Tasting it clearly generates sensations in the brain that can be interpreted to be an effect of the physical configuration of the body.
And yet it's not possible for such a food to make someone an addict to it.
Your argument doesn't seem convincing to me.
I'm sure something with a very bad taste is addictive, but that's neither here nor there.
> Tasting it clearly generates sensations in the brain that can be interpreted to be an effect of the physical configuration of the body.
> And yet it's not possible for such a food to make someone an addict to it.
You seem to be thinking that I made an argument that was equivalent to "every effect on the physical configuration of the body must produce addiction" rather than one equivalent to "in the absence of some non-physical process driving psychology, every psychological effect, including psychological addictions that are often characterized as 'not-physiological', must, in fact, have a physiological basis."
> Your argument doesn't seem convincing to me.
You seem to have a very bizarre idea of what my argument is that doesn't seem closely attached to anything I actually wrote.
The idea that the qualification "physiologically speaking" actually refers to anything other than an imaginary distinction (as compared to the usual alternative, "psychologically") implicitly requires that there is some element of psychology that is not an effect of the physical configuration of the body (brain or otherwise).