Does "RIGHT & WRONG" mean anything, without God or Religion?

[Underseer]

As the Euthyphro dilemma proved thousands of years ago, I don't think right and wrong means anything under an authority-based moral system. Under an authority-based moral system, morality is completely arbitrary.

 

[sdelsolray]

I think C S Lewis was clearly right - Lunatic, Liar, Lord. In that order.

Of course, he was wrong about a Lord being a desirable thing to have.

I see Lewis' question/argument (Lord, Liar or Lunatic) as a false trichotomy. There are other choices.

In keeping the cutesy "L" theme, there is "Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Legend".

Then there are "Mistaken" and "Fictional".

 

[DBT]

That's not an objective measurement. It's a subjective experience of pain in comparison to past experience with pain. It is an assessment, a guess, not a measurement (memory not being perfect). Certainly not an objective measurement. The brain does not possess an objective, calibrated pain meter.

Then by your standard, there is no measurement of anything. ALL measurement is a guess and is subjective.

No. Two sources of information. One being the external world, the other, bodily feedback from limbs and organs via the CNS. Information from the external world may tested and measured, but feelings cannot. Information relating to the external world is there regardless of our beliefs or feelings. The external world exists for all observers.

 

[fromderinside]

Sensation is not measurable. It is only reportable. The subject can describe what they feel. This cannot be measured.

It can be measured at least by the one who experiences the sensation. You might make an argument that no one else can directly measure that person's sensation, e.g., pain.

However, it can be reported to another, and that other one can express the magnitude of it, based on what is reported. Just as can be done in reporting anything witnessed directly by only one person but then reported to others.

But you could argue that no one really knows if anyone else suffers pain, or has consciousness, etc.

One can measure subjective experience though observation, manipulation and measurement of effects of those manipulations. It is really no different than directly manipulating some physical thing and taking data on effects arising from that manipulation under controlled and repeatable conditions. Pain measurement ican be measured as subjective technique or an objective technique rooted in coupling with changes in the individual's behavior including her verbal or instrumented report rerspectively. Stimulators have been developed that remove the sensation of pain even though the brain is reporting pain input. Pretty robust really.

First:  Pain

The International Association for the Study of Pain's widely used definition states: "Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage."^[2] In medical diagnosis, pain is regarded as a symptom of an underlying condition.

Then:  Psychophysics

Psychophysics quantitatively investigates the relationship between physical stimuli and the sensations and perceptions they produce. Psychophysics has been described as "the scientific study of the relation between stimulus and sensation"^[1] or, more completely, as "the analysis of perceptual processes by studying the effect on a subject's experience or behaviour of systematically varying the properties of a stimulus along one or more physical dimensions".^[2]
Psychophysics also refers to a general class of methods that can be applied to study a perceptual system. Modern applications rely heavily on threshold measurement,^[3]ideal observer analysis, and signal detection theory.^[4]

Then:   Dolorimeter

a dolorimeter is an instrument used to measure pain threshold and pain tolerance. Dolorimetry has been defined as "the measurement of pain sensitivity or pain intensity."^[1]Several types of dolorimeter have been developed. Dolorimeters apply steady pressure, heat, or electrical stimulation to some area, or move a joint or other body part and determine what level of heat or pressure or electric current or amount of movement produces a sensation of pain. Sometimes the pressure is applied using a blunt object, or by locally increasing the air pressure on some area of the body, and sometimes by pressing a sharp instrument against the body.

Whether someone has a personally psychological experience with no other evidence such as changes in external conditions or whether one has physical experiences causing tissue stress or damage the can report it as pain. We find the experiences to both are well correlated suggesting the cerebral cortex can be intimately involved in the pain experience. However there are pretty good indications there are pain pathways from nerves and tissues transmitted via either electrochemical or neurochemical communications with the brain.

This is not an out of science issue at all. Clearly there has been great progress made in pain assessment. As for the cooper-harper like scales used prominantly in medicine now they all have been tied to both theory and process and their outputs are both consistent and reliable. So no hand waving or faerie invoking please.

 

[Treedbear]

Morality is an evolving cultural adaptation to promote the survival of the species.

I.e., the HUMAN species. Yes, but it's not exclusively this.

There are humans who want to promote the survival of other species also. And this can mean a sacrifice of human benefit in some cases.

Some animal rights groups, or naturalists, have said (maybe superficially) that humans should be sacrificed for the sake of other species. Maybe they don't really mean it.

In any case, the survival of other species, not just our own, is also part of morality.

