Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Mindful people' feel less pain

medicalxpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 159 posts

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#81

Post by adrianmonk »

projektir wrote: post #59
wilburTheDog wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the suffering is the result of your desire for things to be different than what they are. It's natural to feel like you want a headache to go away, but it seems to me that the more I accept that this is just the way it is right now, the more I embrace the pain and accept it as a part of me, the less power it has over me. And conversely the more I try to push it away like it's some kind of monster that's tortu…

Suffering is not a desire that humans invent. It's hard-coded into every evolved creature so that the creature then goes on to do things to avoid said suffering. The source of these things that the creature is wanting is distinctly non-human. There was no council of people who have decided that moving animals need to consume energy in the form of food, and that they would feel pain if they do not consume enough of th…

> It's hard-coded into every evolved creature so that the creature then goes on to do things to avoid said suffering.

I like the theory that many emotions, especially negative ones, exist to spur us to some type of action.

Anger means we need a way to resolve a conflict. Fear means we need to take steps to protect ourselves. Regret means we need some introspection to discover how we should do things differently in the future. Revulsion means we need to avoid something. (This applies in less abstract, more visceral ways too. Hunger means we need to eat. Physical pain means we are reaching our physical limits.)

Anyway, a lot of suffering comes about because we don't take any action. When the situation continues to exist, the negative emotion continues to exist.

This isn't to say we should just all act rashly to get rid of our negative feelings. Obviously the right action is important. But sometimes just getting started is enough to help feel better. And if you've already done what you could or should have, sometimes it helps to realize that or remind yourself of it.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#82

Post by kalid »

mcculley wrote: post #71
kalid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the best analogy I’ve heard. Imagine you wake up and your back is sore. Getting out of bed is a struggle, everything aches and you must move slowly. Without other knowledge, you may get worried, anxious, feel distressed. If you remember you had a workout yesterday, you may actually enjoy the feeling. It reminds you of the effort you put in, the future progress you’ll make as muscles are repaired. The physical…

I like that example, but it breaks down. I have experienced plenty of pain in the muscles of my back in the form of both delayed onset muscle soreness that follows a good workout and the spasms of pain associated with a torn muscle. The former is pleasant. The latter is not.

Is it necessary for the realization you've torn a muscle to be unpleasant? (It's that realization you're reacting to, not the pain.)

Ultimately, we're making a prediction: my life is guaranteed to be worse off because my muscle was recently torn. Is this true?

https://sivers.org/horses

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#83

Post by 3pt14159 »

nabla9 wrote: post #7

I think Marvin Minsky had it right in his book The Emotion Machine (2006): From Chapter III. From Pain to Suffering >Why does the sensation called pain sometimes lead to what we call suffering? How could such a simple event distort all your other thoughts so much? This chapter proposes a theory of this: if a pain is intense and persistent enough, it will stir up a certain set of resources, and then these, in turn, ar…

There is a chapter in the book The Contractor by Raymond Davis, a former Special Forces soldier (allegedly) turned CIA contractor (formerly State Department) that talks about how to leave a situation in your mind when Raymond was in near-torturous conditions in a Pakistani prison. I wouldn't do it justice trying to recall it, but it's similar. You focus on the situation, understand it, then you kinda "walk away" in your mind to a place you want to go.

I thought the book was much better than the reviews online made it out to be; though it is Fair Game's inferior.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#84

Post by lalos »

projektir wrote: post #60
lalos wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suffering is a conscious decision, pain is triggered by an outside stimuli. Just like you can feel mad without punching a wall. Punching a wall would be an extreme example of somebody with zero self-control that reacts rather than act. It's normal to have pain or feel mad, it's not 'mindful' to react with the first impulse you get.

> Suffering is a conscious decision Do you think your cat won't suffer is you stop feeding it? Do you think it's making a conscious decision to suffer if it's hungry?

Interesting argument, with a broken premise. There's still debate on what level of consciousness animals have [0]. Is a cat conscious enough to predict that tomorrow it will have less food and save some for tomorrow to avoid feeling that hunger? Does a human have that degree of consciousness to do exactly that? Can a human differentiate itself from an animal by deciding to act instead of reacting like I proposed? Isn't that the one of the key differences between humans and animals?

You know that animals are known to eat their own young [1]? Do you think its a conscious decision? Or they are just on auto-mode like a person that is less mindful is?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness [1] https://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#85

Post by mcculley »

kalid wrote: post #82
mcculley wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that example, but it breaks down. I have experienced plenty of pain in the muscles of my back in the form of both delayed onset muscle soreness that follows a good workout and the spasms of pain associated with a torn muscle. The former is pleasant. The latter is not.

Is it necessary for the realization you've torn a muscle to be unpleasant? (It's that realization you're reacting to, not the pain.) Ultimately, we're making a prediction: my life is guaranteed to be worse off because my muscle was recently torn. Is this true? https://sivers.org/horses

I’m saying they are distinctly different kinds of pain.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#86

Post by projektir »

JeffreyKaine wrote: post #79
projektir wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this make any sense in the concept of animals who are suffering because they're hurt, hungry, etc. What are they indulging in?

They might not have the ability to ignore things quite as well as a human can, but the same concept applies. Many dogs will ignore their own pain to help another in need. Not indulging in pain takes a discipline of mind that most animals are incapable of in most situations.

The concept of indulgence implies that indulging agencies are at fault for their suffering, and indulging is a free decision. Which is why that term was used, and why I object to its use. How does it make sense to use this term for an animal?

Me deciding to drink alcohol would be indulging. I know the consequences but I do it anyway. In this sense, the side effects of drinking alcohol would then be caused by me.

