Kirt:

>> I'm not sure I understand your confusion, David. "Instinct" as used by
> instincto-therapy refers to sensory (smell and taste) attraction
regardless  of visual cues and other neo-cortical "input". If a food has an
attractive  smell and taste (or even simply an "interesting" smell and taste) why
> shouldn't your cat be attracted? All sorts of "wild" animals are
attracted  to to food remnants in garbage dumps, both raw and denatured. The trouble
> is perhaps not so much "accounting for the attraction as a function of
> instinct" as much as it is deciding if a food is usefully capable of
> interacting with one's smell and taste in a health-giving way.

David:

I guess my view of instinctive eating is too simplistic; my belief has been
that the underlying assumption of this approach is that animals, if
uncorrupted (by ideation, culture, random exposures to deranged foods,
slick marketing, etc.), are instinctively guided to their
original/natural/optimal foods and, in fact, to these foods alone; that
smell/taste responses are resting on such instincts. I am beginning to see
that this is not a correct interpretation of instincto-therapy. But if it
isn't, how can we ever identify the source of an attraction or distaste for
some "food"? And if even in a perfect world our "wisdom" (as opposed to
knowledge) would lead us astray in this regard, how can we put any weight
on our responses to particular foods? Wow, I am confused!