In my opinion any reasons for promoting the survival of other species are always rooted in how it will benefit human survival. There are the more obvious reasons based on the need to maintain a healthy natural ecosystem for our own biological needs. There is also the symbolic value that cherishing the environment plays in motivating public sentiment, as with Native American and Shinto religions. Then there is the need to establish certain arbitrary boundaries which slow the ability to exploit resources before unforeseen damage can occur, such as with the Spotted Owl or the Death Valley Pup Fish under the Endangered Species Act. Sacrifices which effect small segments of the community are accepted in light of possible benefits to the larger community. All moral choices can eventually be traced to that which benefits species survival. Oh yeah, and morality isn't just a human phenomenon. I imagine all social species have learned codes of behavior that are rewarded as well as those that are strictly taboo.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
Likewise the question of the age of the Earth. The Earth is as old as it is, no matter who believes what on the question. It's a matter of fact, and even if we calculate wrongly, the fact remains as it is, independent of belief.

Morality is a different kettle of fish. There, belief is all we have.

How do you know belief is all there is? Maybe whether some act is moral or immoral is a matter of fact too, and that fact remains as it is, independent of belief. You appear to be prejudging that question -- taking the nonexistence of moral facts as both premise and conclusion. You say you pointed out that morality has changed and you're surprised the thread is still live; but to those of us who don't assume your premise, it looks like all you have is an argument from personal incredulity. What is there that you can point out to Lumpenproletariat or to me, to show that morality has changed, as opposed to merely showing that beliefs about morality have changed?

Other than beliefs about morality, what measure do we have of what is considered moral? As far as we are currently aware, there are no hard and fast facts about morality except what has been considered moral at any time or place.

You understand that whether we can measure something is a different question from whether it exists, don't you? For most of human history, belief was all we had about the age of the earth. We had no way to measure it. There were hard and fast facts about it all along, facts that remained as they were, independent of belief, even though we had no measure of earth age and all we had was belief. Do you understand that this is proof that the circumstance that one finds oneself with no measure and with nothing but belief does not imply that there are no hard and fast facts about a subject? Note carefully: I am not making an analogy. I am providing a counterexample. It's a point of logic.

If you say morality has changed, and someone asks you for evidence, and you point to changes in belief, and you say belief is all we have so there are no facts other than beliefs, you are making a fallacious argument. It is a non-sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

So I can show you what has changed in regards to what has been believed to be moral, but that wouldn't show that morality had changed unless we agreed that beliefs about morality are equal to morality at any given time or place.

Quite right. (And even if we did agree about that, it wouldn't show morality had changed. It would only show we both believed something unreasonable.) So since you can't actually show morality has changed, you had no reason to be surprised the thread was still live after you'd pointed out that morality has changed. And yet you were surprised.

It's entirely normal for subjectivists to talk as though remarkably bad arguments ought to end the discussion in their favor. The sort of arguments they offer, as a rule, would not persuade even themselves that a topic was intrinsically subjective, if it were a topic other than morality. This strongly suggests that the arguments they offer are not their real reason for believing in moral subjectivism. This accounts for why drawing subjectivists' attention to how illogical their arguments are hardly ever causes them to reconsider. As the saying goes, you can't argue someone out of a position he wasn't argued into.

As far as one can judge from appearances, most moral subjectivists' real reason for their opinion is straight-up raw argument-from-incredulity. They just can't wrap their minds around how reality could possibly contain moral facts. But they also can't wrap their minds around the implication of a reality without moral facts: nihilism. They aren't willing to walk away from moral judgment. So they clutch at subjectivism as if it were a genuine third option. Their emotional need for a third option gives them a level of certainty about subjectivism that appears to make them willing to tolerate in themselves unlimited amounts of illogic.

In the first place, if belief is all we have then what can it even mean to say one judgment supercedes another? What, all beliefs are equally unsupported but some are more equal than others?

If morality is nothing more than what is believed tobe moral at any one time or place, then it would be the overall societal judgment of what is moral that supercedes other judgments. That's not to say that it would actually be the more moral judgment, just that it would be considered to be so.

How do you figure saying "morality is nothing more than what is believed to be moral at any one time or place" is not to say that "the overall societal judgment of what is moral would actually be the more moral judgment"? You appear to be saying something self-contradictory. Are "morality" and "what is believed to be moral" one and the same thing, or aren't they?

And in the second place, there isn't one of you in a hundred who seriously treats the judgment of society as superceding his own. For example, society at large -- practically every society -- judges that atheists should be so respectful of religion that we not even point out that it's wrong, while religious people are under no obligation to politely refrain from saying atheism is wrong. You, on the other hand, think it would be more appropriate for the atheists to tell the religious to shut up about it. You are treating your own judgment as superceding society's.

Not at all. I'm saying that, if one believes one's judgment to be more moral than that of society at large, one should try to change the view of society concerning that judgment.

