Suck: I don't see how this supports the idea that "coffee tricks the (central) nervous system into always wanting more." That seems to me like a pretty complicated and precise neurological question, and one that requires a lot of aided research.
No virtually all recreational stimulants/depressants work the same, there's always temptation for some to go overboard, there's always a withdrawal that can temporarily alleviated by consuming more of the drug.
I would say that the very vast majority of people cannot relate to such a thing. Even when they do, it's not to say they don't have a form of OCD or hypochondria that's mainly perpetuating it.
I was talking about caffeine withdrawal for people who overconsume coffee, in regards to how it could affect driving, among other things.
Nope, I still don't see any proof that "over 4 cups of coffee makes someone too intoxicated to drive".
I"m not claiming they're, 'too', intoxicated to drive, I'm claiming that in all likelihood, after about four cups for the average person, driving becomes increasingly difficult, however great-slight.
I like how you've gone from weakening, and then strengthening up, and now weakened your claim down to "well, they (drugs) tend to taste somewhere between bland and bad". No, that's still not going to work, because this still has counter-examples that I've already been through with you. It's not aligned with the evidence we have for why certain drugs have popularized all over different cultures. You need to provide a more sustainable source that we've been evolutionarily adapted to avoid drugs, and that they generally 'taste bad', then "Well, stick a drug in a baby's mouth and they'll spit it out".
You haven't brought up any exceptions, tobacco and weed smelling good when you burn them is hardly an exception, it feels horrible when you inhale them, I mean wood can smell good when you burn it, but we don't have any temptation to go inhale the smoke, we'd start suffocating.
Drugs usually taste bad and sometimes they taste bland, our senses are indicating they're at best not good and at worst bad, that's a point against them.
Caffeine all by itself tastes bad and is a poison that kills cats, dogs and many other animals, but has a milder effect on humans.
Often seeds contain poisons that taste bad because that's the plants way of protecting its offspring, so you don't swallow them, or if you swallow them, you don't bite into them, allowing them to pass through your digestive tract unabsorbed.
Again, it's not that I trust my senses and instincts 100%, if my intellect and my senses are in conflict, than either I'll compromise with my senses, or when the danger is really apparent, I'll attempt to overrule them, but if my senses are indicating something is very bad, and my intellect doesn't know, or is divided, then I'm inclined to overrule my intellect.
Life and epistemology is holistic and ought to be lived that way, it's about taking data from multiple sources into consideration and weighing them against each other, instead of only relying on one source, presuming the other is completely arbitrary, or bringing up a couple of exceptions to try to disprove the rule.
scientists think sexual attraction evolved to help us select superior mates
...Scientists that you selectively trust.
And science you selectively consider, since you won't consider it here.
I do selectively consider science, but not arbitrarily, as you imagine.
Trusting science 100%, irrespective of assessing their motive, opportunity, history, the quality of their work, whether it aligns with reason and common sense, makes you a kind of science fundamentalist.
And I suppose the existence of cosmetics, porn, gays and lesbians disproves sexuality is rooted in natural selection.
Of course consumpsuality is rooted natural selection, it's just not absolutely rooted in it, nothing is, it's not that we should always trust our senses, it's that we should always consider them.
I was saying you used "Black Coffee" as a basic reduction of the most natural form of caffeine, but my point is that isn't even true. Both the Coffea cherry and the coffee bean could be and were consumed before it was ever made into a drink.
But was the bean itself chewed up and swallowed, and did it taste good' to people not psychologically dependent on it?
You will never seen anything from a naturopath that gets into anything other than a self-published medical journal, which is not the peer review that I speak of, and something anyone can post their work into
Are you sure?
But there's no question they do review and criticize each others work on some level, so it's not something God bestowed exclusively to government and mainline academia.
No one in their right mind believes caffeine intoxication is benign, as you do.
"According to you, everyone apparently does. This is in plain contradiction to what you've been arguing for since the start of this thread, that people don't take the effects of caffeine seriously enough."
I said no on in their, right, mind.