Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?

[squire]

Well, it's simple enough if anyone want's to experiment. Pour two ounces of Bourbon in a sauce pan and bring it to a boil at which point the alcohol is gone. Cool it, drink it and decide.

[SFS]

Why didn't I think of that? I don't have any Barton's, but I'm going to try this with that swill called OGD114. I'll report back.

[ILLfarmboy]

Well, it's simple enough if anyone want's to experiment. Pour two ounces of Bourbon in a sauce pan and bring it to a boil at which point the alcohol is gone. Cool it, drink it and decide.

Tastes horrible. I've done this while messing around with my home made ice cream concoctions.

Alcohol is essential to how you experience the taste of whiskey. But lets not conflate that with its intoxicating effects. I think that's one point CoMobourbon was touching on.

[RWBadley]

Does anyone else entertain this notion, or am I the odd man out?

[sailor22]

Or if someone was a chemist (cough, shuffle) they could develop a wand coated with a substance that bonded to ethanol and only ethanol. A swish of the wand and through the magic of molecular recognition the amount of ethanol in the juice would be reduced. Basic molecular recognition exercise, no problem.

[WAINWRIGHT]

I feel it is more of a attribute more than a detriment itself as far as the topic goes.I believe that every spirit shows it's nuances in quite different ways especially with the way evaporation of alcohol/methanol as in part towards the finish whether it be difference between proof or level of char within the barrel all show differently.To me the finish is one of the key factors in enjoyment and without this the true spirit of one's chosen pour would be greatly effected or even lost.

[ramblinman]

Your wish granted, http://www.arkaybeverages.com/default.html, Arkay the "Worlds First Alcohol-Free Whisky-Flavored Drink"

I'm sure its delicious.

[MyOldKyDram]

Barrel free is the new barrel strength.

[squire]

Have you fellows considered how hard those stillmen work to get the water out of the whisky? I'll not be one to diminish their efforts.

[SMOWK]

If bourbon didn't get me drunk I'd drink something that did.

[cowdery]

And that thought is at the center of my question Alan. I don't agree that the effect of the ethanol is nice, or desirable. I would prefer it be absent. I treat the effect as the price of admission - it's unfortunately required to have the experience of that specific taste.

Mock all you want Chuck, but I think you missed my point (though I appreciate your concern about me being a dangerously self-deluded alcoholic playing Russian roulette - hope everything is okay at your end). Your generalization that "the psychoactive effect of the ethenol [sic] is essential to the experience" is not true for everyone. It is precisely the opposite of essential to me. That's kinda why I started the thread. If that wasn't clear from the OP, perhaps that's because the ethanol had an effect. See my point?

Your smug and aggressive defensiveness tells me all I need to know. Good day, sir.

[Dolph Lundgren]

I don't know how I'd enjoy bourbon without the booze, but I sure do wish I could enjoy McDonalds without the fatness...and cholesterol.

[CoMobourbon]

I don't agree that the effect of the ethanol is nice, or desirable. I would prefer it be absent. I treat the effect as the price of admission - it's unfortunately required to have the experience of that specific taste.

... If that wasn't clear from the OP, perhaps that's because the ethanol had an effect. See my point?

OK, given that we understand the very simple premise of the thread (whiskey taste good, alcohol bad), is it possible that you need to revisit the concept of a false dichotomy? Because the premise clearly involves a dichotomy, and we (me, Brad, Chuck, and others) are proposing that it is a false one. For better or worse, you have not responded to this false-dichotomy proposal. Being arrogant, naturally, I am pretty sure that I am right, but I would be interested to hear what you have to say about it nonetheless.

To be clear, a false dichotomy is a construct in which the speaker (you, in this case) draws up an arbitrary categorical division that does that match the real situation he / she is attempting to describe. Very often, false dichotomies involve basic conceptual confusions or discrepancies.

For example, saying 'I like heat, but I wish I could have heat without energy' is a false dichotomy. Heat IS just a kind of energy; the two concepts are inseparable, so the false dichotomy involves a conceptual confusion.

Another example:

Good VS. Evil (sound dichotomy)

Evil VS. Wrongdoing (false dichotomy)

We are saying, in short, that [whiskey tastes vs. alcohol effects] is a false dichotomy. The effects of alcohol ARE A PART OF the taste experience of a given whiskey. To assume that they can be separated indicates basic conceptual misunderstanding about what the total effects of alcohol are.

Why didn't I think of that? I don't have any Barton's, but I'm going to try this with that swill called OGD114. I'll report back.

Surely you can see this is true - especially if you like OGD114. Even if, hypothetically, boiling the whiskey wouldn't basically alter the flavor in some entirely different and unaccountable way, we could totally account for the loss of flavor that OGD114 would suffer if you removed all of the alcohol!

Alcohol is essential to how you experience the taste of whiskey. But lets not conflate that with its intoxicating effects.

If, on the other hand, you mostly just wish that you didn't get drunk so fast, that makes sense. But again (refer back to several posts in this thread), that pleasure effect of intoxication is totally inseperable from the immediate taste of the whiskey - that's just how the brain / human psychology works (Chuck seems to know a more impressive term for what I am talking about).