How are you able to simultaneously hold in your head a belief that your judgment is more moral than that of society, and also a belief that there are no hard and fast facts about morality except what has been considered moral at any time or place. That is a self-contradictory set of beliefs.

If there are no moral facts, but only beliefs about what is moral, then whose belief is your moral belief a belief about? Yours? If you believe atheists should disrespect religion, that's you believing that you believe atheists should disrespect religion? That would be infinite regress, a circular definition of what you believe. Theirs? If you believe atheists should disrespect religion, that's a belief that society believes atheists should disrespect religion? In that case they already believe what you want, so why try to change them? Some third party's? If so, why does it matter what somebody else thinks, unless he's right?

It is inconsistent to believes one's judgment to be more moral than that of someone else and also believe there to be no fact of the matter as to whose judgment is more moral.

Thus, yes, corvee labour, as a placeholder for a tax system, was moral at the time and place, because that society deemed it to be so.

So would you also say, then, that burning people to death as punishment for heresy was moral at the same time and place, because that same society deemed it to be so?

No, I wouldn't, because I'm coming from a different standpoint on the question.

But you're also coming from a different standpoint on the corvee labor question. Why do you infer "it was moral at the time and place" for one question but not the other? It's clear that "because that society deemed it to be so" is not your real reason, because that reason is equally operable on both questions.

But if I was a member of that society at that time, with that society's morality built into my education, I would probably consider it to be perfectly moral to burn heretics. That doesn't mean it would actually be moral, just that it would be considered to be so. Which is all I'm saying: that the morals of a given society in a given time and place actually become what is moral in that time and place, outlying thinkers notwithstanding.

Read back what you just wrote. Do you not see the self-contradiction in it? If the morals of a given society in a given time and place actually become what is moral in that time and place, then that quite blatantly does mean it would actually be moral. That's what the English words "actually become what is" mean!

The very fact that this can be changed is, to me, evidence that morality is not some unchangeable, hard and fast certainty, but is the product of time and place.

The very fact that what can be changed? Society's belief? How the heck could that possibly be evidence that morality is changeable, unless the belief and morality are one and the same? But if they are one and the same, then how the heck do you figure burning heretics wouldn't "actually be moral"?

Emotional attachment to subjectivism causes its converts to practice doublethink.

Many societies have considered rape moral under a wide variety of circumstances. In backwards Pakistani villages it's considered moral to punish a rapist by having somebody, or even a whole gang, rape the first rapist's sister. Lots of societies don't even recognize marital rape as rape. But that's not the issue. The issue is, what basis is there for claiming the societies with these views aren't wrong?

In terns of hard and fast rules: nothing.

Are you agreeing with me that societies with those views may be just wrong, or did you merely overlook the double negative in my question? Did you perhaps mean there's no basis in terms of hard and fast rules for claiming they are wrong?

There is only the fact of what is believed. This can be backed up by logical reasoning, by arguments concerning reciprocity or the effects on society, etc. But one single thing we can point to and say, "see? It's intrinsically wrong"? We don't have that. All we can do is persuade.

In these discussions, at some point the subjectivists usually express willingness to rely on arguments they already know are unsound. If they haven't one single thing they can point to and say it's intrinsically wrong, then in what sense can any of their beliefs "be backed up by logical reasoning"? A logical inference from P to Q does not in any way qualify as "backing up" a belief in Q, unless there's some reason to think P is a fact. A subjectivist, thinking P is not a fact, because he believes there are no moral facts, cannot ever have a logical basis for imagining any conclusion he reaches is "backed up", at all. To suppose there are no moral facts and also argue for a moral conclusion by logical reasoning -- by arguments concerning reciprocity or the effects on society, etc. -- is just piling on yet more doublethink.

 

[Treedbear]

I.e., the HUMAN species. Yes, but it's not exclusively this.

There are humans who want to promote the survival of other species also. And this can mean a sacrifice of human benefit in some cases.

Some animal rights groups, or naturalists, have said (maybe superficially) that humans should be sacrificed for the sake of other species. Maybe they don't really mean it.

In any case, the survival of other species, not just our own, is also part of morality.

You guys need to read the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. You've both fundamentally misunderstood the driving force behind evolution. It's not on species level, nor on group level, nor on individual level. These are all wrong.

No animal acts to promote the survival of it's own species. Members of it's own species inhabit the exact same niche as they do. Ie, those are it's prime rivals. We would expect that any species would have no qualms about murdering their same species neighbours. And this seems to be the case with humans. The hard part isn't to explain why humans kill eachother. The hard part is to explain when we don't.

Animal rights activists are just projecting. They don't want to be murdered and eaten, so they try to protect animals from it. This is just a quirk of human psychology. Remember, this human brain is still in Beta. It's going to do weird shit until all the bugs have been sorted out.

