Pain
by MikeGeneSeveral months ago, I herniated an intervertebral disc in my neck. What that meant was simple "“ a world of PAIN. What began as excruciating pain became omnipresent pain. The only escape from the pain was sleep and the pain made sure such escape was short-lived; I was going on no more than four hours a sleep per night for well over a month. So pain teamed up with fatigue to define my life.
Of course, I know this is not the worse pain that can be experienced. But maybe its easy to say that now because I am healed. If you have never gone through this experience, imagine an intense tooth ache in your shoulder joint and elbow joint, such that you are always aware of its constant throbbing. Imagine someone taking the end of a broom handle, sticking it under the lower edge of your shoulder blade, and then pressing for weeks on end, causing every muscle in your upper back to tighten like bands of steel. If you have never experienced this pain, my words probably don't quite communicate the reality that I experienced. Which leads me to this post.
Pain is a very private experience. In fact, it can be so private that pain is lonely. It's not just that you wake up in the middle of the night and writhe in complete silence and darkness, but it inserts itself into your awakened social life. Y'see, you can tell people about your pain and they will express sympathy when you first tell them. But over time, your pain is yours and yours alone. To them, you may look a little tired, but otherwise, your pain is invisible. The things they care about in the world (work issues, social issues, news and politics, etc.) are things that recede into the background for you. As a social being, you do your best to participate and perform, but all you really care about, moment by moment, is for the damn pain (!) to go away. What's so important to you barely even exists for them.
My pain only existed for those around me when I reminded them of my pain, but even then, I communicated only words and not the reality. And since I'm not the type to advertise my pain, most quickly forgot. It did not exist to them because they could not see, smell, hear, or touch it. You might go so far as to say that it existed only in my head. Yet it was real, far more real to me than anything that takes place in the lab, the media, or everyday life.
So pain is lonely. Pain is hidden. Pain is difficult to convey. And pain is as real as reality gets.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Mike,
That sounds horrible. I'm glad you've healed.
Comment by keiths — September 19, 2007 @ 12:33 am
September 19th, 2007 at 1:03 am
I know exactly what you're talking about. I had the same thing. Lasted for months. The only relief was by cocking my arm up over and behind my head, and that didn't really help either (and looked really goofy). Could never get comfortable enough to sleep, just like you. I went to 6 different doctors, none could help. One gave me an Rx for Vicodins and I nearly got hooked even though they really didn't help much either. The pain was located in my shoulder like yours, and it never occurred to me or the docs that it might be a disc - they all assumed bursitis, torn rotor cuff, or some such. Well, one doc did suggest that it might be an artifact from my neck though he never said the words "herniated disc". He told me to try a neck brace, and when I put the d**ned thing on I nearly screamed it hurt so bad. Finally I was talking to my aunt and she described it to a T. She had been through it herself and recognized it immediately. She said there was nothing for it but to live through it and let it heal. Fortunately I was already through most of it and on the mend by then.
Glad you're better now, you have my sympathy.
Comment by mb — September 19, 2007 @ 1:03 am
September 19th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Shit. This does not sound like fun - is this what young bucks like myself have to look forward to?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — September 19, 2007 @ 1:17 am
September 19th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Not an uncommon problem for certain featherless bipeds using a skeletal system recently evolved from quadrupeds.
Sometimes pain is shared, but your point is taken.
True, but not impossible. As people all experience pain, they can relate. Indeed, humans have a natural capability for empathy. An expression of anguish can cause an immediate sensation in those nearby. A capable artist can toy with these natural impulses.
I don't suppose anyone might equivocate on the word "reality".
Comment by Zachriel — September 19, 2007 @ 7:17 am
September 19th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Ouch–been there, felt that–mine as a result of Newtonian gravition mocking my attempt to ski beyond my ability. I felt fine for a few days, not knowing that I had herniated a disk that was about to clamp down on a nerve–then in the middle of the night I woke up with pain so intense I wanted to cut off my arm. The severe symtoms lasted about a week, and lingering symtoms for about a year. I ski only the bunny slopes now.
Friggin' SLoT always rearing its ugly "all things decay" head.
Comment by David Heddle — September 19, 2007 @ 9:02 am
September 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am
what if you hung out with a group of people who all had herniated discs at the same time you did. would your pain then be a lonely private affair?
Comment by dantedanti — September 19, 2007 @ 10:16 am
September 19th, 2007 at 10:22 am
(Hmm.. a similar comment, as close as Psalm 14 is to Psalm 53, awaits moderation–I'll try again. If this gets through, ixnay on the pending ost-pay)
Ouch"“been there, felt that"“mine as a result of Newtonian gravition mocking my attempt to ski beyond my ability. I felt fine for a few days, not knowing that I had herniated a disk that was about to clamp down on a nerve"“then in the middle of the night I woke up with pain so intense I wanted to cut off my arm. The severe symtoms lasted about a week, and lingering symtoms for about a year. I ski only the bunny slopes now.
