I believe you consider 'negative reinforcement' (ie Pain, ..) and the avoidance of, as maintaining survival in organisms.
I propose that it is quite the opposite: Survival through 'positive reinforcement', eg Seratonin, endorphins, enkephalins, etc. If survival was left to 'Pain Avoidance' alone, an organism might simply opt for the option of dying. — Be La Takats

I don't think I said negative reinforcement is the only way survival can be ensured.

So then, please explain yourself. ,.. looking for a sensible voice.

So then, please explain yourself. ,.. looking for a sensible voice. — Be La Takats

:chin: I said pain maybe necessary for survival. That's about all I can say.

Pain is an unpleasant sensation or thought evoked by certain noxious physical or mental stimuli. In general, such stimuli evoke a relieve-avoid-prevent response from the subject.

Biologically, pain plays an important role in our welfare and survival. Homeostasis refers to the biochemical equilibrium necessary for life to sustain itself. All living things are in homeostasis so long as it is alive and well. Injury, physical, chemical, etc. threatens this equilibrium and can cause death.

Pain is a detector of sorts that alerts living things of potentially life-threatening stimuli. This pain detecting mechanism is wired to responses that aim to relieve/avoid/prevent pain; ultimately saving the organism from grievous injury and death. We could, in a way, say that pain is necessary for survival.

To make my point clearer consider people who can't feel pain e.g. diabetics with neuropathy and Leprosy patients. Their inability to feel pain (due to nerve damage) makes them highly susceptible to severe injuries, ultimately resulting in disfigurement and death. So, pain plays a critical role in survival.

Given the above is true what can we say about suffering? Suffering seems to be a higher-order pain since it includes mental anguish too. However, consider the causes of mental anguish from failing in exams to losing in love - they're all critical aspects of social survival. We can literally see the similarity between physical and mental pain at a very fundamental level - SURVIVAL, either as an individual or as a member of society.

Therefore, suffering is necessary to the wellbeing of individuals alone and as members of a society.

What kind of ramifications would this realization have?

For one, we can do away with pessimistic philosophies that have, well, misunderstood the whole point of suffering. They think suffering shouldn't exist, implying that it is unnecessary, which I've shown is actually necessary for survival.

Also this view of suffering solves the problem of evil vis-a-vis god. — TheMadFool

While I agree that the existence of suffering (experiencing pain, humiliation, loss/lack) is necessary for survival, I disagree that survival is necessary to existence.

When we die, we don’t cease to exist, we simply cease to survive. The false equivalence of survival (a duration of physicality) and existence leads to the inaccurate conclusion that avoiding suffering is essential to our existence, as much as this equally inaccurate conclusion (disputed by anti-natalists) that the experience of suffering is essential to existence.

Fair enough. Can you perhaps point me in a direction of literature on this topic? Much appreciated. BE

Fair enough. Can you perhaps point me in a direction of literature on this topic? Much appreciated. BE — Be La Takats

I use Google. Doesn't always take me to the best resources but is still quite helpful.

To make my point clearer consider people who can't feel pain e.g. diabetics with neuropathy and Leprosy patients. Their inability to feel pain (due to nerve damage) makes them highly susceptible to severe injuries, ultimately resulting in disfigurement and death. So, pain plays a critical role in survival. — TheMadFool

Hmmm. So would p-zombies be less fit than the humans they are suppose to be "identical" to in every way except that there isnt any experience of pain? Sounds like p-zombies are an illegitiment argument for the "hard problem".

Hmmm. So would p-zombies be less fit than the humans they are suppose to be "identical" to in every way except that there isnt any experience of pain? Sounds like p-zombies are an illegitiment argument for the "hard problem". — Harry Hindu

How would the p-zombie argument be inappropriate to the hard problem based on p-zombies not feeling pain?

That's exactly what the p-zombie thought experiment is about - beings identical to us in every way but lacking any consciousness and that includes an inability to feel pain, pleasure, etc.

If p-zombies are possible then physicalism is false for the reason that consciousness is an additional feature.

How would the p-zombie argument be inappropriate to the hard problem based on p-zombies not feeling pain?

That's exactly what the p-zombie thought experiment is about - beingsidentical to us in every way but lacking any consciousness and that includes an inability to feel pain, pleasure, etc. — TheMadFool

To make my point clearer consider people who can't feel pain e.g. diabetics with neuropathy and Leprosy patients. Their inability to feel pain (due to nerve damage) makes them highly susceptible to severe injuries, ultimately resulting in disfigurement and death. So, pain plays a critical role in survival. — TheMadFool

So are p-zombies identical to us in every way but lacking any consciousness and that includes an inability to feel pain, pleasure, etc. when what they lack has a causal impact on their survival?

It seems to me that the assertion that p-zombies can be "identical to us in every way but lacking any consciousness and that includes an inability to feel pain, pleasure, etc." is just plain false when you account for the causal impact having a mind has on your survival compared to not having a mind, as you have shown.

