DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
While we all have subjective scales, we certainly all experislence pain. Pain objectively exists.OK that is ONE SUBJECTIVE example
How about a objective example of anything?
![]()
While we all have subjective scales, we certainly all experislence pain. Pain objectively exists.OK that is ONE SUBJECTIVE example
How about a objective example of anything?
![]()
While we all have subjective scales, we certainly all experislence pain. Pain objectively exists.
Pain objectively exists.
Not so
Were that the situation everyone would experience objective levels of pain at the same level. As you stated people do not. Each individual has their own inbuilt level for a objective application of pain
NOBut, we can all agree that pain exists
objective reality
the "unpleasantness" of pain is therefore not subjective (an individual bias). It's a native or built-in reaction and thought orientation feature of our widely distributed biological system
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're not exactly defending your assertion beyond restating the same opinion over and over.
This argument has never been valid, no matter how many times you flog it.Can you provide a lump or sliver or a couple of drops of this pain you claim exist?
Even a photograph entitled "Pain on a laboratory bench being examined by scientists" would be acceptable
![]()
five me a lump of swimming.
valid
Yet you keep insisting that your test for "existence" is "Can you show me a lump of it?"You know swimming does not come in lumps
@ Michael 345
So, do you believe that pain is a subjective experience (which I think we’d all agree, here) but not an objective reality because you can’t directly measure it as it’s occurring in another person?
But, we can measure it. Doctors measure pain without directly experiencing their patients’ pain, for example. Everyone experiences pain differently but because it’s universally accepted as part of the human condition, that is what makes it objective (not influenced by opinion). Pain exists whether I believe it does or doesn’t, but ghosts don’t.
Yet you keep insisting that your test for "existence" is "Can you show me a lump of it?"
Stop trying to flog a test that even you acknowledge is not valid.
I think you're just playing around. I don't think you're serious, and I dont feel like being played with.
Michael, please don't start talking crap, like Write4U, nebel, LaurieAG and the other senile old buffers we have to put up with here. You have higher standards than that.Sad to think I am not being serious
If you think my test for existence is flawed - what would your test for existence look like?
From the other perspective - what can you test for nonexistence? Somewhat like proving a negative ya?
EDIT - sorry was distracted
![]()
I disagree. Look at any dictionary and "pain" is defined as a "feeling" or "experience", not the cause, not the signals from the pain receptors etc, but the experience. To some people (with certain medical conditions etc) there is no pain. It simply does not exist for them. It is therefore surely subjective, not objective.But, we can all agree that pain exists, to varying degrees. Objectively speaking, ghosts don't exist, to 'varying degrees.' That's the difference.
Pain may be relative, but it's an objective reality. Pain thresholds are subjective, but pain itself is an objective reality in life. Ghosts are not.
This is actually a strawman, is it not. The argument is about objective reality, not whether something exists or not? Beauty, love, sadness, and all emotions, are subjectively real. They have existence as much as any concept has existence, but the nature of that existence (i.e. what gives rise to it, and when, and where) is a matter of the individual's mind - although often widely shared among a culture or even species.There are plenty of subjective phenomena that are universally experienced. Ever been in love? Ever felt sadness? Ever experienced beauty?:-
Not everything that is real has to be measurable by science.
Not everything that is real has to be measurable by science
OK.I disagree. Look at any dictionary and "pain" is defined as a "feeling" or "experience", not the cause, not the signals from the pain receptors etc, but the experience. To some people (with certain medical conditions etc) there is no pain. It simply does not exist for them. It is therefore surely subjective, not objective.
Objective existnece means that it is the same for everyone, irrespective of position, perspective, personal condition, etc. Pain simply does not fit into this. It is a subjective reality. From both the ability to experience, and the nature of that experience for those that do. It is, however, a widely shared phenomena, because most of us are in the same position, and thus have the same perspective.
Bear in mind that just because something has subjective existence does not mean that it does not exist, it merely means that the nature of that existence, the when, why, how of it, is a matter of the individual. The difference between the subjective reality of pain and ghosts, I would argue, is that pain is a concept with a reasonably understood mechanism, and broad consistency between stimuli and experience across the population. The stimuli can be objectively measured, and the explanation is rational. Ghosts, however, are an irrational explanation of the stimuli.
This is actually a strawman, is it not. The argument is about objective reality, not whether something exists or not? Beauty, love, sadness, and all emotions, are subjectively real. They have existence as much as any concept has existence, but the nature of that existence (i.e. what gives rise to it, and when, and where) is a matter of the individual's mind - although often widely shared among a culture or even species.
But this does not mean that it has objective existence. Objective existence means that it is the same for all, regardless of perspective etc. And your examples are not "universally experienced" (unfortunately). Some people never have those experiences. We have evolved to experience such things, sure, and those not experiencing them are likely outliers, but do not such outliers actually prove the subjective reality of those concepts?
Now, if Michael 345's contention is that only objective reality exists, or only those with objective existence actually exist, then this becomes a matter of whether things such as concepts exist? If they don't have some form of existence, how are we able to communicate? Are we able to objectively measure a lump of "concept"? Emotions, pain, experiences, are all such concepts. We have an idea of what they mean, so when we experience something that broadly fits with that concept we can say that we have experienced "pain", or "love" (and for some they may even be the same! But that's a different matter!!)
So I would contend that there are things that objectively exist (i.e. are the same for all, regardless of perspective) and there are other things that also exist, such as concepts, that have a subjective existence. I think it a mistake to take something you think exists, such as a concept, an emotion, and to thus claim that it therefore has objective existence, as wegs is seeming to do.
Now, if Michael 345's contention is that only objective reality exists, or only those with objective existence actually exist, then this becomes a matter of whether things such as concepts exist?