The act of wanking off is an extremely mechanical process in which a series of predictable events lead up to a universal experience of pleasure called the orgasm. Under normal circumstances that process occurs in an order which can be demonstrated to have an objective physiological correlate in the body and the nervous system.
And you said…
Which isn’t the point I was arguing.
If the person had no brain then they can’t sense fuck all, obviously.
The point was, could someone suffer a brain injury, lose all sense of satisfaction whilst retaining their sensory organs.
This is fairly straight forward.
Rather than asking me, and me Googling this, then posting it, you could try Googling this yourself? In the meantime I found this:
“Each sense receptor responds to different inputs (electromagnetic, mechanical, chemical), transmitting them as signals that travel along nerve cells to the brain. The signals are then processed in the brain, resulting in immediate behaviors or memories.”
Interpreted by the brain, and yes.
Ah. I see. Of course.
And here’s my question. Could a person have a brain, loses their tongue and derive sensual satisfaction from tastes?
Independent of the contact?
.
The contact provides the stimuli, and the brain interprets it, you seem to re-asking the same question?
“What is flavor and how can we manipulate it?”
It appears science is trying to do just that for cancer patients whose sense of taste and smell are damaged by chemo.
And how can an orgasm be subjective?
I don’t understand the question, or did you mean to ask how is the brain’s interpretation of it as pleasurable a personal or subjective experience? If so you have answered your own question, just as with pain it is experienced subjectively.
So I belive (correct me if I’m wrong) but taste or at least parts of taste are linked to the insular cortex of the brain.
I would wager using something like neutral lace or something akin, you could stimulate those areas of the brain and trigger a response akin to someone actually experiencing a type of taste.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there are already multiple articles/papers on it.
1 Like
No. I mean that the orgasm has a physiology to it. Without knowing the exact details it is safe to say that every step towards achieving that momentary feeling is preceded by some biological process. Since the orgasm has a precise molecular and biological correlate in both the body and the brain, we should conclude that it exists objectively. If the brain exists objectively and there are objective processes which give rise to the orgasm, it only seems fair to include the feeling itself with the other objective realities. The satisfaction derived from the feeing is also correlated with a brain state, making it objective as well.
I wouldn’t know. But my understanding of the body and its parts tells me that distinct parts of the brain rule over the form and function of distinct parts of the body.
I would expect that to be true. This opens up a can of worms however. Smells and tastes are linked to aromatic compounds.
This is banana
This is cherry
The banana tree and the cherry tree have evolved alongside animals to produce flavours that are desirable. The evolutionary objective being to spread their seeds.
Extricating the objective molecular properties of the flavours from the process of tasting doesn’t make sense to me.
I’ve heard stories about brain surgeries in which a misplaced catheter induced a distinct smell in the patient.
You could be right. Some kind of internal stimulus could replicate distinct tastes. But there’s a large gap in scientific understanding when it comes to knowing every kind of physical property of a molecule and explicating that information towards the end of understanding the quality of an experience.
Ultimately it should be explainable. And I suspect there’s a vibrational geometric analogue for every conceivable molecule. Ie. the brain creates patterns of thought in the form of spirographs. Any recreational use of hallucinogenic substances confirms that the on underbelly of reality we find complex geometric patterns.
The architecture of the brain would also support such a thesis.
Anyway. What do you care what I think. In fact, this discussion will have to stall for the time being. I require sleep.
How many have attacked you? Where is the victim? The most unreasonable thing about it is that it is non-consensual.
You would be wrong.
Class I: role players People who get aroused when pretending their partner is dead during sexual activity.
Class II: Romantic necrophiliacs Bereaved people who remain attached to their dead lover’s body.
Class III: Necrophiliac fantasizes People who fantasize about necrophilia, but do not physically interact with corpses.
Class IV: Tactile necrophiliacs People who are aroused by touching or stroking a corpse, without engaging in intercourse.
Class V: Fetishistic necrophiliacs People who remove objects or body parts from a corpse for sexual fetishes without engaging in intercourse.
Class VI: Necromutilomaniacs People who derive pleasure from mutilating a corpse while masturbating, without engaging in intercourse. (This is not murdering someone.)
Class VII: Opportunistic necrophiliacs People who normally have no interest in necrophilia, but take the opportunity when it arises.