I agree with the first point in the last paragraph, but that's about it. Symbolic meaning is indeed projecting human emotion onto other animals (or even plants or inanimate objects in some cases). But symbolism is a functional part of social interactions. Nothing to worry about there, as long as one is willing to intelligently analyze the motivations behind those feelings.

The driving force behind evolution is random mutation. But all would remain chaos if not for species survival. I think the same is true for cultural evolution within social species. Mutation is essential to species survival and usually a disaster for the individual. In societies mutation might be viewed in a moral sense as the willingness to sacrifice one's welfare, or even one's life for the benefit one's local community. Society depends on parents' sacrificing for their children's future and for acts of heroism under extraordinary conditions. But for the individual it's not an adaptive advantage in the sense that it should be generalized to all adults in all social situations. It would then become counterproductive.

I disagree with the idea that people are generally motivated to harm their neighbors because they need to compete with them. People generally recognize that there are more personal benefits to cooperating with them than competing. The violence we see in the world today gets its motivation from either religious or patriotic zeal. Its a competition between societies and the principles they represent, not between individuals. Unfortunately that ethic is reflected in the psychological makeup of the general population and how they are taught to resolve individual conflicts.

Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker" was a real catharsis for me 40 years ago. But I haven't read "The Selfish Gene". I guess I should because I don't agree with the premise that seems implicit in the notion that genes could have the motivation to be selfish. I think genetic evolution is more effective for bacteria and such but for really complex species it seems cultural evolution adapts more quickly to a changing environment.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The driving force behind evolution is random mutation. But all would remain chaos if not for species survival.

Why? If this follows from premises you shouldn't have any trouble constructing an argument. The above is not.

I think the same is true for cultural evolution within social species. Mutation is essential to species survival and usually a disaster for the individual. In societies mutation might be viewed in a moral sense as the willingness to sacrifice one's welfare, or even one's life for the benefit one's local community. Society depends on parents' sacrificing for their children's future and for acts of heroism under extraordinary conditions. But for the individual it's not an adaptive advantage in the sense that it should be generalized to all adults in all social situations. It would then become counterproductive.

The 50'ies called and they want their theories back.

They've got shared genes. Parents aren't sacrificing shit for no one. Sacrificing yourself for your kin is being selfish.

I disagree with the idea that people are generally motivated to harm their neighbors because they need to compete with them. People generally recognize that there are more personal benefits to cooperating with them than competing. The violence we see in the world today gets its motivation from either religious or patriotic zeal. Its a competition between societies and the principles they represent, not between individuals. Unfortunately that ethic is reflected in the psychological makeup of the general population and how they are taught to resolve individual conflicts.

Then why are we at all capable of waging war and killing each other? That's how evolution works. Behaviour's that don't act to aid the species are weeded out. The only reason we are at all capable of killing each other is because it helps us somehow.

Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker" was a real catharsis for me 40 years ago. But I haven't read "The Selfish Gene".

Dawkins wanted to call it "the cooperative gene" but his publisher insisted on "the selfish gene" because he thought it would sell better. So pro-tip, title isn't everything.

I guess I should because I don't agree with the premise that seems implicit in the notion that genes could have the motivation to be selfish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

I think genetic evolution is more effective for bacteria and such but for really complex species it seems cultural evolution adapts more quickly to a changing environment.

What?!? What do you mean with "genetic evolution being more effective"? There is no conflict between genetic and cultural evolution. Ie "genes" and "memes". They operate on completely different levels. Also, cultural evolution (ie meme theory) was first invented by Dawkins in the book The Selfish Gene. Yet, another reason for you to read it. I also recommend Susan Blackmore's "Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction". She takes Dawkins' idea and runs with it. If you're really serious about it she wrote a book on only that, The Meme Machine.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Pain/suffering and pleasure are objective reality, and can be reported and tested and measured.

It can be measured at least by the one who experiences the sensation.

That's not an objective measurement. It's a subjective experience of pain in comparison to past experience with pain. It is an assessment, a guess, not a measurement (memory not being perfect). Certainly not an objective measurement. The brain does not possess an objective, calibrated pain meter.

Then by your standard, there is no measurement of anything. ALL measurement is a guess and is subjective.

No. Two sources of information. One being the external world, the other, bodily feedback from limbs and organs via the CNS.

That's like saying the two sources are two different places: one from Chicago, the other from Miami.

Whether the source is from inside the body or outside makes no difference. If you feel a pain, that is just as empirical as experiencing a ufo or witnessing a crime happening over there somewhere.

If something bumps you it might cause a little pain, or disturbance. If you see something ugly outside you, that causes some irritation. These are "external" in that it's something you didn't cause to happen. That pain could be imaginary, just as that ufo or that meteor or that car crash you saw might be imaginary, or an illusion.