Edited March 26, 2013 by CoMobourbon

[squire]

I don't have to like the taste to like the effect.

[CoMobourbon]

I don't have to like the taste to like the effect.

:slappin:He says, deep into his fifth glass of Barton...

No, but you obviously still get the point. Maybe you can get drunk without taste, but you can't enjoy taste without alcohol.

Analogy: There is energy that is not heat (I think? HS physics...), but you can't have heat without energy because heat is just a kind of energy.

[CoMobourbon]

...not to in any way insinuate that Barton is without taste, of course.

[squire]

My fifth glass? You obviously use small glasses.

[CoMobourbon]

Hey man, when I'm retired, I intend to have consumed 5 full-sized glasses by 3:30 PM a couple times a week.

[squire]

When you're retired every day's a weekend.

[ILLfarmboy]

If, on the other hand, you mostly just wish that you didn't get drunk so fast, that makes sense. But again (refer back to several posts in this thread), that pleasure effect of intoxication is totally inseperable from the immediate taste of the whiskey - that's just how the brain / human psychology works (Chuck seems to know a more impressive term for what I am talking about).

What science backs that up.

To clarify: yes I often wish the intoxifing effects could be blunted after about the third pour so that one can experience the same level of intoxication no matter how much one drank.

Removing the alcohol all together would result in a beverage that doesn't taste like whiskey because the alcohol is essential to its flavor. you wouldn't taste the same cogeners in its absence nor would you have the effect of bringing those flavor compounds all the way through your sinuses. Also the level of alcohol slows down consumption, not just because you'll get instantly blotto but because drinking something that's 50 percent alcohol like it was water would hurt your throught the same way chugging hot coffee would.

But you can't to be saying the state of intoxification is necessary. The first sip of this BT didn't taste like someone boiled off the alcohol. Sure, the second and third pour will prob go down easier because of the effects of the alcohol (its been a while I've been fighting a head cold) but it seems we are conflating two different things, things that are closely related, to be sure, but I still think there's much conflation going on, and I think Chuck is fueling it.

And as far as Chuck goes

[CoMobourbon]

What science backs that up.

Removing the alcohol all together would result in a beverage that doesn't taste like whiskey because the alcohol is essential to its flavor. you wouldn't taste the same cogeners in its absence nor would you have the effect of bringing those flavor compounds all the way through your sinuses.

But you can't to be saying the state of intoxification is necessary.

This is complicated, so lots of clarifications are appropriate.

What I am saying: Pretty much what you are saying. Alcohol is integral to the experience of a whiskey in at least three ways: alcohol amplifies existing flavors; alcohol itself contributes a taste to the overall taste experience; alcohol acts on pleasure centers of the brain in a way that supersedes taste altogether.

What I am not saying: You have to be drunk to enjoy whiskey.

Altogether, removing the alcohol from a whiskey would fundamentally change the whiskey. One cannot meaningfully discuss the taste experience of alcohol without at least accounting for the many fundamental ways in which alcohol shapes and even defines that taste experience. So, the 'taste vs alcohol' dichotomy is a false one; the two are inextricably inter-related.

As for science, I am referring to the much researched and discussed positive relationship between dopamine levels and alcohol consumption.* In short, alcohol consumption has been proven to increase levels of a pleasure-associated neurotransmitter called dopamine in the brain. Increased dopamine indicates increased activity of pleasure centers in the brain. Thus, alcohol acts directly on the pleasure centers of the brain in much the same way that food and sex do. Here are a few links, but really, you could find as many as you want by Googling "alcohol AND dopamine".

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/alcdepop.htm

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/misc/alcohol-dopamine.html

http://scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/A/199900066.html

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/i_03_m/i_03_m_par/i_03_m_par_alcool.html

http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/UBNRP/Dopamine/alcoholtobac.html

Now, Chuck may not be talking about dopamine when he talks about the "psychoactive" effects of alcohol, but I think that essentially comes to the same conclusion: alcohol is an integral part of the whiskey experience, including the taste experience. After all, "taste" is a construct; who's to say where "taste" ends and dopamine effects begin, really?

*There are, of course, lots of other scientific explanations needed to really account for the total effect of alcohol on the brain. I am just picking this one because I am lazy and because I am not smart enough to either know or know how to lucidly convey the other ones.

Edited March 26, 2013 by CoMobourbon

[ILLfarmboy]

wow, I'll have to bookmark those and read them later.

Thanks for the clarification.

The dopamine effect can explain a lot, like why a good special effects movie is better when you have a good solid buzz or why a little alcohol can make sex better or for that matter tedious people, like one's in-laws, less tedious.

[JB64]

In response to the OP, Hell NO.

[BAO]

If Pappy didn't have intoxicating components, would you still drink it?

[onewman]

That is a reasonable sentiment. However, I find that my biggest issue lies with side-by-sides. Learning is a large part of the enjoyment for me. With whiskey, other liquors, and most of all cocktails, I like to perform comparisons constantly. With cocktails, there is only so small you can make them before your ratios become endangered. So if I want to compare three cocktails but have no desire to become intoxicated, I'm generally forced to dump a lot of liquid or find a willing associate to relieve me of my excess.

I hope to go out drinking with you someday.