(Bunny slopes! Those must be your favs!)
Nasty 'ole SLoT always rearing its ugly "all things decay" head.
Comment by David Heddle — September 19, 2007 @ 10:22 am
September 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Weird–I have two versions of the same comment awaiting moderation. I am not sure what set off your spam alert. Are you by any chance using the Explanatory Filter to detect spam?
Comment by David Heddle — September 19, 2007 @ 10:25 am
September 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Zahcriel
I totally disagree with this! Following MikeGene's solipsistic outpour, empathy is simply never enough!
We are alone in the universe, separate from other human beings as much as we separate from all other species and the other objects in the cosmos and we're indeed left alone and that's the tragedy of the human condition and why the founders of existentialism were so numerous.
Comment by dimasok — September 19, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Cheer up. We are very much not alone and certainly at home.
It might seem like we are alone - but dig alittle deeper, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Comment by Doug — September 19, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Doug, I just want to smack you - you and Zachriel.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — September 19, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Here on Earth we are alone. I don't know about God or afterlife, but i've never felt otherwordly presence in my life… maybe it's just me
Comment by dimasok — September 19, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Ouch, Mike. I broke a lumbar vertebrae and herniated its disc when I was just 12 (playing leap frog chicken with my brother), then herniated one just below the rib cage in my 20s. But it's one in my neck from getting rear-ended that caused the most trouble… still have to wear a brace occasionally.
Sometimes I can barely walk (the vertebrae fused on one side pinching off the sciatic), or barely breath (coughing will throw the mid-breach out), or think (the neck causes some very weird problems). You're right that it can be lonely. Others can sympathize, but they can't feel our pain. It's qualia - they can feel their own pain, and empathize with ours by relating it to pain they have felt. That's not objective, it's subjective to everyone involved. Including you.
Zachriel said:
If YOU don't feel it, or this group of onlookers doesn't feel it, it's not real? How would you argue this one?
Comment by Joy — September 19, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
My point exactly
Comment by dimasok — September 19, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
????
Are you being serious?
If you are, I'd really like to see you do that.
Comment by Doug — September 19, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Oh - I didn't say I would do it (you may indeed be far bigger than lil' ol' me) - just that I would like to.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — September 19, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I'm not too big. 5'8 (my wifes even taller than me — with legs from here to :cool:).
Would you mind explaining why your urge to hit me?
And who knows… you might get lucky. I'm still recovering from my last beating in the ring.
Comment by Doug — September 19, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
It just seemed that, upon Mike pouring out his agony, and Dimasok's forlorn empathy, a "cheer up - it's ok!" was out of place - as was Zachriel's nitpicking. Not deserving of being beaten to a bloody pulp, mind you, just a smack upside the head to knock some sense into ya.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — September 19, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Wonders,
My 'Cheer up' was more tongue in cheek and was directed toward dimasok's bleak outlook. Not to make light of chonic pain that one might suffer from.
Comment by Doug — September 19, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Apparently, you thought MikeGene was just whining about a pain he says has healed. I read it differently.
I read that as an attempt to engage a discussion on the nature of subjective experience. I note that your threat to "smack" anyone not expressing what you consider to be the proper concern demonstrates my point concerning empathy.
Just as Joy demonstrates this point.
Comment by Zachriel — September 19, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
See - everyone's happy!
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — September 19, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
September 19th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Hi keiths,
Thanks!
Hi mb,
Yeah, vicodin was like a sugar pill "“ completely useless. Luckily, cervical herniations usually do heal on their own. The lumbar version (with much larger discs) can be worse and often requires surgery. After a couple of months, I did find a doctor who made a huge difference. Here's what you do if this ever happens to you again.
1. Get out the phone book and find an orthopedic doctor.
2. Get the MRI to confirm the diagnosis.
3. Unless you have other health problems, get on a corticosteroid (prednisone). It's a powerful anti-inflammatory and will take away about 80-90% of the pain. But you can only stay on this for 1-2 weeks because of side effect concerns.
4. Once off the prednisone, get on Celebrex (a non-steroid, yet powerful anti-inflammatory). It's almost as good as the prednisone. But again, because of side-effects, you can only stay on it 1-2 weeks.
5. While on the medication, get aggressive physical therapy 3-4 times a week.
Hi WFO,
Could be. Watch the posture at the computer. If you are hunched over such that you have to lift you head to watch the screen, tremendous pressure is put on the cervical region. So sit back on the chair, back straight, and head looking straight ahead.
Hi Zachriel,
Sure, but I consider that a fair trade for having arms and hands. But before blaming evolution, make sure its not a posture issue.
But what if they didn't have such experience (and we didn't have any test for it)? I'd bet they'd have a term for my description above "“ mental illness.
Pain will teach you that this natural capability for empathy is transient and shallow. In fact, it's also pretty fragile, as crime statistics show.
