I know p

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

I know p

Post by Speakpigeon » Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:51 pm

I know pain whenever I am in pain.
How about you?
EB

Age
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I know p

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:46 pm

I am never in pain.

Through a human body's experiences, however, I sometimes feel a sensation that is sometimes known as or called 'pain'.

Impenitent
Posts: 2323
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: I know p

Post by Impenitent » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:42 am

no man can understand the pain of childbirth

-Imp

Age
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I know p

Post by Age » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:09 am

Impenitent wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:42 am
no man can understand the pain of childbirth

-Imp
If this was true, then no person can understand any thing from another person.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: I know p

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:31 pm

Good, I'm the only person to know pain.
EB

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know p

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:20 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:51 pm
I know pain whenever I am in pain.
How about you?
EB
I recognise what pain feels like when I experience it.

How about you?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: I know p

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:38 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:20 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:51 pm
I know pain whenever I am in pain.
How about you?
EB
I recognise what pain feels like when I experience it.
You are really an ignoramus. The word "recognise" by definition entails knowledge. That's in the Indo-European root gnō- which signals some form of knowledge, as for cognitive system...
recognise
1. To know to be something that has been perceived before: recognize a face.
2. To know or identify from past experience or knowledge: recognize hostility.
[Middle English recognisen, alteration of Old French reconoistre, to know again, from Latin recognōscere : re-, re- + cognōscere, to get to know
Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:20 pm
How about you?
To recognise thing A, you need to know two things: first, you need to know your reference, thing B. And then you need to know thing A. And only then you can perhaps recognise that thing A looks like thing B. If you recognise your buddy Joe, it has to be because first you know right now what the guy looks like. Then, you need to remember what he looked like the last time you saw him. To remember that, you need to have known what he looked like at the time. And then, only then, you can perhaps make the connection between what the guy looks like right now and what you remember of him.
See, saying you "recognise" pain is admitting you know not just one thing but at least two.
This shows you're a real ignoramus, though, because it's clear you had no idea saying "I recognise"" entailed that much and was an admission of knowledge.
EB
Last edited by Speakpigeon on Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: I know p

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:39 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:51 pm
I know pain whenever I am in pain.
How about you?
EB
Are you intending this to be a question about how we interpret pain as a real?

If so, I say it is an illusion. We are assigned a type of motivational hardwired set of programs evolved for the brain that seeks the environment in periods of development to 'define' how we evaluate sensation.

For instance, a function of a 'program' might be to assign a variable during a kind of sensation that links it to reaction mechanisms in the brain.

When this is first turned on, it might 'listen' for a set of inputs that collectively have no prior associative record or memory of similar associations, assign it "new", then pass a referent signal to another program in a more crucial part of the system. That program in turn might then open a kind of container (memory set) that collects data for a period of time regarding what other sensations are co-related simultaneously in that period. Then, it assigns a 'label' to it that links it to present motor functions.
It may reopen and adapt the information to what is most common to each prior event for an open-window period. (like a probationary period in some employer's company to determine if you minimally 'fit') After this time, it hardwires, the links of association permanently and acts to shortcut your motor functions (outputs) in response to those triggers of the assigned associations.

Although this is relatively 'simple', the sensations are illusive and are merely means to motivate us to act in various conditions of the environment. It is possible to have faulty 'fitness' such that some unusual events during these crucial periods of development assign a sensation that might normally be painful as pleasant or vice versa. The likelihood of survival is limited to those assignments that cause you to die or suffer too soon. Thus, only those assignments that are crucially 'fit' to the environment will tend to be able to be passed on.

These define not only pain and pleasure but to all of our sense inputs that seem to be neutral, such as how redness appears to you, etc. Pains and pleasures would be more 'crucial' programs that have to be developed early on,...like within the beginnings of brain development once the first set of neurons are 'turned on'. [lower brain functions] Then these act as the gatekeepers for immediate response triggers that also apply to later more complex development functions, like seeing and hearing, for instance, but the latter ones lacking immediate responses may require a more complex set of associations to trigger those lower brain responses.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know p

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:52 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:38 pm
You are really an ignoramus. Recognise implies knowledge. That's in the Indo-European root gnō- which signals some form of knowledge, as for
Yes, dimwit. But I a purposefully refuse to use the word "knowledge" just so that I can demonstrate to you how inflexible you are when it comes to language. And how you lack awareness of your idle attempts to control the language. Like all dimwit philosophers you get trapped playing stupid language games...

Recognise doesn't imply knowledge. It implies prior experience.

The first time you tasted a lemon the flavour was foreign to you. The 2nd time it wasn't.

Does that mean you know what a lemon tastes like; or does it mean you can recognise the flavour of a lemon?

Or am I just saying the same fucking thing using different words?
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:38 pm
cognitive system...
recognise
1. To know to be something that has been perceived before: recognize a face.
2. To know or identify from past experience or knowledge: recognize hostility.
Did you bother to look up the definition of "know"
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
No amount of observation, inquiry or information is going to tell you what a lemon tastes like.

Experience is required.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:38 pm
Recognise implies knowledge.
So recognise doesn't have to imply knowledge. It merely implies prior experience.

And just like that, by drawing a distinction and sticking to my guns - I can reject all "knowledge".

For I can always use another word.

Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:38 pm
To recognise thing A, you need to know two things: first, you need to know your reference, thing B.
What was your reference for the taste of lemon the first time you ate one?

But you get brownie points for trying to explain binary classification to a computer scientist...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:38 pm
And then you need to know thing A. And only then you can perhaps recognise that thing A looks like thing B. If you recognise your buddy Joe, it has to be because first you know right now what the guy looks like.
No I don't have to know what he looks like. I just need to be able to recognise him from a crowd.

