Now you’re picking and choosing what type of satisfaction a blind person can enjoy. Can he enjoy a present moment sunset? Can he enjoy a Beethoven symphony?
He’ll never again enjoy the taste of his favourite meal. Nor will the pathways in his mind that process that enjoyment be stimulated.
Not any more than they rely on a real stimulus and a real sense organ.
So this is the sequence? Chemical reaction; sense faculty; sense perception?
You didn’t define satisfaction, did you.
And know you too are picking what they cannot enjoy.
And yes a blindman can enjoy a symphony.
But can he gind satisfaction is viewing the Mona Lisa? Can he listen and be moved by Vivaldi? Can he watch the northern lights on awe?
[quote=“rat_spit, post:221, topic:4909”]
Not any more than they rely on a real stimulus and a real sense organ
[/quote
All of which, require the brain
I would leave that to experts in the relevant fields to adequately explain the mechanisms, but as ive stated above, they all require the brain and losing one sense organ doesn’t mean that a person no longer senses satisfaction.
It should be obvious that the satisfaction derived from sense pleasures is specific to sense pleasures. The original question didn’t ask about “satisfaction in general”.
Except that a man without a tongue will unequivocally not be able to enjoy the taste of a grapefruit. So, no. I’m not picking anything against these hypothetical people. It’s an obvious conclusion.
My bad. I thought you wrote blind AND deaf. It’s irrelevant. Sense faculties are required for sense perception.
So you think the satisfaction derived from viewing Mona Lisa is the same as the satisfaction derived from eating one’s favourite meal? These so called chemical reactions? The ones that produce satisfaction from viewing the Mona Lisa are the same as the ones that produce satisfaction from eating a hamburger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, mustard, a bit of relish, and two slices of bacon?
And yet the brain on its own cannot produce sensual satisfaction without the senses. So, you’ve made exactly zero points.
My apologies, I thought you were an expert. You’ve made some very broad claims.
Even in your layman’s opinion, you don’t think the perceptual stimulus initiates the eventual satisfaction?
We all established that satisfaction is relative and subjective, it is defined in this way. Our senses have evolved alongside our brains, they help us interpret our environment. They (our senses) do not act independently of our brains. Satisfaction is merely what we choose to imagine is a fortuitous outcome, it will vary according to circumstance, and is of course subjective.
A blind person could still choose to enjoy music yes, and a deaf person could still choose to enjoy a sunset, relative see?
The sense provide stimuli to the brain, the brain interprets them.
Are we talking your original question, or the OP, because i only expressed the opinion to the OP that mortality is subjective, if you(anyone debating that) wants to claim its objective then that has to be quantified and evidenced.
But without his tongue he can still enjoy the texture etc…
Nope, and im not alluding to that either, im saying he still experiences forms of satisfaction.
And without the brain you dont experience them and cannot experience anything else for that matter.
You dont have to be an expert to have an subjective opinion.
Id also argue someone can suffer a brain injury and despite having all working sensory organs, may not experience specific examples of satisfaction or perhaps even all examples.
Sorry but that’s a pretty funny typo… 
My apologies but I it made me laugh.
I agree, and all anyone need do is offer one example of an absolute or objectively moral action, so far no one has ever done this.
He didn’t say that at all, this is both a false equivalence and a straw man fallacy.
Those are part of what happens, you keep trying to isolate the parts from the whole, and again satisfaction is subjective, and relative. Not everyone derives satisfaction from art, and even those who do might find the Mona Lisa overrated, for example.
Exactly so, the senses provide stimuli that the brain interprets.
It’s worth pointing out again then, that both logic and morality (human) are man-made, now while morals are subjective and relative, the method of logic is designed to remove subjectivity and bias, to remove weak or poorly reasoned arguments, claims and beliefs.
What about the dopamine hit you get from eating a cheesy, double beef patty, sandwich on a Kaiser bun with onions and tomatoes and lettuce?
Isn’t the associated satisfaction an objective correlate with the release of dopamine?
Choice? I find it hard to believe that choice is a factor in what is essentially a chemical reaction …
If the stimulus is insufficient or non-existent, the chemical reaction never happens and thus you cannot simply will sensual satisfaction into existence. It must be supplied by a stimulant.