You can never prove with certainty that what you experienced was real, whether it's "internal" or "external" -- there can always be some doubt about it.

Information from the external world may be tested and measured, but feelings cannot.

Yes they can be tested. I.e., the one who has the feeling can test it and measure it. And then report it to someone else who believes that other minds do exist.

Information relating to the external world is there regardless of our beliefs or feelings.

So is the pain when someone has a heart attack. That pain is not caused by that person's beliefs or feelings. It's caused by events happening inside their body. But that doesn't mean it isn't just as real as a dog barking or a car going over a cliff etc.

The external world exists for all observers.

Internal pain can be reported to any observers. As long as those observers believe that other minds exist, beside just their own, they understand that report and can measure it based on the report.

Just as they can understand your report to them that you saw a ufo or witnessed a crime or saw a pretty sunset.

Maybe even some kind of picture or graph of your internal pain is possible. But if not, that's only because of the "Other Minds" problem.

Are you saying you don't believe other minds exist? i.e., that your conscious mind is the only conscious mind, and that all other people are non-conscious entities? Only in that sense is there no way to know or measure someone else's pain.

 

[DBT]

It can be measured at least by the one who experiences the sensation.

That's not an objective measurement. It's a subjective experience of pain in comparison to past experience with pain. It is an assessment, a guess, not a measurement (memory not being perfect). Certainly not an objective measurement. The brain does not possess an objective, calibrated pain meter.

Then by your standard, there is no measurement of anything. ALL measurement is a guess and is subjective.

No. Two sources of information. One being the external world, the other, bodily feedback from limbs and organs via the CNS.

That's like saying the two sources are two different places: one from Chicago, the other from Miami.

Nothing of the sort. Light waves (vision), airborne molecules (smell), etc exist outside of the body/brain/mind and is a source of information related to the external world that exists for all observers/experiencer's of the world. It is the brain that analyzes both information from the external world and nerve signals from the rest of the body, forming a conscious experience of both the external world and self.

Whether the source is from inside the body or outside makes no difference. If you feel a pain, that is just as empirical as experiencing a ufo or witnessing a crime happening over there somewhere.

No, that describes information from two different sources, one being the objective external world, the other from organs, muscles, tissue, etc. Both are subjective representations of information, but the former is accessible to all observers (solar eclipse, houses, cars, roads, people, etc), while the latter is not. Pain is only felt by the person experiencing pain. And the level of pain can only be compared and rated by that person alone on the basis of their past experience with pain, the persons own memory being the gauge of pain. Nobody else has access or ability to measure felt/perceived pain levels.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Pain can be known and measured objectively, even by an outsider not experiencing the pain directly.

It can be measured at least by the one who experiences the sensation.

That's not an objective measurement. It's a subjective experience of pain in comparison to past experience with pain. It is an assessment, a guess, not a measurement (memory not being perfect). Certainly not an objective measurement. The brain does not possess an objective, calibrated pain meter.

Then by your standard, there is no measurement of anything. ALL measurement is a guess and is subjective.

No. Two sources of information. One being the external world, the other, bodily feedback from limbs and organs via the CNS.

That's like saying the two sources are two different places: one from Chicago, the other from Miami.

Nothing of the sort. Light waves (vision), airborne molecules (smell), etc exist outside of the body/brain/mind and is a source of information related to the external world that exists for all observers/experiencers of the world. It is the brain that analyzes both information from the external world and nerve signals from the rest of the body, forming a conscious experience of both the external world and self.

Whether the source is from inside the body or outside makes no difference. If you feel a pain, that is just as empirical as experiencing a ufo or witnessing a crime happening over there somewhere.

No, that describes information from two different sources, one being the objective external world, the other from organs, muscles, tissue, etc.

They're both equally objective to the one who experiences the pain, feeling, etc. Then he can report this experience to someone else.

Both are subjective representations of information, but the former is accessible to all observers (solar eclipse, houses, cars, roads, people, etc), while the latter is not.

But the latter is experienced by the one having the sensation, which is an objective phenomenon to him. And then he reports this to the other, so the other can also know about it 2nd-hand. Just like a witness to an event can report it to another.

Pain is only felt by the person experiencing pain.

But he can report it to another. And that other can get a reasonable idea of the intensity of it, though he isn't experiencing it directly. Still he can know of it. Like Clinton said "I feel your pain!" (sorry about that)

And the level of pain can only be compared and rated by that person alone on the basis of their past experience with pain, the person's own memory being the gauge of pain.

Maybe, but what's wrong with using memory? This pain I feel now is 10 times worse than the pain I had 3 minutes ago. I can report this to someone else, and now they know that my current pain is much worse. What's not objective about that?