See! I can convey the exact same message without using the word "knowledge".
Last edited by Logik on Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:04 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: I know p

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:54 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:39 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:51 pm
I know pain whenever I am in pain.
Are you intending this to be a question about how we interpret pain as a real?
If so, I say it is an illusion.
Assuming it is some form of illusion, do you think you know the illusion?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:39 pm
We are assigned a type of motivational hardwired set of programs evolved for the brain that seeks the environment in periods of development to 'define' how we evaluate sensation.
For instance, a function of a 'program' might be to assign a variable during a kind of sensation that links it to reaction mechanisms in the brain.
When this is first turned on, it might 'listen' for a set of inputs that collectively have no prior associative record or memory of similar associations, assign it "new", then pass a referent signal to another program in a more crucial part of the system. That program in turn might then open a kind of container (memory set) that collects data for a period of time regarding what other sensations are co-related simultaneously in that period. Then, it assigns a 'label' to it that links it to present motor functions.
It may reopen and adapt the information to what is most common to each prior event for an open-window period. (like a probationary period in some employer's company to determine if you minimally 'fit') After this time, it hardwires, the links of association permanently and acts to shortcut your motor functions (outputs) in response to those triggers of the assigned associations.
Although this is relatively 'simple', the sensations are illusive and are merely means to motivate us to act in various conditions of the environment. It is possible to have faulty 'fitness' such that some unusual events during these crucial periods of development assign a sensation that might normally be painful as pleasant or vice versa. The likelihood of survival is limited to those assignments that cause you to die or suffer too soon. Thus, only those assignments that are crucially 'fit' to the environment will tend to be able to be passed on.
These define not only pain and pleasure but to all of our sense inputs that seem to be neutral, such as how redness appears to you, etc. Pains and pleasures would be more 'crucial' programs that have to be developed early on,...like within the beginnings of brain development once the first set of neurons are 'turned on'. [lower brain functions] Then these act as the gatekeepers for immediate response triggers that also apply to later more complex development functions, like seeing and hearing, for instance, but the latter ones lacking immediate responses may require a more complex set of associations to trigger those lower brain responses.
I'm not sure how that's relevant.
Suppose you have the impression you're looking at an elephant. You could similarly show that the elephant doesn't exist as such by exhibiting the scientific evidence that all there is, perhaps, is a (very large) number of electrons, protons and neutrons and attendant electromagnetic fields. No actual elephant.
Sure, the elephant is an illusion.
EB
Last edited by Speakpigeon on Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know p

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:00 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:39 pm
I say it is an illusion.
If it's an illusion then surely you should be able to exercise your will power and turn a blind eye to it? e.g Ignore it.

I'll bet you $100 that you can't ignore the illusionary pain if I were to kick you in the balls.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: I know p

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:11 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:52 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:38 pm
You are really an ignoramus. Recognise implies knowledge. That's in the Indo-European root gnō- which signals some form of knowledge
Recognise doesn't imply knowledge.
Dictionaries say it does.
Dismissing empirical evidence is a sign of insanity.
Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:52 pm
It implies prior experience.
Same thing. Experiencing pain is knowing the pain as you experience it.
Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:52 pm
Did you bother to look up the definition of "know"
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
No amount of observation, inquiry or information is going to tell you what a lemon tastes like.
Knowledge by acquaintance (Bertrand Russell).
You're trully an ignoramus.
Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:52 pm
Experience is required.
Experience is knowledge, too...
Experience
1. direct personal participation or observation; actual knowledge or contact
What Russell called "knowledge by acquaintance".
Ignoramus.
EB

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: I know p

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:15 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:11 pm
Dictionaries say it does.
Dismissing empirical evidence is a sign of insanity.
Treating the dictionary as empirical evidence is an appeal to authority.

Appealing to authorities is a sign of ignorance.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:11 pm
You're trully an ignoramus.
So far all the empirical evidence suggests that you are projecting your ignorance.
Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:52 pm
Experience is knowledge, too...
It's not knowledge. It's information.

What's the difference? I can define information in mathematics. You can't define knowledge in mathematics.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1404
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: I know p

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:35 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:54 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:39 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:51 pm
I know pain whenever I am in pain.
Are you intending this to be a question about how we interpret pain as a real?
If so, I say it is an illusion.
Assuming it is some form of illusion, do you think you know the illusion?
The illusion is one's subjective reality. And thus, to....
I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Suppose you have the impression you're looking at an elephant. You could similarly show that the elephant doesn't exist as such by exhibiting the scientific evidence that all there is, perhaps, is a (very large) number of electrons, protons and neutrons and attendant electromagnetic fields. No actual elephant.
Sure, the elephant is an illusion.
EB
...the "scientific evidence"

Science is a collective agreement of a subjective set of people agreeing also to a strict method of what qualifies as officially shared interpretations of shared observations. "Objectivity" is not a relevant factor directly to one's internal perception of sensations. If one happens to have a sincere subjective experience of something uniquely unshareable simultaneously, this still doesn't disqualify the sensation of the person experiencing it. It is just not able to be 'confirmed'. Should one accuse that person of not having those sensations, then while this may be the popular conclusion among people, the numbers of those not experiencing can't literally vote on what that person claims they sensed is or is not real and expect it to represent what is 'scientifically' valid about reality. In fact it would be counter to it.

[Imagine there are only two people. If one senses something the other doesn't, does the fact that the other person's lack of ability to share in that experience sufficiently qualify them as to what is or is not 'sensed' by that person? Now multiply that to any number of people. It makes no difference.]

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: I know p

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:36 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:15 pm
You can't define knowledge in mathematics.
Who cares?!
I don't need to define knowledge in mathematical terms to know pain whenever I experience pain.
EB

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests