I know p
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
I know p
I know pain whenever I am in pain.
How about you?
EB
How about you?
EB
Re: I know p
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'.
Through a human body's experiences, however, I sometimes feel a sensation that is sometimes known as or called 'pain'.
-
- Posts: 4365
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: I know p
no man can understand the pain of childbirth
-Imp
-Imp
Re: I know p
If this was true, then no person can understand any thing from another person.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: I know p
Good, I'm the only person to know pain.
EB
EB
Re: I know p
I recognise what pain feels like when I experience it.
How about you?
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: I know p
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
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.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: I know p
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.
Re: I know p
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...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
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?
Did you bother to look up the definition of "know"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.
No amount of observation, inquiry or information is going to tell you what a lemon tastes like.be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
Experience is required.
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.
What was your reference for the taste of lemon the first time you ate one?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.
But you get brownie points for trying to explain binary classification to a computer scientist...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic
No I don't have to know what he looks like. I just need to be able to recognise him from a crowd.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.
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.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: I know p
Assuming it is some form of illusion, do you think you know the illusion?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:39 pmAre you intending this to be a question about how we interpret pain as a real?
If so, I say it is an illusion.
I'm not sure how that's relevant.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:39 pmWe 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.
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.
Re: I know p
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.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: I know p
Dictionaries say it does.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:52 pmRecognise doesn't imply knowledge.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
Dismissing empirical evidence is a sign of insanity.
Same thing. Experiencing pain is knowing the pain as you experience it.
Knowledge by acquaintance (Bertrand Russell).
You're trully an ignoramus.
Experience is knowledge, too...
What Russell called "knowledge by acquaintance".Experience
1. direct personal participation or observation; actual knowledge or contact
Ignoramus.
EB
Re: I know p
Treating the dictionary as empirical evidence is an appeal to authority.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:11 pm Dictionaries say it does.
Dismissing empirical evidence is a sign of insanity.
Appealing to authorities is a sign of ignorance.
So far all the empirical evidence suggests that you are projecting your ignorance.
It's not knowledge. It's information.
What's the difference? I can define information in mathematics. You can't define knowledge in mathematics.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: I know p
The illusion is one's subjective reality. And thus, to....Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:54 pmAssuming it is some form of illusion, do you think you know the illusion?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:39 pmAre you intending this to be a question about how we interpret pain as a real?
If so, I say it is an illusion.
...the "scientific evidence"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
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.]
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU