= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
likeananon comments on Pain - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (195)
Pain to me means something that forces me into a state of being that is the exact opposite of those I desire to experience. Good = what I want, and pain is what I don't want, and what robs me from Good.
Is it just a question of the definition of "pain" and "bad"?
Pain is usually taken to be the opposite of pleasure, and bad is usually taken the opposite of good, and pleasure and good aren't always the same thing (e.g. wireheading is pleasurable but not good, according to most), so pain wouldn't be the same as bad either.
Interesting, so I might be in the minority for whom pain is the opposite of not only pleasure, but good, too. (since I can't think of any case when pain wouldn't take away from any kind of 'goodness') EDIT what are some examples for painful, but not bad?
Eating spicy food?
"The standard definition for pain, as developed by the International Association for the Study of Pain is as follows: "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience normally associated with tissue damage or described in terms of such damage.""
I think the key word in the definition is unpleasant. All the examples in the articles you linked,and as far as i read, in the comments, assume the activity is enjoyed despite being unpleasant. However I don't see what points that such activities aren't enjoyed precisely because they are, on the whole, pleasant, despite being partly unpleasant.
You might endure a (short-term) unpleasant feeling because it's a side effect of something you think will also have (longer-term) desirable outcomes/makes you more like the person you want to be (for example, hunger when you're on a weight-loss diet). This is the reverse of wireheading (by which term I'm including present-day non-fictional implementations of the idea, such as heroin), which gives pleasant feelings but doesn't make you more like the person you want to be. (The fact that pleasurable things can have longer-term bad outcomes and painful things can have longer-term good outcomes is the very root of akrasia, isn't it?)
And then there are masochists. (ETA: according to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/masochist)
Masochists are defined as people who derive pleasure from pain... is it really pain if it is pleasurable?
Yes, and one need not go as far as fringe sexuality, about which I think most people have no real knowledge, for an example: painfully hot curries. Not everyone likes these, but some do.
Of course, the question is superficially complicated by the fact that the word "pain" is used both in the sense of physical pain, as caused by hot curries, hitting yourself with a hammer, and so on, and a more generalised sense of "any feeling you do not want". When this is noticed, the superficial paradox of pleasurable pain dissolves like the paradox of the tree falling unheard in the forest.
Especially as one can be confused about whether "physical pain" experienced is "good or bad", and feel pleasure / displeasure (depending on cognitive context) from same stimulus (e.g. stretching).
Yes, the standard definition of pain (accoording to a quick google search) is "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience normally associated with tissue damage or described in terms of such damage." We should really pick a definition before answering the question in the post...
Speaking as a masochist, I do not think a definition of pain which excluded that experienced by masochists for fun would cut nature at the joins.
I am confused whether masochists experience pain as pleasure, or experience pleasure as the result of pain, In the former case certain pain wouldn't be bad for masochists, but not necessarily in the latter.
Certainly at least in my case the second seems much closer to the mark. I don't understand your second sentence.
I meant that saying "and then there are masochists" in response to "what is bad about pain?" implies the existence of masochists proves at least sometimes pain can be non-bad, but if in fact masochists do not enjoy the pain itself, but the pleasure they experience simultaneously while experiencing pain, then their existence is not in fact an argument in favor of pain not being intristically bad.
Interesting idea. Would horror movies and roller coasters be better if you could experience their pleasures without having to experience fear? I think it's very closely analogous.
My intuitive answer is they would