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?
Pentagon admits that ghosts exist.
- Thread starter Neurostudent
- Start date
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
https://www.medicinenet.com/dol/definition.htm
The Dol scale of pain is the one I am most familiar with, but there are others. Been slack in keeping up
From the Latin word for pain, dolor.
Application of a objective Dol level should produce a objective pain level response
Since no objective response is forthcoming it follows all pain responses are subjective
Thanks for the wake up call to go back and try to keep up to date with my nurse training. Although I can't see any of my past experience and any gain in future info being used except in emergency
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.
NO
For something (anything) to exist
have objective reality or being (Google)
Try to find a lump, or whatever you consider pain consist of
Pain is the name we have given to a nerve reaction to a situation. The name does not magically produce an object with substance
That's is the problem - right there - objective reality. Such an animal exist BUT BUT BUT not in the form you are trying to cloke it in
Had to Goole for an example
Objective reality means that something is actual (so it exists) independent of the mind. For example: while no one is nearby, a meteor crashes into a car, putting it on flames, leaving only a pile of ashes.
Really take note of "something is actual (so it exists) - ie not confined to being a feeling (pain) or a figment of the mind, within the mind
The medical field would love to have pain as an objective something
Take it away from the patient to a nice quiet room, give it to cleaning, replace any broken bits, retune / calibrate take back to the patient
All we can manage so far is provide various treatments and wait for the patient to give back to us their subjuctive estimation of the treatments effectiveness
"It has been well known that certain surgical procedures, some drugs and certain pathological conditions reduce or remove the unpleasantness of pain while preserving its sensory-discriminative aspect. [...] These patients by and large claim that they are in pain, and they can recognize and identify their pain as such, but do not feel or seem bothered or distressed in ways characteristic to having pain experiences." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pain/#eliminativism
IOW, pain is a sub-category of bodily sensation that may not be inherently unpleasant. But rather, those nervous system signals are conceived or understood as "bad and uncomfortable" by the brain because they usually indicate damage or potential harm.
Since an _X_ feeling being cognitively interpreted as "awful" is universal in the human population -- it is prior in rank to acquired personality preferences, 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.[1]
- - - footnote - - -
[1] Barring rare clinical conditions and pain-loving pathologies that override it.
Last edited:
Disagree
Agree that pain is a built-in sensation (reaction) - although BLENDED might be more suited
SENSATION / REACTION blend cannot be seperated remaining so tightly bound together no distinction can be made between them. It may even be the case that it is a situation where the same biological hardware is actually playing the dual role of input / output
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're not exactly defending your assertion beyond restating the same opinion over and over.
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
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
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
I'll give you a lump of pain the day you five me a lump of swimming.
Nice cop out
You know swimming does not come in lumps
In fact swimming is a ACTIVITY and is not available in any form of existence
Again you are claiming "pain exist". What is the evidence supporting your claim?
Evidence - Actual samples - photos of pain in a museum glass case with and accompanying short history of where obtained and how has been preserved - diagram showing its position on the Periodic Table - spectrographic readout of its composition
Surely you can obtain evidence from one or more of the above sources?
Addition to above I just asked one of the nurses here, on impulse, does she think pain EXIST
Her answer - NO
So while not being totally appropriate back to you with a request from legal terminology "habeas corpus"
@ 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.
In other words, pain isn’t a belief. It actually happens, although we all may explain our pain differently. But, ghosts don’t exist unless I believe they do.
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.
In other words, pain isn’t a belief. It actually happens, although we all may explain our pain differently. But, ghosts don’t exist unless I believe they do.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
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.
Last edited:
objective reality
Ummm we have been through objective reality so no not because it cannot be measured directly
Pain does not exist
Lets perhaps concentrate on EXIST. Obviously most stuff (like the Universe and yourself included within it) exists
Language has the ability to label outside of stuff which exist and label concepts ie nonexistent stuff (ideas) which maybe able to be brought into existence
Where were all the inventions before they were produced? Nonexistent
Feelings also, nonexistent but experienced, are labelled
Inventions not labelled until made
Feelings labelled because felt
Bit disjointed but I am being interrupted by staff here and taken away for further test
Not good on the other side of the fence
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
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
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
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.
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.
Well you changed the terminology slightly (EXIST to REAL and while I agree not everyTHING has to be measurable by science[ - problem I have with such a statement - love blah blah blah are not things
IF IF IF they were THINGS science would measure them
No one in this thread has put forward what are the characteristics of stuff which exist against stuff which does not exist (which by definition) would have zero characteristics
Stuff which does not exist - in my list would include (going back years) time and now (but always has) the items under current debate love, pain etc etc
When I have checked through a few dictionaries the definitions have been sparse and not helpful. I put this down to dictionaries not wanting to get bogged down with long winded explanations
Fair enough. At the other end of the scale encyclopaedias suffer from long winded explanations which include extraneous material
Can anyone in SciForum provide a short sharp succinct list of the characteristics of stuff which exist and by which scientist KNOW of its existence
I think three characteristics would be enough. My first two on such a list would be
- it is OBJECTIVELY present
- taken to a high level - detectable with EQUIPMENT
- it can be measured
- again taken to a high level - measured with EQUIPMENT
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
OK.
Some can, many cannot.
Concepts (and ideas) can have a god quality (which I have labelled in the past as being a warm fuzzy feeling. Such will not (cannot?) be manifested. Look at how long religion has been trying to convince people (Yes that warm fuzzy feeling IS a REAL god)
Above SUBJECTIVE
Wright brothers proved, through understanding science, and building The Flyer heavy than air flight was possible (by a different method than birds and hot air balloons)
Above OBJECTIVE
warm fuzzy feelings are just warm fuzzy feelings - might produce more warm fuzzy feelings - but nothing which could be considered as having a existence
Heavy than air flight concept (and understanding of the concept lead to the planes we have now