21-11-2004 13:02									#301
	Tired of ads?

Personally, I find the entire "training vs. programming" debate absurdly lame. Who cares? the only difference is that training, is non-direct, and works through self-programming vis a vis positive and negative stimuli, and programming is direct, "writing-to-metal". Learning is basically the "self service" version of the first one, and I don't understand how the flexibility of nervous systems makes them holy or anything like that.

	21-11-2004 15:20									#302
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Why not? It seems to take its philosophical roots directly from social liberalism (or they both take their roots from the same source).

Evidence of a connection is not evidence of animal rights being a 'byproduct' of social liberalism. In any case, animal rights is present in some religions, and it's also entirely possible to be a social liberal whilst opposing animal rights. If animal rights were a burdensome 'byproduct' of social liberalism, then social liberals who don't believe in animal rights would be 'selected' by 'nature', since they have an advantage.

	21-11-2004 16:01									#303
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Not sure if anybody else addressed these issue's .. but going back to the initial post, im not sure why the Queen is talked about, its her consitutional duty to introduce the bills chosen by the elected government , so i don't think she really has much say in the matter.

As for why its taken so long for the Labour Government to address this, well, thats because of the processes in parliament. First they had to put together a law, but because Tony Blair wanted to compromise, the Labour party kept voting it down, and whenever they did have agreement, the House of Lords would throw it out. The lords is allowed to do this several times. In the end, it just wasnt classed as important enough to push through, so a private members bill was put together, and again the Lords through it out twice.. 7 years later, finally the Parliament act is used to push it though without the lords approval.

Personally, I don't agree with this law, it will lead to Foxes being shot instead of hunted (as has previously been said) and is only serving to create divisions between the countryside and the cities. I also think the law technically is unworkable, I will be writing to my local police to ask them how much time they will waste on this issue, and wether they were given additional funding to chase the real criminals in our society ... I think not. !

	21-11-2004 16:22									#304
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Personally, I find the entire "training vs. programming" debate absurdly lame. Who cares? the only difference is that training, is non-direct, and works through self-programming vis a vis positive and negative stimuli, and programming is direct, "writing-to-metal".

No, the difference is fundamental.

Computers and robots do not learn new skills, they can only be programmed. Programs cannot improve and enhance themselves in general, and certainly cannot develop new routines to perform tasks not written in the original code.

	21-11-2004 17:18									#305
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

wait, so if there was a program that would develop itself ( which is theoretically possible) , it would suddenly aquire rights, feel pain, etc.? crap-o-plenty.

After all, remember we learn through the evolution of neural connections, not because we "choose" to learn, since any such choice is in the neural connections as well, and amounts to tautology.

	21-11-2004 19:44									#306
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Evidence of a connection is not evidence of animal rights being a 'byproduct' of social liberalism.

When they are justified on the same philisophical principle it is.

	21-11-2004 19:50									#307
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger The question is whether these small variations have any meaning in the macroscopic level.

Since these small variations can occur in the womb, when the embryo consists of only a few cells, yes, these "small variations" (assuming you could get everything else exact) would have an effect! In fact, If you had read my post properly, you would notice that I mentioned that it's a chaotic system, therefore small peturbations cause large variations.

quote: Not quite. Our brain works sufficiently differently from a computer that it is rather meaningless to apply the term "computation" as we defined the term.

1) No it's not.

2) I'm not talking about computation in the sense of specificially a desktop computer. I'm talking about computation in the sense of, say, a liter of water - which computes the motions of all its particles. Every particle is a computer that computes/determines its own actions. Every system of particles is therefore a large number of computers running in parallel. These can be arranged to act as a single processor that takes inputs and gives outputs that are meaningful to people, but that's not what I'm talking about.

	21-11-2004 19:55									#308
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger This is most definitely untrue, if "training" is "learning new skills from experience." No robot can do that. In fact, I am not sure if there are robots that can improve known skills from experience.

1) There are lots of robots that can improve known skills from experience. Hell, I have my AI textbook right next to me on my desk. Ever heard of a neural network?

2) A sufficiently powerful robot certainly could learn new skills towards a certain goal. Humans are just very powerful computers with very general goals. Anyway, the lack of a robot that does this presently (I'm not sure that's true, but whatever) has nothing to do with what I'm saying. It's obviously possible.

quote: Humans are also robots. What's your point?

I've said that humans are robots too! At least twenty times in this thread! READ THE ****ING THREAD!

quote: This is wrong, as a computer microphone does not hear. It merely converts one form of energy into another.