But if I wake up one day with a huge cluster headache, why am I considered indulging in it? It makes no sense. I didn't ask for the headache, it showed up on its own. Rather, I may try to resist the headache, but I'm certainly not "yielding to a pleasurable experience", more like I am being attacked and I may attempt a skill check, or I am drowning in an ocean and trying to swim; for neither of these is the term "indulge" appropriate.

And that's the core difference. The original poster used terms like "indulge" and "desire for alternative" to imply that suffering is generated, or manufactured, by humans, that it's a fake thing that doesn't have to exist. My example of animals clearly shows that this is not the case, as most animals do not have enough mental faculties to generate such things in the first place, yet we do not kid ourselves that animals do not suffer.

Suffering is primary. Suffering comes first. "We let suffering happen to us" makes about as much sense as saying a victim is letting themselves get beaten by someone bigger. It's technically true, but not in any kind of useful sense, and the history of those kinds of statements is horrible.

> Many dogs will ignore their own pain to help another in need.

Examples like this are not useful here, because they are not situations of high control. The dog is not ignoring the pain, the dog is, rather, feeling something else that took priority. A human can similarly ignore lots of pain if they are high on adrenaline, but it is not because the human is controlling the situation and actively not "indulging" in pain, but that their body is not interested in supplying pain right the moment. But when the body goes back to being interested in supplying pain, it will come.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#87

Post by projektir »

lalos wrote: post #84
projektir wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suffering is a conscious decision Do you think your cat won't suffer is you stop feeding it? Do you think it's making a conscious decision to suffer if it's hungry?

Interesting argument, with a broken premise. There's still debate on what level of consciousness animals have [0]. Is a cat conscious enough to predict that tomorrow it will have less food and save some for tomorrow to avoid feeling that hunger? Does a human have that degree of consciousness to do exactly that? Can a human differentiate itself from an animal by deciding to act instead of reacting like I proposed? Isn…

My premise is that an animal in my care, if left hungry, will suffer, just like I would suffer. The cat's degree of consciousness, or whether or not it belongs to a species that eats its young, is not relevant to that premise. If you think that is a broken premise, I don't know what to tell you, but you might perhaps really enjoy reading Hume.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#88

Post by lalos »

projektir wrote: post #87
lalos wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting argument, with a broken premise. There's still debate on what level of consciousness animals have [0]. Is a cat conscious enough to predict that tomorrow it will have less food and save some for tomorrow to avoid feeling that hunger? Does a human have that degree of consciousness to do exactly that? Can a human differentiate itself from an animal by deciding to act instead of reacting like I proposed? Isn…

My premise is that an animal in my care, if left hungry, will suffer, just like I would suffer. The cat's degree of consciousness, or whether or not it belongs to a species that eats its young, is not relevant to that premise. If you think that is a broken premise, I don't know what to tell you, but you might perhaps really enjoy reading Hume.

I was talking about suffering, pain and choice IN humans, you brought animals into the equation. It's a comment on HN so sorry for not specifying that the article and my comment were regarding humans only. Bringing animals in was the broken premise. If it is your responsibility to feed the cat, then yes the cat will suffer. I don't even understand your point, where does the cat get a choice to do anything at all? But that is also nonsensical since cats can't do anything about it but react which was my point to begin with.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#89

Post by projektir »

adrianmonk wrote: post #81
projektir wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suffering is not a desire that humans invent. It's hard-coded into every evolved creature so that the creature then goes on to do things to avoid said suffering. The source of these things that the creature is wanting is distinctly non-human. There was no council of people who have decided that moving animals need to consume energy in the form of food, and that they would feel pain if they do not consume enough of th…

> It's hard-coded into every evolved creature so that the creature then goes on to do things to avoid said suffering. I like the theory that many emotions, especially negative ones, exist to spur us to some type of action. Anger means we need a way to resolve a conflict. Fear means we need to take steps to protect ourselves. Regret means we need some introspection to discover how we should do things differently in th…

My framework on this matter is much more... negative. I perceive these emotions more as a means of control, a form of slavery, and only a helpful guidance towards the original end. Kind of like you could give a slave some ways of foraging for food and some tools to fend off wild animals, but ultimately only so that the slave would build the pyramid better or faster, and not for the benefit of the slave.

This means that the suffering is not always aligned. This is very not obvious since our association of "feels bad == bad" and "feels good == good" is very strong since it's so obviously hardcoded. But it's not hardcoded for your benefit, it's there for building the pyramid, remember that.

A lot of it is quite obvious in the issue of short term vs long term gratification, but there are more complex interactions. People can drown in guilt when something bad was done to them, and a person may be very happy from a sexual encounter, unable to see the causal link between it and the alimony payments they'll soon be making. Reason is necessary, emotions are a blunt instrument. Intuition is better than raw emotions, but requires calibration. Emotion and intuition can be overwritten, to some extent, which is what most of this thread is about.

But quite often, the incentives do align, as we're one of the more advanced and successful species out there, which means we're less likely to be afflicted with the kinds of sufferings and pleasures that lead to a loss of power (i.e., musth in elephants).

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#90

Post by FPGAhacker »

ollerac wrote: post #56
yawgmoth wrote: post #41

If anyone is interested in developing mindfulness, I like Full Catastrophe Living by Jon Kabat-Zinn.

I've been listening to his Guided Mindfulness Meditations a few times a week. The body scan has been a phenomenal way of for me to relax into the difficult emotions and feelings I sometimes experience. Highly recommended.

I can’t stay awake through it. Which is okay. I often don’t sleep well so I’m chronically deprived.
Post reply on HN