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

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#151

Post by burke »

projektir wrote: post #64
cammil wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suffering is a form of indulgence. The pain can exist and you can be fully aware of it, but if you don't indulge in it there will be no suffering. It just is. One of the components of this is desire for an alternative. This combined with reobservation of the pain leads to a cycle (indulgence) of the mind - the essence of suffering.

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?

Suffering is built in but requires attention. By completely focusing attention on other things, or even on the raw pain itself, the suffering doesn’t have a chance to tell you its own story about the pain.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#152

Post by canhascodez »

burke wrote: post #150
canhascodez wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please find a serious argument.

The issue here is that no one in this thread is being clear about what they mean when they say “real”.

The distinction between "abstract" and "measurable" is not ambiguous. "Real" in this context (and most others) means "empirically observable", as in, you and I are able to make an observation or measurement and arrive at similar values. Abstract concepts are by definition not empirically observable.

Semantic arguments are a complete and utter waste of time.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#153

Post by canhascodez »

antidesitter wrote: post #149
canhascodez wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are abstract concepts, which are considered to not be real by definition. I think you should find another fight to pick with someone else.

> which are considered to not be real by definition So you claim that love, justice, truth, and honor are not real “by definition”? And, moreover, that everyone agrees with you on this? > I think you should find another fight to pick with someone else. Who’s “picking a fight” here? You’re being weirdly defensive.

You're making a purely semantic argument, concerning some very common words, which I actually consider to be somewhat rude. It doesn't seem to be the case that you did not understand the intended meaning, but rather that you are deliberately choosing misconstrusion. If you don't think that there is a well-understood sense by which "abstract" means "not real", then that sounds like an argument that a dictionary or encyclopedia would be better-qualified to answer than myself.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#154

Post by burke »

canhascodez wrote: post #152
burke wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is that no one in this thread is being clear about what they mean when they say “real”.

The distinction between "abstract" and "measurable" is not ambiguous. "Real" in this context (and most others) means "empirically observable", as in, you and I are able to make an observation or measurement and arrive at similar values. Abstract concepts are by definition not empirically observable. Semantic arguments are a complete and utter waste of time.

There is no one true definition of “real” until you bring in your accessory definition of “empirically obserble”. Semantic arguments are typically a waste of time, and by not being clear about your definition and berating everyone for not being in your head already, you are creating one.

Also, there are plenty of “abstract concepts” which are not empirically observable but which most people would agree should be considered “real” in some measure. If you require empirical observability for something to be real, you end up like Descartes, believing only in your own consciousness (and God for some reason). While there’s some wisdom in this viewpoint, there are more practically useful definitions of reality.

Also also, it’s worth pointing out that the position you’re arguing for is called empiricism, and it is one of many theories of what comprises reality. You are participating in an argument by stating that your position is obviously correct and beyond reproach.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#155

Post by canhascodez »

burke wrote: post #154
canhascodez wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction between "abstract" and "measurable" is not ambiguous. "Real" in this context (and most others) means "empirically observable", as in, you and I are able to make an observation or measurement and arrive at similar values. Abstract concepts are by definition not empirically observable. Semantic arguments are a complete and utter waste of time.

There is no one true definition of “real” until you bring in your accessory definition of “empirically obserble”. Semantic arguments are typically a waste of time, and by not being clear about your definition and berating everyone for not being in your head already, you are creating one. Also, there are plenty of “abstract concepts” which are not empirically observable but which most people would agree should be cons…

It's still a semantic argument if you repeat it.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#156

Post by burke »

canhascodez wrote: post #155
burke wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no one true definition of “real” until you bring in your accessory definition of “empirically obserble”. Semantic arguments are typically a waste of time, and by not being clear about your definition and berating everyone for not being in your head already, you are creating one. Also, there are plenty of “abstract concepts” which are not empirically observable but which most people would agree should be cons…

It's still a semantic argument if you repeat it.

You can’t just shut down a semantic argument by taking a position, asserting its correctness, and refusing to acknowledge other views, as a premise of your broader argument.

The normal way out of a semantic argument is to just acknowledge the different definitions people are bringing and moving on with that in mind, but you’re not willing to do that. You are the one instigating the semantic argument here.

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#157

Post by canhascodez »

burke wrote: post #156
canhascodez wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a semantic argument if you repeat it.

You can’t just shut down a semantic argument by taking a position, asserting its correctness, and refusing to acknowledge other views, as a premise of your broader argument. The normal way out of a semantic argument is to just acknowledge the different definitions people are bringing and moving on with that in mind, but you’re not willing to do that. You are the one instigating the semantic argument here.

Bullshit. I said exactly what I intended to say; the distinction between empirical observation and other forms of truth was pretty much the entire point. I mean, you did actually read what I wrote, right?

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#158

Post by erikpukinskis »

canhascodez wrote: post #139
erikpukinskis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your proof that love, honor, and truth don’t exist?

That would be the definition of an abstract concept, I believe.

What’s an example of something that’s not an abstract concept?

Re: 'Mindful people' feel less pain

#159

Post by canhascodez »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #158
canhascodez wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be the definition of an abstract concept, I believe.

What’s an example of something that’s not an abstract concept?

Well, if this is Philosophy 201, then clearly everything is abstract, and something something Plato's cave. However, the default position is that (surprise!) objective reality exists. Things that are observable and measurable are not abstract. Those things around you that you can perceive with your senses are not abstract. For a more in-depth perspective, you could take a look at the Wikipedia pages for: empiricism, epistemology, philosophy of science. Also, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy should have a reasonably topical article about Rationalism vs. Empiricism.
Post reply on HN