Same with the human ear. It converts energy in a sound wave (it actually, IIRC, uses very little of the actual energy) into electrochemical impules. You lose.

quote: A animal does not need to be self-aware to be able to interpret signals in its head. A dog actually recognises different things, such as its master, other people, food, cats (nemesis), etc.

DUH.

That's my point. It's OBVIOUS that dogs recognize those things; but I can have a robot that recognizes things. The problem is that a dog isn't aware of them, in the sense of cognito ergo sum.

	21-11-2004 19:58									#309
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger How do you show that you are sentient?

I know that I am sentient - I'm aware of it! DUH!

quote: That's not true. Or rather, the devil is in the details. No two person's "pattern" are the same - by "pattern" I am presuming you mean the arrangement of the neurons in your brain and their interconnections. Now, even though the "pattern" of any two random persons are largely the same, it's the minor differences that cause the big differences in mental abilities.

I know this, that's what I was saying! The overall pattern, the overall mechanism of thought is largely the same, therefore even though at the very small level there are individual differences, they are practically similar.

	21-11-2004 19:59									#310
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Trees don't have nerves. Isn't that simple?

I've already pointed out that basing ones morality on the particular chemical mechanism of thought is idiocy.

	21-11-2004 20:01									#311
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

[QUOTE] Originally posted by General Ludd


As planets or life are an emergent property of matter, they are also made of matter.

If consciousness is born of computation, it must also be made of computation. And so in that respect, saying "I am conscious" is in effect nothing more than acknowledging or comfirming that your thoughts are calculated responses to stimuli - it's reconizing yourself for what you are. But being aware that your thoughts are computational responses does not mean that you have any control over them. And if it did, would they still be computational responses?

quote: But if you don't think that other animals (except perhaps primates) are self-aware, than I again go back to my example of training a dog and ask how a dog is capable of leading a blindman down a street safely if it is not first aware of itself, it's surroundings, how other beings percieve it, and how it can influence it's environment.

Because it's a different type of awareness. In the sense you are using, a computer is "aware" of anything in memory. In the sense I'm using, you are "aware" in the sense of cognito ergo sum (yes, I'm using that a lot, but it's the only way I can express it, really). When you see, you aren't just "aware" (in your sense) of a matrix of nervous impulses; you actually see the picture in your mind (which is not quite the same thing as your brain).

	21-11-2004 20:04									#312
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd As planets or life are an emergent property of matter, they are also made of matter. If consciousness is born of computation, it must also be made of computation. And so in that respect, saying "I am conscious" is in effect nothing more than acknowledging or comfirming that your thoughts are calculated responses to stimuli - it's reconizing yourself for what you are.

That assumes that the person has the logical abilities to identify that consciousness arises from computation - actually, more than that, because it is an empirical claim. Simply identifying oneself as conscious does not lead to acknowledging that one is deterministic (obviously, else we wouldn't be arguing over that point).

quote: But being aware that your thoughts are computational responses does not mean that you have any control over them. And if it did, would they still be computational responses?

We do have control over them, because we do the computations.

	21-11-2004 20:27									#313
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: But if you don't think that other animals (except perhaps primates) are self-aware, than I again go back to my example of training a dog and ask how a dog is capable of leading a blindman down a street safely if it is not first aware of itself, it's surroundings, how other beings percieve it, and how it can influence it's environment. Because it's a different type of awareness. In the sense you are using, a computer is "aware" of anything in memory. In the sense I'm using, you are "aware" in the sense of cognito ergo sum (yes, I'm using that a lot, but it's the only way I can express it, really). When you see, you aren't just "aware" (in your sense) of a matrix of nervous impulses; you actually see the picture in your mind (which is not quite the same thing as your brain).

Read my example again. It shows that a dog can

1. Identify itself.
2. Identify it's surroundings.
3. Reconzie other (sentient) beings.
4. Percieve how those other beings percieve it.
5. Understand how it's actions impact the surrounding environemnt, and other beings.

How can a dog do this with out the sense of "cognito ergo sum", as you put it.

quote: That assumes that the person has the logical abilities to identify that consciousness arises from computation - actually, more than that, because it is an empirical claim. Simply identifying oneself as conscious does not lead to acknowledging that one is deterministic (obviously, else we wouldn't be arguing over that point).

It's not a matter of individuals identifying that consciousness is a result of computations, it's matter of what the implications are if that is true - that consciousness is, indeed, a result of computations.

What I am saying is that the concept of consciousness or self, if determined through calculations, can be nothing but an affirmation that all thoughts - including that of the self - are results of similiar computations. That, if your argument is to be followed, there can be no free will. A machine - wether it be a human, a fox, or a sci-fi robot, cannot control itself (or, more precisely, control the computations that make up "itself").

	21-11-2004 20:30									#314
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Read my example again. It shows that a dog can 1. Identify itself. 2. Identify it's surroundings. 3. Reconzie other (sentient) beings. 4. Percieve how those other beings percieve it. 5. Understand how it's actions impact the surrounding environemnt, and other beings. How can a dog do this with out the sense of "cognito ergo sum", as you put it.

Because a computer can do all of those things too. Cognito ergo sum = I think therefore I am. I am aware, therefore I am. As I said, when a computer gets a feed from a camera, it is "aware" of a string of 1's and 0's. When a dog sees something, it is "aware" of a set of electrochemical impulses. When you see something, you are aware of the image itself. You see it, in you mind.

quote: It's not a matter of individuals identifying that consciousness is a result of computations, it's matter of what the implications are if that is true - that consciousness is, indeed, a result of computations. What I am saying is that the concept of consciousness or self, if determined through calculations, can be nothing but an affirmation that all thoughts - including that of the self - are results of similiar computations.

Which is what I said.

quote: That, if your argument is to be followed, there can be no free will. A machine - wether it be a human, a fox, or a sci-fi robot, cannot control itself (or, more precisely, control the computations that make up "itself").

Yes, it can! It is controlled by itself. These computations which control it are done by iteslf.

	21-11-2004 20:45									#315
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Read my example again. It shows that a dog can 1. Identify itself. 2. Identify it's surroundings. 3. Reconzie other (sentient) beings. 4. Percieve how those other beings percieve it. 5. Understand how it's actions impact the surrounding environemnt, and other beings. How can a dog do this with out the sense of "cognito ergo sum", as you put it. Because a computer can do all of those things too. Cognito ergo sum = I think therefore I am. I am aware, therefore I am. As I said, when a computer gets a feed from a camera, it is "aware" of a string of 1's and 0's. When a dog sees something, it is "aware" of a set of electrochemical impulses. When you see something, you are aware of the image itself. You see it, in you mind.

A computer can only do 1 & 2.

It can't reconize a sentient being, niether can it put itself into that other being's "eyes" and understand how that being is percieving it and likewise, it can not understand or anticipate how other beings would react to it's actions. That is awareness.

quote: quote: That, if your argument is to be followed, there can be no free will. A machine - wether it be a human, a fox, or a sci-fi robot, cannot control itself (or, more precisely, control the computations that make up "itself"). Yes, it can! It is controlled by itself. These computations which control it are done by iteslf.

But itself is nothing but the very same computations. How is this control? it's just a system going through calculations and not being controled by anything except the information that is feeded into it.

Or do you suggest that there is something within us that is outside of these calculations - outside of our mechanical body - that is able to input extra information and influence the calculations that we make?

	21-11-2004 20:50									#316
	Suffering from ads?

Question: why is anyone continuing to post a pointless discussion with an obvoiusly non-sentient Kuciwalker?

After all, Can Kuciwalker provide any of us with any evidence that the posts we see are created by a human being, and not a computer? I have seen no evidence whatsoever to show that the posts by the "entity" kuciwalker are the work of a human being and not a computer- I have never met "Kuciwalker", there exist no empirical evidence whatsoever that those are the post of a human being, and you must rule out occams razor or anything that might point towards perhaps those posts being those of a human being because they would be irrelevant to the theoretical discussion of whether Kuciwalker is actualy self-aware- something for which he has shown nothing, nor made any valid arguements.

So again, why are we wasting time arguing with some computer program?

	21-11-2004 20:56									#317
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd A computer can only do 1 & 2. It can't reconize a sentient being, niether can it put itself into that other being's "eyes" and understand how that being is percieving it and likewise, it can not understand or anticipate how other beings would react to it's actions. That is awareness.

Ah, but it CAN do those. A computer could be programmed to recognize sentience (inasmuch as sentience is recognizeable), and a computer could even be programmed to examine something from another beings point of view. And anticipating how other beings would react to it - have you ever played chess against a computer? It does exactly that!

Awareness is not empathy. (As a side not, I believe they are closely related in evolution, but there is no necessary connection between the two.) There are many sentient beings without empathy - we call them psychopaths.

quote: But itself is nothing but the very same computations. How is this control? it's just a system going through calculations and not being controled by anything except the information that is feeded into it.

