Does pain exist?

Philosophy of Mind
143

But this is not even possible in principle. Look at the state of quantum physics: it concerns the analysis of the most simple elements of matter, namely, sub-atomic particles. And it quite definitively shows that it is impossible to simultaneously determine with certainty all of their attributes (in this case, position and momentum.) Now extrapolate that up to organisms with trillions of cells and quadrillions of atomic constituents, that are in a state of constant change. The idea that this is something that could be completely specified from an external point of view is a fantasy.

The constituents of experience are themselves experiential rather than objective in the natural-scientific sense. They are disclosed in lived experience, not encountered as externally observable objects.

144

Analyzing cells and neurons is not like analyzing atoms and sub-atomic particles. It has been already done. Today it is already possible to see on a computer monitor which parts of our brain get activated the moment we feel specific emotions. As far as I understand, mental activities of our brain, such as specific thoughts and emotions, are determined at neurons levels, as neurons connections, not at molecular, atomic or subatomic level. As a consequence, quantum physics is not relevant.

145

Of course. Trivially. No one disputes this. For that reason, I don’t bother to emphasize the obvious.

Instead I just chime in against philosophers who “in the name of science” question the “reality” of pain. This deep question makes more sense to me as a parody of philosophy.

This is Einstein in a Machian mode in Physics and Reality. I don’t mean to appeal to authority but just point at relative philosophical sophistication of some physicists on this issue.

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of every day thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking. On the stage of our subconscious mind appear in colorful succession sense experiences, memory pictures of them, representations and feelings.

In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the “understanding” of their connection. But even the concept of the " real external world " of everyday thinking rests exclusively on sense impressions. Now we must first remark that the differentiation between sense impressions and representations is not possible; or, at least it is not possible with absolute certainty. With the discussion of this problem, which affects also the notion of reality, we will not concern ourselves but we shall take the existence of sense experiences as given, that is to say as psychic experiences of special kind. I believe that the first step in the setting of a " real external world " is the formation of the concept of bodily objects and of bodily objects of various kinds.

Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occurring complexes of sense impression (partly in conjunction with sense impressions which are interpreted as signs for sense experiences of others), and we attribute to them a meaning–the meaning of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the other hand, the concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we associate with it.

Einstein is even a little bit too subjectivistic here, but it’s better than anxious flight from the issue of individual perceivers and their “private” perceptions. I would, in his shows, emphasize the intrinsic sociality of language, the forum, but perhaps he can take all of that for granted, in his case, as too obvious to need mentioning.

Einstein seems to use “representations” for what I’d call perceptions. Then (non-representational) “sense impressions” would be what I’d call “hallucinations.” It’s not always easy to classify a particular experience. This is where we need others in the determination of the “real” as what is reliably shared, etc.

146

Your thought experiment presupposes that a human being is, in principle, exhaustively describable as a physical configuration. But that is precisely the point under dispute. It is not something established by neuroscience, and contemporary physics is far less supportive of that picture than is often assumed.

The neural connections in the human brain number in the hundreds of trillions, making it one of the most complex known physical systems. So how many orders of magnitude more difficult would it be to specify the complete physical state of a living organism, when even something as elementary as an atom cannot be assigned simultaneously determinate values for all of its physical variables?

The fact that particular brain regions or neural networks become active during specific experiences establishes a correlation, not an identity. Functional neuroimaging shows that neural activity accompanies conscious experience; it does not show that the experience itself has been captured or exhaustively described. A map of neural activation is not the same thing as the felt quality of pain, sorrow, or self-awareness.Have a read of this article Do You Believe in God or is that a Software Glitch?

147

It is not confinement. It is rather analysing the word “exist” in logical way, and suggesting its proper uses.

Solipsism is not a sweary word to label everything you misunderstand. What do you mean by “absolutely objective truth”? How could anything be absolutely objective, when no one knows what you are talking about?

148

I was not trying to use the term as a self-evident dismissal of your comments.

Your distinction between “internal” and “external” was presented as a limit for what could be said to exist. You put an emphasis on access to an experience. I don’t understand how that makes pain less of a fact.

149

It is not a limit, but fact. There is clear boundary between internal body and externality of body. The pain in your body cannot exist external to your body. It can only exist within your body.

Your own pain in your body can be felt directly by yourself, I infer. But other folks pain cannot be. But we can have access to their pain, if we have common ground for sharing the pain. If you had the same pain before in your life, you will have more access to the other person’s pain via the sufferer’s pain expressions.

But still it wouldn’t be the real pain of others we can feel, hence the word access was used, because the word “access” allows to describe how much or less you are able to feel the other’s pain in degrees or level.

150

I accepted those limits before. I don’t understand how that concerns what can be said to exist. Your examples of shared experience are testimony to the reality of it.

151

The expression “pain exists.” doesn’t quite make sense, because pain is your personal sensation in your body and mind. A pain you started having only appears to you strictly in private in your perception, but no one else in the world.

For other folks pains, we can only imagine via indirect access to their pain via the sufferer’s expression. If you had the common ground for the pain, then you access the other’s pain further. But still it is not the real pain, but it would be some type of imagination or recollection of past experience of the pain. The point here is, we cannot deny others’ pain when they are obviously showing the signs of suffering. However, we cannot say that their pain exist. They appear to have pain, or suffer pain.

Therefore my point was, “pain exists” sounds wrong semantically. Pain doesn’t quite qualify for being existence in the world, because it lacks the existence itself. Pain is property of the parts of body or mind. It is not body or mind itself.

152

Now we have mapped the human DNA, which means each single molecule that makes it. What are we missing?

153

Does accepting that condition involve our experience of pain as a pervasive presence in our experience?

1 Like
154

The map is not the territory, the description not the thing described.

155

What is the difference between our experience of pain and a pervasive presence in our experience?

When you are having experience of pain, are you not simply having pain? What is a pervasive presence in our experience? Is it different from your experience of pain?

Do you always have a pervasive presence in your experience? What would be the example for that? And how is it different from simply having experience of something?

156

This would make sense it maps of DNA were used to create maps. Maps of DNA have been used to create real DNA from scratch. On July 2026 scientists have been able to create from scratch the so called "spudcells”, made with syntethic DNA. Do you think they won’t be able to create humans because they miss something non-physical?

157

I would think very carefully about the implications of what you’re saying.

158

brother, human is not limitedly akin to your scientific knowledge, human is somehow connected with universe to function as a consciousness. you might create every organ, but cannot place a living intention which directs the consciousness, and the A.I also cannot become alive or act like humans because of this, though creation of animal is an illusion.

159

This seems to me like a religious or spiritual belief, rather than philosophy. I want to discuss philosophical views here.

160

Seems to me you’re much more interested in engineering than philosophy.

161

Nowhere you might see any word used other than normally used philosophy terms, consciousness is connected to the universe ,with the living intention, in A.I and any other ml structure or llm all things work under given order and specific limited command which creates pattern and one sees the A.I like this. Giving an infinite intention to learn anything that sees ,that behaves without any function ,order or law, to a created thing is nonsense because the created word itself says it’s made by an order and specific laws and specific frequency ,which doesn’t seems to be in the case of an animal ,as animals are not govern by the laws one might know .and if we don’t know the law that govern one animal I hereby said only universe knows and connects the laws and the being to function.

162

Consciousness. If we’re only concerned with DNA and molecules then there’s no distinction between a living person and a corpse.

At the very least, if reductionism is correct, we also need to describe the electrochemical behaviour of the neurons in the brain, although whether or not this is sufficient to describe the experience of pain is currently unresolved.