What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[Speakpigeon]

<snip>
But if you know anything, then you know pain, or the impression of pain, as you experience it on the moment.
<snip>
But you can still choose not to understand.
<snip>
EB

You feel pain. Ok.
You remeber pain. Ok.
Know pain? What? I have really no idea what that means.

Seriously?! You seriously think you don't know the impression you have right now, whatever it is?!

Whoa!

This is seriously ground-breaking news to me. You might just as well pretend you're not sure you're in pain even when you are in pain.

So, right, you don't know pain. How could you know you're in pain when you are in pain then becomes a good question. Not my problem, I guess.

Still, this seems to show I was wrong to take things for granted all my life. What may seem obvious to me apparently is just plain wrong to somebody else, even possibly to most of those 7 billion human beings! Frigging hell!

At least, I still have the resource of assuming you're just going mad or something. All of you!

Maybe I should do another of those very successful polls I've been conducting lately. Just to sort things out.
EB

 

[George S]

<snip>
But if you know anything, then you know pain, or the impression of pain, as you experience it on the moment.
<snip>
But you can still choose not to understand.
<snip>
EB

You feel pain. Ok.
You remeber pain. Ok.
Know pain? What? I have really no idea what that means.

Seriously?! You seriously think you don't know the impression you have right now, whatever it is?!

Whoa!

This is seriously ground-breaking news to me. You might just as well pretend you're not sure you're in pain even when you are in pain.

So, right, you don't know pain. How could you know you're in pain when you are in pain then becomes a good question. Not my problem, I guess.

Still, this seems to show I was wrong to take things for granted all my life. What may seem obvious to me apparently is just plain wrong to somebody else, even possibly to most of those 7 billion human beings! Frigging hell!

At least, I still have the resource of assuming you're just going mad or something. All of you!

Maybe I should do another of those very successful polls I've been conducting lately. Just to sort things out.
EB

Pain is in the mind alone. I learned that pain can be forgotten.
The pain I had when my aortic aneurysm dissected was 20 on a scale of 1-10, and yet as I remember that it was I cannot feel it now.
For routine pains -- plantar fasciitis, headaches -- I instantly forget with self hypnosis. Physicians are surprised to learn that I have not taken an over-the-counter pain reliever for twenty years. They simply are not necessary.
I hypnotized one landlord who had pain leftover from an accident and fibromyalgia. The former was useful pain and the latter was to be forgotten. Her subconscious knew the difference and she no longer suffered from fibromyalgia but could still feel the feedback-pain on straining the injured parts. A general pain reliever was slowing her recovery since it numbed both types of pains.
I hypnotize myself for dental work.
More than many, I know pain.

 

[fast]

Pain is not in the mind. Awareness of pain, well now, that's something else.

If I stomp my toe, my toe hurts. If she ate too much, she doesn't hold her head; he holds her stomach.

Granted, if I hurt but am unaware that I hurt, one might not report being in pain--being unaware of the sensations. That said, we could tinker with the mind such that pain won't be reported, but the hurt and pain though not sensed by the mind post tinkering shows not that pain is in the mind.

 

[fromderinside]

Friend of mine at FSU tried to find Cortical Evoked Potentials for pain. Didn't succeed. Had to change his dissertation topic because of that failure. Now that's a pain in the brain. He still graduated before I graduated.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The student never ”knows the answer”. ”Knowledge” is not an act. Nobody ever knows.(in the philosphically well defined meaning of the word)

Do you realize how that sounds? Of all the students since there were students, never once is it true that they knew the answer to a test question. You think that accords with common usage?
<snip>
One things for sure, I don't mean what others twist it to mean.

Clearly, most people believe they know the physical world. They believe they know their friends and their names, where is Africa, who was Napoleon and Julius Caesar and what is water. So, yes, we use the term 'knowledge' to express our belief that we know things, and in particular things in our physical environment and in our social environment. But it's not because we use the term 'knowledge' in this way that it is true that we know all those things. That we believe we know is good enough to explain why we use the terms of knowledge the way we do. But we're most likely just wrong. But like a religious community, we spread our particular way of using the word 'knowledge' and we find other believers all too willing to share the way we speak. So what, you think God exists just because that's what believers mean when they use the word 'God'?

Where I disagree with some here is that we nonetheless do know something, our own subjective experience. We know redness when we experience the colour red and pain when we're in pain. But other than that, no, we know nothing. We just believe things and then we believe we know them.
EB

 

[Juma]

<snip>
But if you know anything, then you know pain, or the impression of pain, as you experience it on the moment.
<snip>
But you can still choose not to understand.
<snip>
EB

You feel pain. Ok.
You remeber pain. Ok.
Know pain? What? I have really no idea what that means.

Seriously?! You seriously think you don't know the impression you have right now, whatever it is?!

Whoa!

This is seriously ground-breaking news to me. You might just as well pretend you're not sure you're in pain even when you are in pain.

So, right, you don't know pain. How could you know you're in pain when you are in pain then becomes a good question. Not my problem, I guess.

Still, this seems to show I was wrong to take things for granted all my life. What may seem obvious to me apparently is just plain wrong to somebody else, even possibly to most of those 7 billion human beings! Frigging hell!

At least, I still have the resource of assuming you're just going mad or something. All of you!

Maybe I should do another of those very successful polls I've been conducting lately. Just to sort things out.
EB

Its more a case of that the word ”know” doesnt fit on ”pain”.
”Being in pain” is on the same level as ”know something”
”Being in pain” is similar to ”Paris is in France”

 

[Speakpigeon]

Its more a case of that the word ”know” doesnt fit on ”pain”.
”Being in pain” is on the same level as ”know something”
”Being in pain” is similar to ”Paris is in France”

You could first start to educate yourself and read something called "Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description".

It's part of a small book called "The problems of philosophy".


You're a bit late, though. It was first published in 1912...

And it's from a very well-know author, Bertrand Russell, so you don't have any excuse.

And the bit in question is only eight pages long. So, were have you been, what were you doing so important and time-consuming that would justify not knowing these eight pages from Bertrand Russell!?

The crucial point is that what he called 'knowledge by acquaintance' included sense data. So Russell thought of sounds, colours etc. as known by acquaintance through our subjective experience.

Now, I guess you've just learned something.
EB

 

[fast]

Clearly, most people believe they know the physical world.

And I contend that people are not limited to mere belief. They also know things/truths/facts about the physical world.

They believe they know their friends and their names, where is Africa, who was Napoleon and Julius Caesar and what is water.

And I contend that in addition to merely believing they know, they in fact often know the things they believe they do.

So, yes, we use the term 'knowledge' to express our belief that we know things, and in particular things in our physical environment and in our social environment.

That is convoluted/misdirecting.

Even if it's our intent to express a belief (that we know something) the subject has changed from what I claim to indeed know to the underlying declaration. For instance, If I want to express that I know who last touched the money, the subject matter regards who last touched the money. It's my intent to express more than mere belief about who done that--which is the first subject or issue at hand. There is a fundamental difference between expressing that I believe Bob may have been the one and expressing that I know Bob is the one. This idea you have is that expressing knowledge also includes the belief that I have knowledge. So what. That's a different issue. You can't make the fact I know who last touched the money go away merely because I have a belief that I know.

But it's not because we use the term 'knowledge' in this way that it is true that we know all those things.

I agree with that. One, people make mistakes. I may have a justified belief and it not be true, claim I know and be in error. Hell, there are some situations where I have a true justified belief and I still not know.

That we believe we know is good enough to explain why we use the terms of knowledge the way we do.

This bugs me. I don't even know the subject.

I believe Bob has the money (A)
I know Bob has the money (B)
I believe I believe Bob has the money (AA)
I believe I know Bob has the money (AB)
I know I believe Bob has the money (BA)
I know I know Bob has the money (BB)

It sounds like AB, but that's not the issue. You deny B. That's the issue. That BA is true doesn't address the issue. When I say B, that's true despite the fact it's a belief I have, and it's true despite I believe I know.

But we're most likely just wrong.

I'll ponder that some more.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'll ponder that some more.

Yes, please, do that.

I can't find anything in your post that would show you're trying to understand what I said, except that last bit. There would be no point in me trying to rephrase. My position is already clear enough. You don't understand? It's your problem.

Specifically, you're not very good at keeping the distinction between what we mean using statements and whether statements are true.

But you'll have to try on your own to understand. Me, I'm done.
EB