The system controls what calculations are done, because the system is the calculations (well, it's the particles, but particles are just calculations anyway). The reason that electrons don't have will is because will is meaningless without sentience.

quote: Or do you suggest that there is something within us that is outside of these calculations - outside of our mechanical body - that is able to input extra information and influence the calculations that we make?

No! Everything is calculations. This isn't even an empirical claim; an object's behavior must be determined, else it would not know how to behave! Somewhere, something must determine what that behavior is, and it has to use some process, even a probabilistic one, to arrive at its conclusion. This process is calculation.

	21-11-2004 21:25									#318
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Ah, but it CAN do those. A computer could be programmed to recognize sentience (inasmuch as sentience is recognizeable), and a computer could even be programmed to examine something from another beings point of view. And anticipating how other beings would react to it - have you ever played chess against a computer? It does exactly that!

A computer playing chess does not do any of that. It doesn't reconize it's opponent, it doesn't percieve how that opponent thinks or sees of it, and it doesn't anticipate what that opponent will do. It merely calculates all the possible outcomes and picks the course of action which is the most statistically likely to bring it to it's programmed objective.

If you where to make an illegal move - something that it was not programmed to "anticipate" - it would be at a complete loss.

quote: Awareness is not empathy. (As a side not, I do believe they are closely related in evolution, but there is no necessary connection between the two.) There are many sentient beings without empathy - we call them psychopaths.

I wouldn't say that is neccisarily true of psychopaths, but the real question (as it relates to what I said) is; are there any empathic beings without sentience? To be aware of another being you have to first be aware of yourself, or there can be no distinction between "self" and "other".

quote: The system controls what calculations are done, because the system is the calculations (well, it's the particles, but particles are just calculations anyway).

So it's the calculations that control themselves - ie. it's the particles (the calculations) which have free will?

but then you go on to say...

quote: The reason that electrons don't have will is because will is meaningless without sentience.

Oh.

quote: No! Everything is calculations. This isn't even an empirical claim; an object's behavior must be determined, else it would not know how to behave! Somewhere, something must determine what that behavior is, and it has to use some process, even a probabilistic one, to arrive at its conclusion. This process is calculation.

So where, exactly, does free will come into play?

You seem to be teeter-tottering between saying that there is no free will and everything is the result of calculations, and saying that the calculations are sentient themselves (which would imply that that electrons - or anything at all - is sentient).

	21-11-2004 21:55									#319
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd A computer playing chess does not do any of that. It doesn't reconize it's opponent, it doesn't percieve how that opponent thinks or sees of it, and it doesn't anticipate what that opponent will do.

It does too anticipate what the opponent will do.

quote: If you where to make an illegal move - something that it was not programmed to "anticipate" - it would be at a complete loss.

It's not possible to make an illegal move. Chess programs on the computer don't let you.

Nevertheless, it would be trivial to add code to have it say "that was an illegal move".

If a fox's prey suddenly teleports 100 miles away, it would also be at a loss what to do. So?

And if you made a chess program that played on a physical board and ran inside a robot with arms and a video camera, it could too recognize its opponent, and even determine from the facial expression the opponent's thoughts. While programs that do things like that are currently somewhat primitive, the visual interpretation part of the brain has little to do with actual sentience.

quote: I wouldn't say that is neccisarily true of psychopaths,

quote: psy·cho·path Pronunciation Key (sk-pth) n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

You lose.

quote: but the real question (as it relates to what I said) is; are there any empathic beings without sentience? To be aware of another being you have to first be aware of yourself, or there can be no distinction between "self" and "other".

No you don't. Conceiving of the universe from anothers' point of view does not require self-awareness, except in the trivial sense of the term, the knowledge in memory that one exists (which any computer can contain). It does not require the awareness that I'm talking about. Stop confusing the two. Awareness, in the context of my argument, is not just knowledge of something.

quote: So it's the calculations that control themselves - ie. it's the particles (the calculations) which have free will?

"Will" is meaningless outside the context of sentience!

but then you go on to say...

quote: So where, exactly, does free will come into play? You seem to be teeter-tottering between saying that there is no free will and everything is the result of calculations, and saying that the calculations are sentient themselves (which would imply that that electrons - or anything at all - is sentient).