That’s a bold assertion. We can draw a correlation between dopamine release in the brain and an individual reporting satisfaction. I doubt we can attribute the reality of the satisfaction to any kind of interpretation by the brain. Brains do not interpret. They produce chemical reactions and electrical impulses.
You asserted that some claims of mine were “woo woo”. I objected with a simple question. “Have you ever derived satisfaction from sensual pleasures?”
But never the taste. The umph!!! The wow wow wee wow!
Via the brain? Different regions of the brain processing different stimuli producing different forms of satisfaction?
I’m curious if you have a favourite musical instrument?
And as i said, can someone suffer a significant brain injury and lose all sense of satisfaction whilst retaining the sensory organs?
What about it? Do you imagine everyone gets this from exactly the same experiences?
No, since not everyone would find the same foods satisfying, I explained this above but used art and your example of the Mona Lisa to explain why it is subjective.
I never said the chemical reaction was a choice, it is the result of a subjective choice.
You mean without the sense to provide the stimuli we couldn’t? Has anyone suggested we can? The sense provide stimuli, the brain interprets them, subjectively.
“Specialized sensory neurons respond to input from the environment. This input is then transmitted to the brain as electrochemical signals. In the brain, signals are received in categories. Thus the processing of sensory input begins with specific regions in the brain separately deciphering each message.”
" Following a brain injury, it’s not unusual for an individual to suffer a change to their sense of taste and smell . The olfactory nerves sit at the base of the brain’s frontal lobes, behind the eyes and above the nose, and are where our ability to smell originates."
@Randomhero1982 already explained this above
They do both.
No one is denying this part, the sense have evolved to gather stimuli and they feed these to receptors in our brains which interpret them. They are however the very definition of subjective.
Exactly, stroke victims often have these “senses” impaired, though the sense organs are still working perfectly, because areas of the brain that interpret them are damaged.
Beat me to it…
The point is conceded. No brain, no satisfaction.
Can someone have a brain have no tongue and derive satisfaction from the taste of a hamburger with cheese, relish, tomatoes, pickles, chipotle sauce and jalapeños?
“Invertebrates such as insects use cells devoted to chemical senses which are the direct evolutionary equivalents of mammal taste buds. Flies, for example, taste through their feet and proboscis. Vertebrates, on the other hand, all have tongues, and all tongues have taste buds.”
“Butterflies do not have a tongue. Instead they have a proboscis, which is an extended mouth that they use for sucking. Butterflies taste their food with their feet, since most of their taste buds are located on their feet.”
Yeah. All things being equal. Two humans who eat a block of cheese will get similar dopamine hits in similar regions of the brain.
The point is not that the same food need release the exact amounts of dopamine in the exact regions. The point is that dopamine release in regions of the brain which correlate with taste are activated by certain tastes. Ie. the tongue is capable of producing satisfaction in the mind via tastes.
We know that satisfaction is a chemical reaction. That isn’t a subjective state of affairs.
No mention of interpretation I see.
People interpret. Brains process and deliver chemical and electrical signals.
Great. So we’ve established that the brain is responsible for processing what humans would call satisfaction. And it does so objectively via chemical signals and electrical pathways in highly specific regions.
No taste buds, no signal to the brain, no dopamine hit.
A quite stunning straw man.
Correct, brains evolved in conjunction with the sense organs, and the brain is what interprets these stimuli. We don’t derive pleasure from the sense organs, we derive stimuli, the brain is what decides if we derive pleasure or satisfaction from those stimuli. Ipso facto satisfaction and pleasure are subjective.
That isn’t to your liking? You’re asking: if someone suffers significant brain injury, retains the sense organs, do they lose all satisfaction?
And I say yes. No brain to process the stimuli, then no satisfaction. No dopamine released in that region. No electrical activity in that region.
I’m not intentionally straw manning you. If you have a point you can make it.
How does the brain do that? How does the brain differentiate between, for example, vanilla versus olives
Correct me if I’m wrong. But the last time I rubbed one off it was directly via the tip of my wanker? Now your telling me it wasn’t the contact which produced the pleasure, it was a decision made in my brain?