That's strange. Are you suggesting my pain was not real??
Comment by MikeGene — September 19, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
September 20th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Perhaps. A natural healer might suggest an exorcism. A psychiatrist might prescribe painkillers. A surgeon might drill holes in your head. A scientist might be more careful and suggest they aren't sure of the cause. You provide a hypothetical with few parameters.
Like most such traits, the capability and expression of empathy vary widely in the population and among circumstances. Tolerance for pain also varies widely.
That would be a poor example, as criminals would consider you to be in the out-group. Your family would be more likely to show sympathy. Most people might view you as a statistic. "Studies show that featherless bipeds have a larger number of problems with vertebral disks than non-featherless bipeds."
Evolution is all about trade-offs.
There are many related issues. However, an examination of human physiology clearly shows signs of ad hoc modification from a quadruped origin, not only in the skeleton, but also in the way the internal organs are attached.
Demonstrating the point again. Equivocate does not suggest it isn't real. It suggests the word "real" may mean different things in different contexts.
equivocal, subject to two or more interpretations.
Comment by Zachriel — September 20, 2007 @ 7:38 am
September 20th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
dimasok wrote:
Yeah, it's probably just you.
Which reminds me of a joke a Polish sculptor friend of mine told me. There's a Polish peasant farmer who suffers tragedy after disaster after misfortune. He climbs a local mountain, falls to his knees, and with arms outstretched, tears flowing, and in his rural dialect demands of God to know why. Why such a terrible run of very bad luck. "Why, God? Why me? What have I done to deserve all this? Why have you done this to me? Why, God, why?"
Suddenly the voice of God speaks, using the same rural dialect: "I just don't like you, that's all".
Comment by stunney — September 20, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
September 20th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Hi Zachriel,
We're left with the fact that people can acknowledge the existence of my pain only because they too can personally experience pain. But does the reality of my pain truly depend on such acknowledgement from others? Of course not.
So empathy is like body odor. So let's just take the typical level of empathy. The point remains - Pain will teach you that this natural capability for empathy is transient and shallow. If you have not learned this yet, one day you will.
That's what makes this a good example. Empathy becomes increasingly weak and irrelevant the further you are removed from the potential empathizer. The relevance of that natural human tendency you speak of is dependent on social organization. Consider the way the critics cheered and laughed when Gonzalez was denied tenure. Empathy did not exist for them.
Is there a dispute here?
I know I'm just a dumb IDiot, but I do know what equivocate means. You are not doing a very good job at demonstrating equivocation was in play. Not to mention that many words mean different things in different contexts.
Comment by MikeGene — September 20, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 7:39 am
Virtually all people experience pain (and empathy).
Empathy is limited. That your experience suggests this limit is shallow rather than deep is relative and personal. I'm sorry for your personal experience. This seems to trouble you more than the physical pain.
That doesn't make empathy shallow. A mother might grieve deeply over a sick child for years (while ignoring the death of millions elsewhere).
Out-group. Nor is he a particularly good example of someone deserving of universal empathy. He's a player.
My original comment was, I don't suppose anyone might equivocate on the word "reality". Twice now I have been challenged to ascribe "real" to the sensation of pain without a clear distinction between the various connotations of the word. Hence, the following scare-quotes.
Sure you were "really" in pain. But it would have been "real" even if there was no underlying physical cause. Amputees may sometimes feel pain in a limb they no longer have. And pain-killers reduce pain in the non-existent limb.
Comment by Zachriel — September 21, 2007 @ 7:39 am
September 21st, 2007 at 10:29 am
Pfft… yeah right. And I'm supposed to trust that a brain — the result of a blind, piecemeal process jury-rigged together and selected only because it conferred some temporary solution/benefit to some random problem/pressure in its environment that very well may ultimately be some transient, soon to be vestigial organ — can yield information that accurately reflects reality.
Comment by Doug — September 21, 2007 @ 10:29 am
September 21st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
The environment is not random, but complex and highly ordered.
Comment by Zachriel — September 21, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Zachriel wrote:
The same goes for genetic mutations, of course.
Which is why some of us think that the cosmos and life were intelligently designed. There's just so much, like, highly ordered complexity, dude.:cool:
Comment by stunney — September 21, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Zachriel:
"Really". "Real".
Notice how Zachriel still feels obliged to put these words in scare-quotes in a discussion about pain. See, qualia are very threaty things to "science", and thus to Zachriel's "brain".
Zachriel seems to kinda want to say that, for instance, Josef Mengele caused "real" pain to "real" human beings. But did Mengele really cause pain to real human beings? Zachriel's not completely sure, given the metaphysical riskiness of the concepts of pain and reality. In other words, he's a "contemptible fuckwit", apparently.
Maybe we should start putting "evolution" in scare-quotes too, given that the existence of pain qualia is far more certain a hypothesis than the evolution of life.
Comment by stunney — September 21, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Talking of Mengele types, here is an interesting article which I assume is, at this very moment, causing Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Pee Z Myarse to write yet more articles predicting the wonderful benefits we can expect if only religion can be eradicated:
But still, that's nothing compared to the horrendous nature of, er, Young Earth Creationism.
Comment by stunney — September 21, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I think you're missing the point. From the perspective of an organism that has to adjust to the vast array of pressures that could surface in any given environment (or if it is displaced from one environment into another) it certainly is random. It is now presented with an obstacle that it must somehow overcome - an obstacle it (possibly) had no foresight of, with solutions that will either be hit or miss (since not all of the solutions it stumbles upon will yield a viable organism).
Comment by Doug — September 21, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Hi Zachriel,
But that is a vacuous point. The reality of my pain is not in anyway dependent on it being a shared experience or empathy.
Thanks for the clumsy attempt at empathy, but there is no need, as I am not troubled at all. The raw experience of such pain simply teaches a lesson about reality. The experience may be relative and personal, but it remains an experience with reality.
The empathy angle is something you brought up, when agreeing that pain is difficult to convey. So why is pain difficult to convey? Because the empathy you speak of it not only limited, but typically shallow. If it was otherwise, pain would not be difficult to convey.
Empathy becomes increasingly shallow the further we are removed from the person who suffers, to the point where it vanishes. The deep empathy you speak of is dependent on the most intimate bond among humans "“ mother/child. Yet even there, millions of mothers neglect and abuse their children.
Behold the feebleness of empathy. With flippant ease, Zachriel rationalizes/justifies the complete lack of empathy. Thank goodness we do not have to rely on something as flimsy as empathy to validate our experience with reality.
You have not shown any equivocation. I experienced pain. My pain was real. Yet it was mostly hidden. In fact, try this one. I was experiencing the reality of this pain while blogging. Why didn't you notice this and express empathy at the time?
Comment by MikeGene — September 21, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:44 am
It's not vacuous in response to your statement that "Pain is difficult to convey." And responded to in my very first comment on this thread.
What you call feeble I call remarkable. With flippant ease, MikeGene sweeps away examples of deeply felt empathy as trivial and unimportant exceptions.
If you wish to discuss the nature of subjective experience, such as pain, it might be best not to minimize other actual subjective experiences, such as empathy. Empathy is as real as pain. It can be deeply felt. It can apply not only to individuals, but to groups. And it can cripple.
I didn't say there was equivocation. I implied there was possible equivocation of the various uses of the word "reality". Even after pointing out the problem, the term was twice directed at me without clarification. That's what scare-quotes are for, as a warning to the reader that a word may be being used in a particular sense.
Sure you were "really" in pain. But it would have been "real" even if there was no underlying physical cause. When we apply the term "real" to subjective experience, it has a different meaning than when applied to objective phenomena.
All subjective experience is "private" in one sense, but people share many of the same experiences and can communicate these experiences with one another, and sympathize with one another. Sensations may be privately experienced, but publicly shared. This sharing causes "real" sensations of joy and pain and sympathy in others.
Intense pain tends to crowd out other sensations. And that may be the source of the loneliness you speak of, loneliness being another sensation that all people experience at one time or another. But I tell you, not everyone who experiences deep pain feels alone. That's just not true.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 8:44 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:05 am
Zachriel:
But then why is pain difficult to convey when virtually all people experience pain (and empathy)?
Huh? I was commenting on your justification for the complete lack of empathy we saw among the critics as they hooted and applauded when Gonzalez was denied tenure. All it took to completely suppress the "natural capability for empathy" was perception. He was in the "out-group" (tribalism) and not deserving of it (empathy needs permission from other parts of the brain).
Yes, empathy can be deeply felt if the empathizer is your mom, a beloved family member, and maybe a few dear friends. Beyond that tiny "in-group", what you call remarkable I call feeble. That's the human condition.
You think I am minimizing because you are trying to maximize.
I'm not denying the reality of empathy. But note you have chosen the weakest of words "“ can. Sure, empathy can cripple, but I'll bet it is the lack of empathy that far more often cripples.
Earlier, I noted, "In fact, it's also pretty fragile, as crime statistics show." You replied, "That would be a poor example, as criminals would consider you to be in the out-group. Your family would be more likely to show sympathy. Most people might view you as a statistic. "Studies show that featherless bipeds have a larger number of problems with vertebral disks than non-featherless bipeds."" That empathy does not exist for "out-groups" makes my point.
Good.
Like I said, "But what if they didn't have such experience (and we didn't have any test for it)? I'd bet they'd have a term for my description above "“ mental illness."
Interesting. So we experience "objective" phenomena starting with the photoreceptors in our retinas and we experience "subjective" phenomena starting with nociceptors throughout our body. With one, waves of action potentials travel down the optic nerve, while with the other, waves of action potentials travel up the spinothalamic tract. Is this the difference you are talking about? Why does the "objective" and "subjective" remind me of dualism?