I'm not teeter-tottering. Everything is the result of calculations (obviously), and sentience is an emergent property of calculations - that is, when particles (computers) are arranged in certain configurations, they give rise to sentience. Not all particles or systems of particles are sentient. Those that are, however, have a will (and a free will).

	21-11-2004 21:57									#320
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Question: why is anyone continuing to post a pointless discussion with an obvoiusly non-sentient Kuciwalker? So again, why are we wasting time arguing with some computer program?

Clearly some of us have been inflicted with one or other of the diseases or have developed the syndromes which play havoc with the body's and brain's abilities to recognise and steer clear of pain and injury- mass outbreaks of peripheral neuropathy, or Raynaud's Phenomenon for instance.

This has meant that those of us who should know better are unable to keep themselves from repeatedly banging their heads against a brick wall.

	21-11-2004 22:05									#321
	Inflate your Upload Space

Pain is a stimulus, like any other, such as pleasure, or hearing, or sight. When certain nerve endings are triggered, the brain feels pain. Pain is the label we give to those stimuli we dislike acutely and that generally tell us something is wrong with our body. Given this, it would be entirely appropriate to label a sensor that detected damage to a robot as a pain sensor, and to say that, when that sensor is triggered, the robot feels pain. Living beings happen to have evolved (and learn, in many higher organisms) certain responses to feeling pain, especially strong pain. Generally, they try to avoid it. Of course, some people (masochists) enjoy it, and others are able to ignore most pain, so it is not necessary to have those reactions to be feeling pain. A robot could also be designed or trained to have similar reactions (in fact, the sensor would be useless otherwise), and to, as part of its goal, try to minimize its pain. However, unless the robot or animal is sentient, it is not feeling the pain in the same way humans do.

	21-11-2004 22:07									#322
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Question: why is anyone continuing to post a pointless discussion with an obvoiusly non-sentient Kuciwalker? After all, Can Kuciwalker provide any of us with any evidence that the posts we see are created by a human being, and not a computer? I have seen no evidence whatsoever to show that the posts by the "entity" kuciwalker are the work of a human being and not a computer- I have never met "Kuciwalker", there exist no empirical evidence whatsoever that those are the post of a human being, and you must rule out occams razor or anything that might point towards perhaps those posts being those of a human being because they would be irrelevant to the theoretical discussion of whether Kuciwalker is actualy self-aware- something for which he has shown nothing, nor made any valid arguements. So again, why are we wasting time arguing with some computer program?

Because you misunderstand Occam's Razor - it is far more likely that I am a human than that someone has designed a computer and a program so incredibly intelligent as I am

	21-11-2004 22:09									#323
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by The Viceroy Personally, I don't agree with this law, it will lead to Foxes being shot instead of hunted (as has previously been said) and is only serving to create divisions between the countryside and the cities.

No. It'll create divisions between the landowning horsey set and the rest of the country. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the rural inhabitants of Britain are some sort of massed pro-hunting lobby group, despite what the hunters would have you believe.

quote: I also think the law technically is unworkable, I will be writing to my local police to ask them how much time they will waste on this issue, and wether they were given additional funding to chase the real criminals in our society ... I think not. !

Why is England doomed to failure in this issue? Scotland wasn't. The fact is that most hunts look set to switch to lure-hunting in order to keep their infrastructure and hope the law gets changed back in the future.

	21-11-2004 22:22									#324
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Originally posted by General Ludd A computer playing chess does not do any of that. It doesn't reconize it's opponent, it doesn't percieve how that opponent thinks or sees of it, and it doesn't anticipate what that opponent will do. It does too anticipate what the opponent will do. quote: If you where to make an illegal move - something that it was not programmed to "anticipate" - it would be at a complete loss. It's not possible to make an illegal move. Chess programs on the computer don't let you.

Precisely. It doesn't anticipate anything because it acts on a very rigid set of pre-determined rules that it has been programmed around. It doesn't react to it's surroundings, it merely applies it's pre-determined rules to everything.

A fox, or a dog, can react to unexpected events. A seeing eye-dog can see a car speeding down a street with no intention of stoping, and stop his master from proceeding, despite having never run into this situation before and, based on previous expereinces, would of expected the car to be going slower, or to stop at a particular place.

quote: And if you made a chess program that played on a physical board and ran inside a robot with arms and a video camera, it could too recognize its opponent, and even determine from the facial expression the opponent's thoughts.

It could reconzie it's opnent as a physical object, and perhaps assign a pre-determined meaning that had been programmed into it to particular facial expressions (with only mediocre success, I might add) but it wouldn't be aware of it's oponent as a being.

quote: You lose.

