[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: OT Re: DISAGREEMENTS and THIS LIST was goo now Sercret Chord
----- Original Message -----
My answer to the question "How do we "know" the feeling of pain" or more
aptly, how do we know when someone else is feeling pain, was simple: If
you
get knocked about the head with a bat, let's say, do you not understand,
nay, know, the feeling of pain? If so, you can logically assume that
another person, "C" in this case, would feel pain if s/he were to befall
the
same unfortunate circumstances. That's the end of the inquiry as far as
I'm
concerned. Please help me: Is there something more to this?
*****
Basically, there isn't much more to it, Harry. You have shed light on an
age
old philosophical problem, called "The Problem of Other Minds". Your
statement, how do we know when someone else is feeling pain, is really an
extension of the more general question of how do we know other minds
exist?
There are a lot of convoluted arguments for this, but the two most basic
in
my mind are:
1) Argument by analogy: That you feel pain after being hit with a baseball
bat, talk in such a such a manner (that suggests intelligence), etc, and
so
when you observe another body being hit with a baseball bat, or uttering
similar words that suggest intelligence, you can infer by analogy (not
logic), that the other person is feeling pain and also has a mind as you
do.
2) Argument by Causation and Probability: You have complex thoughts and
ideas and are able to communicate them with language; you hear this
language
spoken by things (sensory data that appear like human bodies) other than
yourself; so either something is just randomly generating the language in
such a way that is sounds intelligent, or the language is indeed being
"caused" by another mind. We can argue that the former argument, though
possible in the realm of ideas, is highly improbably, so we infer that
there
are other minds.
People get annoyed with these little arguments and debates or what seems
to
them completely obvious. But the point is that in the above two simple
argument, the conclusions are not "deduced" from the premises, meaning
they
are logically certain and necessary, but are inferred. And all inferences
of
this nature are not certain, but are believed with a degree of
probability.
So, we never truly "know" in the strict sense of the word that other minds
exist or that other beings feel pain; we can only infer this with a high
degree of probability. This is one of the beauties of philosophy, in my
opinion. It keeps us from elevating ourselves so high in the world that we
think we are prefect and can have certain knowledge of the world, when in
fact we are very limited, and our very nature that allows us to comprehend
millions of possibilities, also thwarts any attempt for us to make claim
to
certain knowledge. And this is exactly why science, being a discipline
based
on inference and induction, makes no claim to the truth or certainty, but
only degrees of probability. The only people you hear boasting that they
know truth are a certain school of philosophers (the non-empirical or
Rationalist sort) and religious fanatics. They only believe they know the
truth, yet none can withstand the acid test of doubt.
Kris
- Prev by Date: Re: distortion, overdrive,fuzz,crunch,special sauce, secret goo
- Next by Date: Re: distortion, overdrive,fuzz,crunch,special sauce, secret goo
- Previous by Thread: Re: OT Re: DISAGREEMENTS and THIS LIST was goo now Sercret Chord
- Next by Thread: RE: distortion, overdrive,fuzz,crunch,special sauce, secret goo (goo especially)
- Index(es):