We're back to the world of can happen. Are you taking about "out-groups" or "in-groups?"
No, like I said, what began as excruciating pain became omnipresent pain. Yes, intense pain crowds out other sensations. It's the following slow pain that elicits a sense of loneliness. While you can engage in all sorts of social interactions, the pain is always there with you. Always. Yet it is hidden from others, who see you without any pain. The reality that exists is a reality that is not seen by others. Their perception of "objection phenomena" is incomplete. Even "communication" of your experience (should you choose to do so) fails to completely convey the reality you experience.
You don't feel alone each and every moment. But you may be right. The realization of loneliness may depend on one's ability to step outside the moment.
Comment by MikeGene — September 22, 2007 @ 11:05 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Because mere words are a blunt tool. Emotions usually have to be evoked, perhaps by a cry or an image. A poet or a theatre troupe can evoke various feelings in the audience *at will*, making you have sympathy even for fictitious characters.
O happy dagger!
Gonzalez wasn't deserving of any particular sympathy. He was a player, and he lost. His pain is minimal. He won't starve. Furthermore, his claims about cosmic design lack scientific support. I'm sure he felt some angst, but it was largely self-inflicted. You should probably pick a more universal example. A child who falls off a bike and cries.
You seem to be implying that if empathy is not available to everyone all the time, then it is lacking, shallow and weak. Empathy is nearly universal in humans and is an important component of social bonding. How this is expressed, and when, is another matter.
Not at all. Empathy varies on individual and circumstance.
You said, "Pain is lonely". This is a universal statement with no qualifier. My comment does not make that point. Sometimes even a stranger will offer sympathy or aid. People in pain are not always lonely. It depends.
This is where I thought you meant the discussion to go originally.
I'm glad your pain has healed.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
BTDT; took six months to heal, and still twinges.
As to the "reality" of pain, the sensation is clearly real, but the interesting thing about pain is that it has no direct physical referent. Heat, cold, touch, pressure, sound, light, gravity…all of the other senses detect something physically measurable in our external (or internal, in the case of proprioceptors) environment.
But pain is caused by damage to cells, which ooze local chemical mediators, which bind to receptors on the dendrites of neurons adapted to sensing pain, which send action potentials to the brain, et voila: we "feel pain," which means that we sense the effects of cellular damage. Not measurable, and only quantifiable by taking people's word for it (hence the 1 to 10 charts in hospital ERs, with the smiling to grimacing faces for the pediatric set).
In other words, we have no external referent for pain at all. We only know and can understand what pain is because each and every one of us has experienced it, multiple times and at varying intensities.
And the question is, of course, why do we have the ability to feel pain in the first place? Because, in the past those individuals who had the requisite local chemical mediators, receptors, dendrites, neurons, brains, etc. tended to stop doing whatever was causing the cellular damage, and thereby causing them to feel "pain."
Now, having passed multiple kidney stones (and had at least two yanked out by a video-guided claw or blasted to pieces with lasers), what I want to know is, why do we feel such an overwhelming amount of pain when something damages our ureters? Precisely when in our evolutionary past did someone do something that damaged their ureter to such an extent that they needed to stop doing what ever it was they were doing, which of course did not result in their death (and hence prevented them from passing on the ability to feel such intense pain in the first place).
Kidney stones are indirect evidence that, if God(s) exist, S/He/It has a predeliction for causing pointless agony in his otherwise logically designed creations.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — September 23, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Allen MacNeill wrote:
All the more reason then, are we to take it, that the word 'reality' requires scare-quotes?
Dear oh dear.
I've already refuted MacNeill's "crap" on this subject here and here, and here. Oh, and here as well, would you believe.
I first came acoss his jejune ideas regarding religion here, before landing a coup de grace, courtesy of 'Big Al'.
I was rapidly coming to the conclusion that atheists are simply that part of the human population who are exceedingly silly when it comes to thinking about theism. In an evolutionary perspective this probably explains their propensity for being social misfits. But then I discovered proof that theists are hypocritical if not downright wicked:
American atheists step in while church-goers do nothing to help.
As a wise man once said, "Thank God for atheists".
Oh, hold on… As Sean Connery used to say: "Shorry. Shurely shome mishtake?"
Comment by stunney — September 24, 2007 @ 7:21 am
September 24th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Allen MacNeill wrote:
From Stunney's first linked comment:
So the next time you pass a kidney stone, Allen, you can be confident that your suffering is not in vain. It's a necessary side effect of the orgasmic delights being enjoyed by certain inhabitants of the Whirlpool Galaxy.
Your loss is their gain.
Comment by keiths — September 24, 2007 @ 8:14 am
September 24th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
There is an evolutionary-theoretic (and therefore design-theoretic) "explanation" for why empathy (or literally, actions resulting from a feeling of empathy) is limited.
And that's the way it should be.
Because, I don't know that your pain is real, Mike Gene.
Pain is lonely–even while being one of the most common (and shared) experiences we have.
And, as you know, even by just sharing the experience of pain, pain is alleviated. (My theory about womens' higher tolerance for pain is their natural inclination to communicate their experiences. They don't ever shut up!)
Comment by Rock — September 24, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
P.S. Stunney:
Sorry to puncture your self-generated solipsistic reality, but I am NOT an atheist, nor have I ever been one…except for a brief period following my fourth birthday (a long time ago and far away).
–Allen
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — September 24, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
P.P.S. Stunney:
What ever gave you the forlorn impression that I would ever want to read something you wrote, or that anyone else would either?
–Allen
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — September 24, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
But…but…that couldn't be! You see, God, in his/her/its infinite knowledge, would know that such evidence would lead us to knowledge of his/her/its predeliction for causing pointless agony. So by sheer logic, this must be his/her/its point in doing so. But that would make the agony no longer pointless - a contradiction. Therefore God does not exist.
QED
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — September 24, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Hi Rock,
Indeed. How could it be otherwise? But the catch is this: I do indeed know it is real. It's knowledge that is not dependent on anyone else's acknowledgement, nor is it dependent on any method. It just is.
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
September 25th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Quite so, and that would be true whether there was an underlying physical cause for the pain or not.
Comment by Zachriel — September 25, 2007 @ 7:21 am
September 25th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Allen MacNeill wrote:
You appear to be the solipsist here. That part of my comment was, amazingly enough, not about you.
I know. Months ago you disclosed your Buddhism (albeit some self-proclaimed atheists are Buddhists and vice-versa. Pee Zee Myarse comes to mind in this connection.)
I remember the moment of your religious self-revelation well. It did not quite bring me to nirvana. But it made me wish that you would attain it soon, so that you could give up "teaching".
That's always a very tricky time, the period following one's fourth birthday, isn't it?
I myself remember it well, because at that age I sat down in the entrance to my grandfather's cafe, and called the attention of my father to the fact that I had just soiled my short trousers.
Or "crapped" in them, to use the technical term.
I really don't know.
Of course, I assumed you would not wish to read anything I wrote about you since it was so uniformly critical in tone. But I, believe it or not, am actually a different person from you, and hence am allowed to be that 'someone else' who would 'want to read' what I wrote.
So console "yourself" with the thought that I'm a solipsist, and that I think that only my solipsism is true, if it makes "you", er, "feel" any "better".
Assuming evaluative judgements are genuinely objective, of course.
Comment by stunney — September 25, 2007 @ 8:18 am
September 25th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Actually, I've been a member of the Ithaca Monthly Meeting of Friends ("Quakers", to you non-Friends) for three decades, in addition to being a "practicing" Buddhist (we keep practicing, hoping we'll eventually get it right).
–Allen
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — September 25, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
September 25th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
That sound you hear is William Penn and George Fox turning over in their graves
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 25, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
September 25th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Wonders For Oyarsa wrote:
One of the things that always strikes me as decidedly odd is the spectacle of materialists complaining about, and citing as evidence for God's non-existence, the phenomenon of pain. For on the materialist's own account, pain is necessarily entailed by, and either identical with or supervenient on, certain physical states of the world; and all physical states of the world are necessarily entailed by their physical antecedents.
What this implies is that if any designer wishes to create high-level conscious physical beings existing in a physical world, in short, if the designer wishes to create higher animals at all, then there is no way to do so that can also rule out pain. Vulnerability to pain is, on the materialist view, necessitated by the physics, biochemistry, and metaphysics of higher animal consciousness. And so the only way for a designer to avoid it is simply not to create higher animals.
Thus, the orthodox materialist position in the philosophy of mind is that, to use the modal jargon, there is no possible world in which there are naturally pain-immune higher animal species. Hence, on the materialist's own account, no designer can actualize such a world, for it is simply not a possible world at all.
But even without being constrained by materialism in the philosophy of mind, there are good reasons an intelligent designer might have for including pain in his design of a physical universe containing higher life forms. Hansen's disease is instructive on why being immune to pain can have very bad consequences:
[Emphasis added]
Comment by stunney — September 25, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Stunney,
The fact that humans are susceptible to suffering does not therefore mean that they must experience all possible pain. I'm sure it would hurt to have my hand cut off, but no cosmic law is violated if I go to my grave with hand intact.
The question is not why God would create beings capable of suffering, but rather why he would fail to prevent the suffering from being actualized.
Comment by keiths — September 26, 2007 @ 4:42 am
September 26th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Keiths,
What difference is there between creating beings capable of suffering with God preventing any suffering from manifesting, and banning suffering altogether? None. You just repackaged the old silly atheist argument "why is there evil?".
Comment by Jean — September 26, 2007 @ 6:52 am
September 26th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Jean,
You've missed the entire point.
Stunney's argument: If higher consciousness and the ability to suffer are two sides of the same coin, then to prevent suffering, God would have had to refrain from creating us altogether.
My rejoinder: Creating beings with the capacity for suffering does not mean that they must suffer. Stunney's argument is wrong.
I hope that clears it up for you.
Comment by keiths — September 26, 2007 @ 11:37 am
September 27th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Hi Zachriel,
But that is irrelevant.
Comment by MikeGene — September 27, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
September 28th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Jean wrote:
Exactamentemundo.
But remember, Jean, this is keiths you're dealing with, and subtlety isn't his forte. Though I think I did try to make it clear and avoid unnecessary subtlety when I wrote:
Here's the irony. It's the materialist who is the one who is saying pain is necessitated by the nature of the physical world, and such a world by definition is one whose processes are determined by physical laws, as against frequent 'law-violating' (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) interventions by non-physical beings.
So what does keiths do when this is pointed out to him? He simply denies the necessity of the entailments that materialism itself says are necessary. It would be sad if it wasn't so funny.
Keiths can't grasp that if a designer chooses to create animals at all, then there has to be a lawfully ordered physical universe. And we know from the fine-tuning data that very few lawfully ordered physical universes out of the infinite number of possible such universes will contain higher animal life.
Keiths' position reduces to the following proposition: God is a wicked bastard for creating animals.
Alternatively, he could abandon materialist philosophy of mind and say that God could have designed the connections between bodily states and pain qualia (which materialism regards as being entailed by metaphysical necessity) so that there would be less pain. But all the relevant biological evidence suggests that animal life would have undergone far greater extinction under such circumstances. Just watch carnivores chasing their prey in the wild, then imagine the young prey thinking, "Nah, let the lion have me for dinner. The pain will be moderate and shortlived, and frankly I'm bored". But if keiths really can produce a better physical-mental design for animal life, then let's see it in all its important details. The truth, of course, is that neither keiths nor anyone else on the planet has any such supposedly superior design. Not even remotomatamente.
Once you understand what is logically implied by the concept of long-lasting but finite sentient physical life, the objections simply unravel even when they're not obviously incoherent. Which they obviously are when proffered by materialists.
Comment by stunney — September 28, 2007 @ 1:55 am
September 28th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Let me just repeat:
…and such a world by definition is one whose processes are determined by physical laws…
I think keiths may not understand that all known cases of pain are inevitable if everything that happens is determined, as materialism holds to be the case. It's not just vulnerability to pain that is necessitated given materialism's view of consciousness. It's all actual instances of pain. That's what determinism entails.
So either he retains materialism, and holds God as blameworthy for creating conscious physical life-forms at all. Or he abandons materialism, and starts writing a book on how to produce a better design of mental-physical relations than the one God designed.
As a wise man once said, holding one's breath in such circumstances is a bad idea, unless perhaps you're suicidal.
Comment by stunney — September 28, 2007 @ 2:18 am
September 28th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Stunney,
Do you really not see the difference between
a) creating a world in which creatures are capable of suffering, but don't,
and
b) creating a world in which creatures are capable of suffering, and do?
The difference is in the last two words of each scenario.
Comment by keiths — September 28, 2007 @ 2:28 am
September 28th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Obviously, either keiths does not understand the meaning of determinism, or he doesn't believe in it. Or he's just pretending.
It's not just vulnerability to pain that is necessitated given materialism's view of consciousness. It's all actual instances of pain-causing events. That's what materialist determinism entails. It entails the Titanic disaster, mass extinctions, the Holocaust, the Bush presidency, keiths' posts, etc. Given the laws of physics and initial conditions—which are finely-tuned for conscious life even to be possible—these events were inevitable on the materialist account. In short, there's no possible world containing the laws and conditions that produced the Earth's animal kingdom but which does not contain all the Earth's painful events, given a materialist analysis of the nature of painful events.
And no alternative laws and initial conditions are even on the table, let alone have been shown to be preferable, regardless of whether one takes a materialist or interactionist view of mental events.
Comment by stunney — September 28, 2007 @ 2:55 am
September 28th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Stunney,
In response to your addenda:
I've tried up to now to assess your argument on its own terms, but I should pause to point out that those terms are themselves incoherent. For example, you write:
But if I retain materialism, that means I believe God doesn't exist, and so the issue of blame never arises for me. Your argument contradicts itself.
That alone is fatal to your argument, but let's nevertheless see how your argument fares if we set the contradiction aside.
Your initial claim was that if, on materialist principles, higher consciousness necessarily entails vulnerability to suffering, then the only way for God to prevent suffering is to refrain from bestowing higher consciousness on his creatures.
I raised the obvious objection that being capable of suffering does not mean that one must suffer.
In response, you now argue that materialism entails determinism, and that every instance of suffering is therefore inevitable:
First of all, you're assuming that materialism entails determinism, which is false. Setting that aside, you're assuming that any deterministic world must necessarily contain suffering. But why? Why couldn't God create a deterministic world without suffering? You've offered absolutely no justification for your assumption.
To summarize:
1. Your argument is incoherent, because it relies arguendo on the simultaneous truth and falsity of materialism.
2. Your argument depends on the assumption that deterministic worlds containing higher consciousnesses must inevitably contain suffering, but you've neglected to justify that assumption.
Either way, your argument fails.
Back to the drawing board.
Comment by keiths — September 28, 2007 @ 3:30 am
September 28th, 2007 at 4:59 am
keiths seems not to know that there are Christian philosophers who are materialists about animal minds, including those of humans. Two examples: Peter van Inwagen and Nancey Murphy (the latter of whom I've debated in the past). Apparently keiths thinks that it's fatal to my argument that such people do not exist in his mental universe.:lol: But in the reality-based community, it's simple enough to believe that God is pure spirit and that the universe is wholly physical, without contradiction.
Then he heads for any port in a storm, pretending that indeterminism will be a safe harbor. But, nothing about indeterminism precludes actual pain occurring, nor that more pain might occur than would be the case in a hypothetical deterministic universe. So indeterminism is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether causal laws, be they indeterministic or not, do anything to mitigate causal pain-producing processes. From the point of view of macro pain-causing events, indeterminism is a red herring, especially in the case of the guy who lambasts TP about microtubules and Penrose's quantum road to consciousness. And if God did ensure that no suffering would occur by exploiting physical indeterminism, then the world wouldn't in fact, er, be indeterministic. So this escape route is incoherent. And feel free to color me unsurprised.
Then we're told that even leaving the issue of indeterminism aside ('cos keiths knows it's irrelevant in the present context), there would be no need for a deterministic world to be painful, since God could make a deterministic but pain-free world. This is true. God could do that. But—and this is the important bit—–it would not be a world containing animals. So the possibility is irrelevant.
You see, animals need things like water and sunlight. No description of an alternative physics that would generate such things has been provided. But it turns out you need, oh, gosh, plate tectonics and a whole lot more, even just to get those two needs satisfied. In other words, sticking to the actual science relevant to animal life, there's no possibility of animals who can and do have sex, reproduce, and eat, not being able to drown in floods, nor to get killed in forest-fires, earthquakes, and tsunamis by virtue of causal necessity, nor for all animals to actually always avoid such mishaps given the causality of the world. If one drives one's car into a concrete wall, chances are you'll die. For the world not to be like that doesn't seem possible given the mathematical necessity attaching to the equations and laws governing energy and fast-moving human bodies, etc.
The objection, in short, imagines a Tom and Jerry cartoon magic world, not a physical one, hence it's irrelevant to the question of whether God could have made an animal kingdom with less suffering, since the concept of animal kingdom is only applicable to physical worlds. Now, if God 'violated' the causal laws occasionally, intelligible order would be preserved. And maybe God does so, and maybe God does so by exploiting the apparently probabilistic nature of the causal laws. But if God did it very frequently, intelligible physical order would be lost. But even so, the actual causal laws may well be designed and tuned to enhance animal safety, and I suspect the causal laws pertaining to pain are. That, indeed, is probably one of their primary functions. It's kinda obvious when you think about it.
So when one imagines a physical world containing animals, one is by logical implication imagining a world containing finite sentient physical life-forms, and thus conceiving of a corresponding mathematics and physics of spacetime, energy, mass, stars, minerals, nutrients, etc. And the impact on animal consciousness of the physical environment will be determined by either (materialist) physical or (interactionist) psycho-physical causal laws, on pain of mathematical and causal incoherence, or 'incoherence' for short.
As far as we can tell, the actual physical and psychophysical causal laws are necessary for diverse, long-lasting animal life, including higher life. An undrownable human is as logically incoherent a notion as a square circle. And that's because of the essential properties of water, humans, squares, and circles.
To summarize:
1. keiths' argument is incoherent, because it relies arguendo on the simultaneous truth and falsity of materialism.
2. keiths' argument depends on the assumption that deterministic worlds containing higher consciousnesses containing no suffering are possible, but he's neglected to justify that assumption.
Either way, keiths' argument fails.
Back to the drawing board.
Comment by stunney — September 28, 2007 @ 4:59 am
September 28th, 2007 at 8:29 am
This is not the first time you have claimed irrelevance concerning a comment of mine resulting in me having to backtrack through the thread. You introduced the notions of "reality" and "mental illness".
Hence, my comment that the pain would be "real" even if there was no known or no actual underlying cause. Hence, my comment concerning amputees who sometimes experience pain in missing limbs and the effectiveness in pain-killers reducing pain in the non-existent limb. These phantom pains are as "real" as any pain. And the pain felt by the mentally ill is just as "real", too"”even if no one is actually lighting them on fire.
Comment by Zachriel — September 28, 2007 @ 8:29 am