I "lose" because I would contest something?

What am I "losing", exactly?

quote: quote: but the real question (as it relates to what I said) is; are there any empathic beings without sentience? To be aware of another being you have to first be aware of yourself, or there can be no distinction between "self" and "other". No you don't. Conceiving of the universe from anothers' point of view does not require self-awareness

How can you put yourself into someone elses eyes without being able to put yourself into your own eyes? (and bridging the gap between seeing and "seeing", as you've so liked to talk about)

How can you possibly percieve the thoughts of another being without being able to percieve your own thoughts?

quote: quote: So it's the calculations that control themselves - ie. it's the particles (the calculations) which have free will? "Will" is meaningless outside the context of sentience! but then you go on to say... quote: So where, exactly, does free will come into play? You seem to be teeter-tottering between saying that there is no free will and everything is the result of calculations, and saying that the calculations are sentient themselves (which would imply that that electrons - or anything at all - is sentient). I'm not teeter-tottering. Everything is the result of calculations (obviously), and sentience is an emergent property of calculations - that is, when particles (computers) are arranged in certain configurations, they give rise to sentience. Not all particles or systems of particles are sentient. Those that are, however, have a will (and a free will).

Again, if everything including sentience is the result of calculations how does a sentient being - ie a being that is aware that it is a machine - any different in function than a non-senitent being? Or, even more importantly, how does this acknowledgment impart free will - how do the calculations stop being calculations and become choices?

When everything, obviously (as you say) has to be a calculation, there can be no free will. There can be no choice. Only calculations.

	21-11-2004 22:27									#325
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Pain is a stimulus, like any other, such as pleasure, or hearing, or sight.

I sincerely hope you're not considering a career in medicine. Or are actively employed in any capacity where you come into contact with people experiencing one the many varieties of pain.

	21-11-2004 22:32									#326
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Since you can't actually argue that I'm wrong, you resort to ad hominems.

	21-11-2004 22:35									#327
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Since you can't actually argue that I'm wrong, you resort to ad hominems.

What's the point of arguing with you?

You have the adamantine certainty that comes with youth and inexperience.

Unlike other posters, I avoid hitting the brick wall, and simply scribble a graffito on it instead.

	21-11-2004 22:45									#328
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Pain is a stimulus, like any other, such as pleasure, or hearing, or sight. When certain nerve endings are triggered, the brain feels pain. Pain is the label we give to those stimuli we dislike acutely and that generally tell us something is wrong with our body.

So there's your definition of something that even experts can't agree on.


Here's one that I prefer:

" DEFINITION


IASP: "Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage". Even the authors were aware of this definition’s inadequacy, and hastened to add: "Pain is always subjective… This definition avoids tying pain to the stimulus".

Despite the disclaimer, this definition DOES tie the sensation to the stimulus, perpetuating the centuries old fallacy. It does not, and cannot, explain many of the perplexing aspects of pain experience, and it does not consider the crucial influence of the brain on the sensation and the perception of pain.

The brain can generate pain, create a perceptual experience, independent of the peripheral input, i.e., regardless of the presence or the extent of tissue damage or pathology.
The brain is continually modified by experience and sensory input.

THE PUZZLE OF PAIN


Without the contributions of modern neuroscience, it is impossible to unravel the multitude of the pain puzzles:

Well known instances of NO PAIN with major injuries
Excruciating PAIN in missing structures (phantom pains), or denervated structures (below spinal cord section in paraplegics)
PAIN persisting, after complete healing of injury
PAIN provoked by touch, or no stimulus at all
PAIN that is delayed, or non-anatomically spread. "

http://www.medicalmasterclass.com/pain.%20Fulgosi.htm

	21-11-2004 22:46									#329
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom What's the point of arguing with you? You have the adamantine certainty that comes with youth and inexperience. Unlike other posters, I avoid hitting the brick wall, and simply scribble a graffito on it instead.

Right. Despite the fact that, almost entirely of my own inspiration, I've managed to come up with and articulate a philosophy similar or identical to that of a famous philosopher? I've never actually read Descartes, btw. Of course I'm absolutely certain. I see know reason to doubt something when I've been able to handle every objection to it so far.

	21-11-2004 22:48									#330
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom So there's your definition of something that even experts can't agree on.

I'm obviously talking about the raw stimulus pain, not the intellectualized or emotional feeling. Just like when I say pleasure, I don't mean happiness, but, say, the sensation received during an orgasm.