Nobody else has access or ability to measure felt/perceived pain levels.

So it's difficult. That doesn't make it subjective. It may be difficult to measure things happening on a distant moon in some other galaxy.

You believe the other guy having the pain, because he reports it to you. He knows it's real and empirical and objective. But you know it only indirectly, through his report. So, you can know of it, and even report it to someone else.

You don't know it as well as the one experiencing it directly, but you can know of it. And you can respond to it and measure it based on his report.

Also, there might be some ways to measure pain, with instruments. The report is the primary source, but this can be found to correspond to the phenomenon measured by the instrument.

 

[Juma]

Even if you could measure the feeling of pain it wouldnt be an interesting value. What you want to know is the impact on the system. How will the body react? Will it go into chock? Etc

 

[DBT]

That's not an objective measurement. It's a subjective experience of pain in comparison to past experience with pain. It is an assessment, a guess, not a measurement (memory not being perfect). Certainly not an objective measurement. The brain does not possess an objective, calibrated pain meter.

Then by your standard, there is no measurement of anything. ALL measurement is a guess and is subjective.

No. Two sources of information. One being the external world, the other, bodily feedback from limbs and organs via the CNS.

That's like saying the two sources are two different places: one from Chicago, the other from Miami.

Nothing of the sort. Light waves (vision), airborne molecules (smell), etc exist outside of the body/brain/mind and is a source of information related to the external world that exists for all observers/experiencers of the world. It is the brain that analyzes both information from the external world and nerve signals from the rest of the body, forming a conscious experience of both the external world and self.

Whether the source is from inside the body or outside makes no difference. If you feel a pain, that is just as empirical as experiencing a ufo or witnessing a crime happening over there somewhere.

No, that describes information from two different sources, one being the objective external world, the other from organs, muscles, tissue, etc.

They're both equally objective to the one who experiences the pain, feeling, etc. Then he can report this experience to someone else.

You miss the point. If everyone who falls within the normal range of vision (this can be ascertained) is able distinguish different colours, the red wire from the blue, etc, but someone who is colour blind only sees grey....their sight is being tested against an objective standard. Their inability to perceive or distinguish between colours is testable, scope range, degree and so on. The external world exists for all living things and their senses are being tested against that standard. Not so their emotions or how they feel about their condition, that is entirely subjective, therefore inaccessible to everyone but the experiencer.

But the latter is experienced by the one having the sensation, which is an objective phenomenon to him. And then he reports this to the other, so the other can also know about it 2nd-hand. Just like a witness to an event can report it to another.

The experience itself is real and objective, but the content may have no relationship to reality. Someone under the influence of LCD perceives a quite different world when compared to normal cognition.

It's not so much about the experience, all experience is subjective, but the relationship of information between the objective world and one's experience of it that counts. Someone may be seeing ghosts while smoking weed, their experience is real, but the ghosts are not. The smoker is hallucinating. Terms of reference, etc.

But he can report it to another. And that other can get a reasonable idea of the intensity of it, though he isn't experiencing it directly. Still he can know of it. Like Clinton said "I feel your pain!" (sorry about that)

Exactly, he can report it to another. The other understands the reported feeling, the pain or whatever because they themselves have experienced similar things, but feelings, unlike objects and events of the world, only exist in the mind.

Maybe, but what's wrong with using memory? This pain I feel now is 10 times worse than the pain I had 3 minutes ago. I can report this to someone else, and now they know that my current pain is much worse. What's not objective about that?

There is nothing wrong with using memory, in fact you cannot do without it. Without memory function you cease to exist as a conscious entity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nobody else has access or ability to measure felt/perceived pain levels.

So it's difficult. That doesn't make it subjective. It may be difficult to measure things happening on a distant moon in some other galaxy.

You believe the other guy having the pain, because he reports it to you. He knows it's real and empirical and objective. But you know it only indirectly, through his report. So, you can know of it, and even report it to someone else.

You don't know it as well as the one experiencing it directly, but you can know of it. And you can respond to it and measure it based on his report.

Also, there might be some ways to measure pain, with instruments. The report is the primary source, but this can be found to correspond to the phenomenon measured by the instrument.

You're wrong. Go, ask a doctor. Pain is completely subjective. The system is easier to understand if you look at it functionally. Our genes have a pretty blunt instrument with which to control us (to keep us alive and procreate). It uses pleasure and pain. The function of pain is to control you. It's your genes trying to make you avoid unhelpful or dangerous patterns of behavior. The degree of pain you feel has zero to do with the amount of nerve signals. It's only to do with the brains interpretation of it. Lots of pain means perceived danger. That has to do with your life's experiences. And that is 100% subjective. Studies where we compare pain and nerv signals between subjects have gotten us nowhere.

So what happens if pain signals fail in controlling you? You stop feeling the pain. Masochism is a good example. Lots of people have figured out that the brain gets flooded with endorphins when we experience pain. So some people harm themselves when masturbating. Over time they stop reacting to low levels of pain. The endorphin rush is the same. But the experienced pain drops away until it's almost nothing. And this can be for quite extreme things. Same for martial arts. Which is something I know a bit about. A large part of the training is just to get beaten up regularly so it stops being a thing. Back when I did competitions I sucked before I'd gotten a good kick or punch on me. I needed it to wake up. But it was never painful. I mostly felt joy and a rush. All this was down to training. I had trained my brain that the ring was a physically safe place and that there was no need to react with pain to nerve signals. I'm still the same way. When I'm in a physical fight I don't feel pain. I still just feel joy and a rush when hit. It's been quite a few years now though. But its not like I can't feel other pain. If I lift stupidly at the gym I can be in severe pain for days. I've got pain right now in my wrists. I have no idea where that pain comes from.

So there's no such thing as phantom pain or just imaginary pain. All experienced pain is real pain.

I recommend this book. It's well written and a lot of fun, and while targeted for medical professionals, you don't have to be. It's on the latest research in the field:

https://www.amazon.com/Explain-Pain-David-Butler/dp/0987342665

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Feelings, sensations, pains etc. are objective facts which can be known by someone other than the one who experiences it directly.

Then by your standard, there is no measurement of anything. ALL measurement is a guess and is subjective.

No. Two sources of information. One being the external world, the other, bodily feedback from limbs and organs via the CNS.

That's like saying the two sources are two different places: one from Chicago, the other from Miami.

Nothing of the sort. Light waves (vision), airborne molecules (smell), etc exist outside of the body/brain/mind and is a source of information related to the external world that exists for all observers/experiencers of the world. It is the brain that analyzes both information from the external world and nerve signals from the rest of the body, forming a conscious experience of both the external world and self.

Whether the source is from inside the body or outside makes no difference. If you feel a pain, that is just as empirical as experiencing a ufo or witnessing a crime happening over there somewhere.

No, that describes information from two different sources, one being the objective external world, the other from organs, muscles, tissue, etc.

They're both equally objective to the one who experiences the pain, feeling, etc. Then he can report this experience to someone else.

You miss the point. If everyone who falls within the normal range of vision (this can be ascertained) is able distinguish different colours, the red wire from the blue, etc, but someone who is colour blind only sees grey....their sight is being tested against an objective standard. Their inability to perceive or distinguish between colours is testable, scope range, degree and so on. The external world exists for all living things and their senses are being tested against that standard. Not so their emotions or how they feel about their condition, that is entirely subjective, therefore inaccessible to everyone but the experiencer.

That doesn't mean the pain someone feels is not real. Or that no one other than the experiencer can know of that person's pain.

But the latter is experienced by the one having the sensation, which is an objective phenomenon to him. And then he reports this to the other, so the other can also know about it 2nd-hand. Just like a witness to an event can report it to another.

The experience itself is real and objective, but the content may have no relationship to reality.

"may"? It probably does have a relationship to reality. If you see a guy beating the hell out of his dog and the dog yelps, you know that dog is feeling pain. It's probably real.

Someone under the influence of LCD perceives a quite different world when compared to normal cognition.

But you know the difference. The world he perceives under "normal cognition" is real. And if he gets smacked on the head and howls, you know he felt pain, and it was real.

It's not so much about the experience, all experience is subjective, but the relationship of information between the objective world and one's experience of it that counts. Someone may be seeing ghosts while smoking weed, their experience is real, but the ghosts are not. The smoker is hallucinating. Terms of reference, etc.

But again, you know the difference. If he's Lee Harvey Oswald getting shot in the stomach by Jack Ruby and he puts out a groan, you know he felt pain, and that pain was real.

But he can report it to another. And that other can get a reasonable idea of the intensity of it, though he isn't experiencing it directly. Still he can know of it. Like Clinton said "I feel your pain!" (sorry about that)

Exactly, he can report it to another. The other understands the reported feeling, the pain or whatever because they themselves have experienced similar things, but feelings, unlike objects and events of the world, only exist in the mind.

No, Lee Harvey Oswald's pain from that bullet to the stomach also existed outside his mind. I.e., he did not imagine it. It was real. Only he felt it, but everyone else knew of it, just like knowing any objective fact.

Maybe, but what's wrong with using memory? This pain I feel now is 10 times worse than the pain I had 3 minutes ago. I can report this to someone else, and now they know that my current pain is much worse. What's not objective about that?

There is nothing wrong with using memory, in fact you cannot do without it. Without memory function you cease to exist as a conscious entity.

You're proving my point.

You know that others have memory, even though you cannot experience someone else's memory. And likewise you know of someone else's pain, if they do something, like scream, to let you know of it. It's a fact, just like memory, or any other objective phenomenon.

If one person experiences it and then reports it to others, then those others know of it, like they know other facts that can be reported to them, even if they don't experience them directly.

 

[DBT]

You're proving my point.

You know that others have memory, even though you cannot experience someone else's memory. And likewise you know of someone else's pain, if they do something, like scream, to let you know of it. It's a fact, just like memory, or any other objective phenomenon.

If one person experiences it and then reports it to others, then those others know of it, like they know other facts that can be reported to them, even if they don't experience them directly.

You are missing the point even when you state the point yourself!

The point being that cannot experience someone else's conscious thoughts or feeling, emotions or pain, these being subjective, we can only ask what they feel.

They tell us what they feel.

We understand what they feel because we ourselves have had these experiences.

Without our own experience with pain, etc, we would have no frames of reference.

If you had never experienced pain in your life you would have no idea about what someone is experiencing when they report feeling of pain.

 

[Treedbear]

It seems to me that if two people report that their pain on a scale from 1 to 10 was 5 then it means exactly the same thing. That's because the subjective experience of pain is relative to past experience. That said, the scale is usually relative to the context of the situation and to the amount of pain that can be reasonably expected, but also to what amount of pain is willing to be accepted (such as when a dentist asks how much pain the patient is feeling and whether to administer more anesthetic).

 

[bilby]

Still, we can agree at least that no gods are needed for an assessment of the morality of an action - just a viable measure of how much people are hurting.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It seems to me that if two people report that their pain on a scale from 1 to 10 was 5 then it means exactly the same thing. That's because the subjective experience of pain is relative to past experience. That said, the scale is usually relative to the context of the situation and to the amount of pain that can be reasonably expected, but also to what amount of pain is willing to be accepted (such as when a dentist asks how much pain the patient is feeling and whether to administer more anesthetic).

The system has a life of it's own with it's own logic. It's easier if you see pain more as a kind of remote control. Your reptile brain is trying to get you to do stuff. Using pleasure and pain. You'll only feel pain if you're trying to do something that your brain doesn't want you to do. If you're not trying to do it you won't feel the pain. It's really that simple. You can experiment on yourself.

I promise it'll work. An easy one is training yourself to tolerate hot water. Our body starts off being very cowardly with plenty of error margin. Your fingers can take near boiling hot water for fractions of a second. Picking up done eggs from near boiling water with just your fingers is actually quite safe. Just increase the temperature slowly step-by-step. Eventually you won't have any trouble.

 

[Treedbear]

It seems to me that if two people report that their pain on a scale from 1 to 10 was 5 then it means exactly the same thing. That's because the subjective experience of pain is relative to past experience. That said, the scale is usually relative to the context of the situation and to the amount of pain that can be reasonably expected, but also to what amount of pain is willing to be accepted (such as when a dentist asks how much pain the patient is feeling and whether to administer more anesthetic).

The system has a life of it's own with it's own logic. It's easier if you see pain more as a kind of remote control. Your reptile brain is trying to get you to do stuff. Using pleasure and pain. You'll only feel pain if you're trying to do something that your brain doesn't want you to do. If you're not trying to do it you won't feel the pain. It's really that simple. You can experiment on yourself.

I promise it'll work. An easy one is training yourself to tolerate hot water. Our body starts off being very cowardly with plenty of error margin. Your fingers can take near boiling hot water for fractions of a second. Picking up done eggs from near boiling water with just your fingers is actually quite safe. Just increase the temperature slowly step-by-step. Eventually you won't have any trouble.

I look at all manner of perception as beginning with sensory input modified with how the brain integrates it into its model of the environment. Feeling good and feeling bad as well as pleasure and pain really come down to anxiety levels. Anxiety/tranquility is all we ever "feel", but colored by the various concepts we have learned to associate it with. Of course there are a few hard coded ones related to survival instincts. But all we really "feel" is the level of anxiety. At its most basic it has to do with conflicts within the brain causing excess energy use and heat generation. Minimizing heat generation is one of the main restrictions on brain development and evolution. My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

I have a hard time convincing myself that boiling water isn't bad for my fingers, even momentarily. At any rate it's not something I want to teach myself to ignore. On the other hand I have taught myself to gradually tolerate, adapt to, and eventually prefer my wintertime house temp at 55F. I tell myself that I burn more calories and save money on fuel oil (a very good thing). Both true enough. If I could just teach myself to enjoy exercising.