Class VIII Regular necrophiliacs People who preferentially have intercourse with the dead. The dead is their identified sexual attraction.
Class IX Homicidal necrophiliacs Necrosadists, people who murder someone to have sex with the victim. This is the only group you are referencing.
Class X: Exclusive necrophiliacs People who have an exclusive interest in sex with the dead, and cannot perform at all for a living partner. (These people are not murderers.)
Motives[edit]
The most common motive for necrophiliacs is the possession of a partner who is unable to resist or reject them. However, in the past, necrophiliacs have expressed having more than one motive.[28]
The authors reported that of their sample of 34 genuine necrophiliacs:[29]
- 68% were motivated by a desire for a non-resisting and non-rejecting partner.
- 21% were motivated by a want for a reunion with a lost partner.
- 15% were motivated by sexual attraction to dead people.
- 15% were motivated by a desire for comfort or to overcome feelings of isolation.
- 12% were motivated by a desire to remedy low self-esteem by expressing power over a corpse.
This is a part of human existence, but more than that, it is also common in the animal kingdom.
1 Like
I think they could. They can use their imagination. Imagination can provide a great deal of satisfaction.
1 Like
You still have this idea that satisfaction is about getting something from the world. Poor poor ratty…
I drove home yesterday with a splitting headache. I don’t get them often. It was caffeine withdrawal. I had just started the car and pulled into the main road when a thought came to me. “Are you satisfied?” I laughed all the way home. My head hurt like a son of a bitch, but I had to admit to myself that I was satisfied. I think it is a shame that you wait for things around you to crate a feeling of satisfaction in you. What a shit way to live a life. I just feel sorry for you.
2 Likes
Including the brain interpreting it as pleasurable at the end.
No one ever claimed it didn’t exist, only that the brain interprets it as pleasurable and that is subjective by definition.
Fair? The experience of pleasure occurs in the brain, how can that be anything but subjective. If you stub your toe it hurts like hell, your toe, and whatever you stubbed it on and the act of stabbing it are objectively real, the pain is your brain interpreting the stimuli, and is subjective.
No it isn’t if it occurs only in the brain then by definition it is subjective.
Evolution doesn’t have an objective, it is an insentient process.
Hallucinations can seem very real as well, and yet they are not objectively real.
1 Like
Ok, I do admit that I probably jumped to conclusions and assumptions that aren’t reflected in the real world.
I never studied the subject in depth because I find it so distasteful and upsetting, so my prejudices and preconceptions showed.
If anyone on this forum is a necrophilliac, then I apologize for being offensive.
Then what’s your excuse for the Crusades and the Inquisition? Who wrote the Malleus Maleficarum and used it as an instruction manual for interrogating, torturing, and executing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children? Your religion did this to CHILDREN.
What kind of apology can possibly make up for something like that? Fuck your god.
2 Likes
With a pinecone? 20 characters
1 Like
Indeed, these, and several other malign episodes in history, pretty much destroy mythology fanboy pretensions that morality purported arises from whichever choice of cartoon magic man they subscribe to.
Though of course, I’m also reminded here of the absurdity that is the appearance of the purported “Commandment” known as “thou shalt not kill” in a particular mythology, followed swiftly by 260 pages of gleeful depictions of brutal, genocidal Lebensraum wars, several of which are asserted within said pages to have been directly ordered by the cartoon magic man in question.
Indeed, any genuinely unbiased reading of this mythology, quickly points to the real central message thereof, For those who need explicit pointers to the supernaturalist origin of that venomous contribution to human affairs, known as “ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine”, see Exodus 22:20, Exodus 23:24, Deuteronomy 7:5, Deuteronomy 13: 6-10, Deuteronomy 13: 12-15,Deuteronomy 17:2-5, 2 Chronicles 15:13 and Jeremiah 12: 1-3. These are the passages which provided us with the dictum “kill all who do not conform”, a dictum that mythology fanboys pursued with inhuman glee for 1,500 years in Europe. We also have Luke 19:27 to factor in here - “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” - yes, the NT explicitly states that Jesus uttered these words. It’s not just the Old Testament that’s problematic here.
The idea that I and others here are fit only to be exterminated, because we happen not to treat the unsupported assertions of a Bronze Age mythology uncritically as fact, is utterly disgusting.