tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post6755259946693166777..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Is pain bad because of its raw subjective feel?Alexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-46835137391425997872007-12-21T16:48:00.000-06:002007-12-21T16:48:00.000-06:00I don't know. We decrease attentional focus when a...I don't know. We decrease attentional focus when a perceived object is no longer our direct object of perception. When it comes to feeling pain, something else often becomes the direct object of our attention. So it is not obvious that the analogue of pain becoming decentered as the object of perception is not an object becoming decentered as the object of physical perception: i.e. an object on the periphery of our visual field. If that's so, then the qualia that objects are disposed to produce in us under normal conditions might well be quite different. <BR/>In any case, a priori arguments are somewhat beside the point. We should rather consider the empirical data concerning pain perception. If I had to bet, I'd wager that the feel of the pain is quite different under various conditions of distraction. But I'm not sufficiently familiar with the data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-14089232926126243592007-12-21T13:02:00.000-06:002007-12-21T13:02:00.000-06:00I was talking of attentional focus, not where my e...I was talking of attentional focus, not where my eyes are pointing. It is possible for the two to be distinct. Indeed, it is a standard practice in amateur astronomy to point the eye slightly to the side of the faint object one's attention is focused on, because the eyes are more light sensitive off-center (or so goes amateur astronomy lore; even if this is false, the practice exists, and that's all I need).Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-29239114954199122532007-12-21T12:23:00.000-06:002007-12-21T12:23:00.000-06:00But does the quale of red change due to attention?...<I>But does the quale of red change due to attention? (Leaving aside the issue in my note 1.) I am inclined to say "No".</I><BR/><BR/>Alex, that depends entirely on your light sensitivity in peripheral vision. It is quite possible that red lights appear much lighter or non-existent in peripheral vision, given low sensitivity. Qualia does vary as light sensitivity does.Mike Almeidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05825724565238689585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-82472192326985880732007-12-21T11:17:00.000-06:002007-12-21T11:17:00.000-06:00Mike:In the cube thought experiment, I was not tak...Mike:<BR/><BR/>In the cube thought experiment, I was not taking it to be the case that one becomes unaware of the cube. One just becomes less aware of it. It's there, and one sees that it is there, but it is not what one's attention is focused on.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-88184868358271137902007-12-21T11:16:00.000-06:002007-12-21T11:16:00.000-06:00I take the raw feel of pain to be analogous to the...I take the raw feel of pain to be analogous to the quale of red, say. But does the quale of red change due to attention? (Leaving aside the issue in my note 1.) I am inclined to say "No".<BR/><BR/>But your point is a good one--it shows how unclear it is what exactly is going on with pains. Can one completely fail to notice the "raw feel"? (Probably not.) Can one be in pain without noticing? (This is less clear. If yes, and if the answer to the previous is negative, then it seems to follow that there can be pains with no raw feel. That would be odd, but maybe that's how it is.) I don't know.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-79545976284115201462007-12-21T11:12:00.000-06:002007-12-21T11:12:00.000-06:00If I focus my attention not on the red cube in my ...<I>If I focus my attention not on the red cube in my field of vision, but on the golden sphere, without shifting my eyes at all[note 1], is it the case that the appearance of the red cube changes, that it starts to look less red or be less cubical?</I><BR/><BR/>No, it looks like nothing at all. Simply because something is in your visual field does not entail that it is perceived in any way. I miss entirely (all of the time) what is no doubt in my visual field, since the visual field of others often largely overlaps mine and they see it. You might be moved to something like "unconscious perception" (whatever that might be), but there is no such thing as an unconscious raw feel.Mike Almeidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05825724565238689585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-60489542191100009342007-12-21T10:28:00.000-06:002007-12-21T10:28:00.000-06:00So even if pain is bad for you, the degree to whic...<I>So even if pain is bad for you, the degree to which it is bad is determined in large part by how focused you are on the pain and what attitude you take to it, rather than by the raw feel.</I><BR/><BR/>Doesn't the raw feel itself depend on the degree of focus? I actually do not experience the raw feel of the pain, if I am distracted in various ways. Smith is running for a touchdown or something, the crowd is screaming, and he does not feel the pain of his broken wrist. He misses the raw feel because of the failure to focus. But, if we can speak about increments/decrements of pain, then their distribution across time/persons does seem to matter ot their disvalue. The "repugnant conclusion" discussed in Parfit and others is just the view that, for instance, 1000 decrements in pain suffered by a single individual in a moment is no worse that 1000 decrements distributed over a year in a single person is no worse than 1000 decrements distributed over 1000 different people. Certainly that's mistaken.Mike Almeidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05825724565238689585noreply@blogger.com