
You raise some good points, for which I don't have the answer. However: > Walking upright really seems like something you don't need "much of a brain" for. You don't even need to teach a monkey to do it. You do need much of a brain for it -- not intelligence, but brain; Gould argued that "intelligence" and higher brain functions arose as a side-effect. Keep in mind that AI researchers found out "the easy things are h…
I was just trying to make the point that as stated I wouldn't buy it. I'm sure who you paraphrased gave it some more in-depth thought though.
For instance if you were to tell me that walking upright opened up possibilities, such as creating and using advanced tools, which required larger brains, then I'd definitely be on board with that possibility.
I just choose to interpret that sentence literally and narrowly to make a point about it specifically, not about Gould's theory as a whole (which I haven't read).