Could we survive without pain?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Could we survive without pain? » Could we survive without pain?

Could we survive without pain?

Page: 1 2 3

Could we survive without pain?

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 443

Posted 10/28/09 - 06:34 PM:	#11
swstephe wrote: You know that some people are born without the ability to feel pain. It goes by the pretty unscientific name congenital insensitivity to pain. There is a film called "A Life Without Pain" about it too. My father used to work with one person with this condition. They don't feel pain, but they can feel touch. Yes. Unfortunately people so afflicted don't live very long. I think the evolutionary utility of pain is very often overlooked and most people believe it's something that just "happens" when some bodily insult befalls us.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 1525

Posted 10/28/09 - 08:42 PM:	#12
Samuel Locke wrote: I am interested to hear what else dictates our actions? Pleasure at the least. Is there anybody alive today who does not suffer some kind of pain? I doubt it. If not the the answer is obvious. The ones who had to endure pain survived while the ones who did not died off. Where did this come from? I probably missed a premise there. Totally jumped to the conclusion out of nowhere. care to elaborate? jsawel wrote: I think is the big question, are we solely motivated by pain and pleasure - pleasure being the satisfaction of pain. I wonder why we have the tendency to automatically define words through it's antonym. Pleasure - satisfaction or absence of pain Not entirely wrong but I'd go for "enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one's liking; gratification; delight" (dictionary.com) as a better definition. If you say that a person is not beautiful, does it necessarily mean that she is ugly? No. She could be average looking or plain. I think this is where things like addiction come in and being out of control. Because people feel coerced under pain. They don't believe they have a choice. Perhaps they act with their natural instinct which generally avoid pain or all sort of negativity for that matter.
I need to get acquainted with sanity. Rantings, rantings and more rantings. Seriously.

jsawvel
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 25, 2009

Total Topics: 109
Total Posts: 273

Posted 10/28/09 - 09:30 PM:	#13
"I wonder why we have the tendency to automatically define words through it's antonym." Yah, I am not entirely convinced that pleasure is entirely the satisfaction of pain. Perhaps pleasure can stand proudly alone, without it's arch enemy pain lurking in the corner.

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 1525

Posted 10/29/09 - 01:00 AM:	#14
Uh... Okay.
I need to get acquainted with sanity. Rantings, rantings and more rantings. Seriously.

play
Tat Tvam Asi

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 111

Posted 10/29/09 - 03:37 AM:	#15
Wosret wrote: Presumably life did for three billion years or more, before the evolution of the first nervous system. Although there is clearly a massive evolutionary advantage to have a warning system for what damages the organism. Ergo, life would survive, just not nearly as well. But life has always crudely done what nervous systems do; react to stimuli. The real question on my mind is if cells reacted to harmful stimuli, but had no internal experience of sensation or pain, couldn't they survive just as readily? A thought experiment to illustrate this point would involve smoke detectors. Two models of smoke detector are being tested. One model is your average, inanimate, mechanical device and the other model is, hypothetically, conscious. This conscious model is also self-aware, and has an interest in not being burnt to death by a house fire because: a. If it does not alert a fire hazard, the makers will not produce more of its model and will opt for the mechanical model meaning it will be out bred into extinction. b. Fire hurts. Wouldn't the mechanical model outperform the conscious model because it doesn't care about pain and would not be anxious about being burnt? The conscious model may give false alarms because of its fear. It could also potentially hallucinate a fire when there is none. Or maybe, conversely, this conscious smoke detector hates its lot in life and becomes depressed and suicidal so does not alarm when there is a fire. In short, what possible advantage could feeling pain bestow as opposed to mechanical responses to stimuli?
There once was a man who said so, "It seems that I know that I know. But what I would like to see Is the I that knows me when I know that I know that I know."

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 10/29/09 - 04:44 AM:	#16
hyena in petticoat wrote: I wonder why we have the tendency to automatically define words through it's antonym. play wrote: But life has always crudely done what nervous systems do; react to stimuli.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 560

Posted 10/29/09 - 05:21 AM:	#17
Suffering is the state of being sufficiently consciously aware of oneself.
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Quiet Observer
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/29/09 - 05:32 AM:	#18
rigelrover wrote: Suffering is the state of being sufficiently consciously aware of oneself. That doesn't seem to make sense. There are things that are conscious that do not suffer. And there are things that suffer that are not conscious.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 560

Posted 10/29/09 - 05:44 AM:	#19
Quiet Observer wrote: That doesn't seem to make sense. There are things that are conscious that do not suffer. And there are things that suffer that are not conscious. First, consider what it takes to suffer. One must be aware, in some fashion, of the way in which a stimulus or stimuli affect it in order to actually suffer. A pain response may be unconscious, but suffering only occurs if one is aware of the pain response (or of the stimulus, etc.). Now, consider whether there are conscious things that do not suffer. I propose that if one is not suffering (to some extent) it is not sufficiently conscious to be self aware. That is not to say that suffering causes self-awareness, but there seems to be a reciprocal relationship (it is almost a definition, as I have suggested above). Now this may beg the question: "If one suffers more, is it more aware?" or likewise "If one is more aware, does it suffer more?" This doesn't seem to be quite right, but consider the Buddhist interpretation of suffering, or perhaps consider great minds, artists, etc. whose motivation is peaked in the toughest moments of self-awareness or world-awareness, etc. Consider that it is suffering that promotes novelty in ecosystems as well. Also consider Nietzsche's interpretation of suffering making one stronger (this is similar to the others). Consider mother Teresa's choice to live a life of suffering, etc. Much milder things like the strains of exercise making a system (yours, etc.) come alive; perform better, healthier, promotes growth. Response to surprising or new stimuli promotes brain growth/change, etc. These sort of things make a pretty strong case for the continuum of suffering toward self-awareness, etc. I suppose the question is still rather open though for some.
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

hanuma
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 133

Posted 11/02/09 - 02:28 PM:	#20
rigelrover wrote: How could one be aware (i.e. with freedom) w/out suffering? I would reverse this. It is my sense of freedom that allows me to know when I am being oppressed.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.