The same thing can be said about blind-sight patients. They don't behave identically to humans with normal sight.

The fact is that minds play a causal role in your behavior. If you don't have one, then your behavior won't be identical to something that does have one.

Just as it is insane to do the same thing over and over and expect different results, it is just as insane to expect the same result from doing different things.

When people talk about suffering, I tend to think of the Emperor Penguin who lives in Antarctica where temperatures often reach -40 C; especially the male of the species... : This from Wikipedia..

After the female departs for the sea and the male takes charge of their egg, he spends the dark, stormy winter incubating the egg in his brood pouch, balancing it on the tops of his feet, for around 65-75 consecutive days until hatching. By the time the egg hatches, the male will have fasted for around 120 days since arriving at the colony.[65] To survive the cold and savage winds of up to 200 km/h (120 mph), the males huddle together, taking turns in the middle of the huddle.

So are p-zombies identical to us in every way but lacking any consciousness and that includes an inability to feel pain, pleasure, etc. when what they lack has a causal impact on their survival?

It seems to me that the assertion that p-zombies can be "identical to us in every way but lacking any consciousness and that includes an inability to feel pain, pleasure, etc." is just plain false when you account for the causal impact having a mind has on your survival compared to not having a mind, as you have shown.

The same thing can be said about blind-sight patients. They don't behave identically to humans with normal sight.

The fact is that minds play a causal role in your behavior. If you don't have one, then your behavior won't be identical to something that does have one.

Just as it is insane to do the same thing over and over and expect different results, it is just as insane to expect the same result from doing different things. — Harry Hindu

It's possible to construct a robot with sensors tailored to prevent injury to the robot. The robot isn't conscious like we are but even without it, it can look after itself reasonably well. Surely, a physical system sans the consciousness can perform orders of magnitude better.

It's possible to construct a robot with sensors tailored to prevent injury to the robot. The robot isn't conscious like we are but even without it, it can look after itself reasonably well. Surely, a physical system sans the consciousness can perform orders of magnitude better. — TheMadFool

What are you doing?

You just contradicted your OP:

Pain is a detector of sorts that alerts living things of potentially life-threatening stimuli. This pain detecting mechanism is wired to responses that aim to relieve/avoid/prevent pain; ultimately saving the organism from grievous injury and death. We could, in a way, say that pain is necessary for survival. — TheMadFool

Pain is necessary for survival but only because it's associated with harm (injury). I believe it's possible to cleave these two and sequester harm, discarding the pain, enabling a nonconscious being to assign appropriate harm-avoidance behavior to it.

When I think how to program a robot to avoid harm, it seems much easier, and more efficient, to program it too react to harm done rather than react to every potential harm that could be done. For the latter, you'd have to know every possible way the robot could be harmed for it to be programmed to avoid it. Why not just program the robot to react only when damage is done and the pain would be an indicator of how bad the damage is and where it is located.

When I think how to program a robot to avoid harm, it seems much easier, and more efficient, to program it too react to harm done rather than react to every potential harm that could be done. — Harry Hindu

Well, it would lighten the burden for us but the robot probably won't make it through the day.

Why not just program the robot to react only when damage is done and the pain would be an indicator of how bad the damage is and where it is located — Harry Hindu

We don't need the pain. There's no need for and it's probably impossible to have the subjective experience of pain.

Well, it would lighten the burden for us but the robot probably won't make it through the day. — TheMadFool

You keep contradicting your OP in your attempt to argue for the sake of arguing with me.

Pain is a detector of sorts that alerts living things of potentially life-threatening stimuli. This pain detecting mechanism is wired to responses that aim to relieve/avoid/prevent pain; ultimately saving the organism from grievous injury and death. We could, in a way, say that pain is necessary for survival. — TheMadFool

So it seems to me that pain is necessary for survival. What is survival if not the continued existence of the thing as a primary result of the thing's own functioning?

You keep contradicting your OP in your attempt to argue for the sake of arguing with me. — Harry Hindu

There must've been a time in your life when you put something in your mouth and immediately spat it out.

By the way, where's the contradiction? Sorry.

So it seems to me that pain is necessary for survival. What is survival if not the continued existence of the thing as a primary result of the thing's own functioning? — Harry Hindu

Pain is necessary for our survival for it's the only means by which we detect harm/injury. That doesn't mean that a different method of detecting harm doesn't exist.

There must've been a time in your life when you put something in your mouth and immediately spat it out. — TheMadFool

I don't understand. Are you saying that there are times in our lives where we do things without having an experience? Are you saying that you spat out something in your mouth for no reason at all?

Pain is necessary for our survival for it's the only means by which we detect harm/injury. That doesn't mean that a different method of detecting harm doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

Again, what does survival mean? Why would it only apply to carbon-based systems and not silicon-based systems? Seems to me that you have a limited scope/definition of life and survival - an anthropomorphic one.

I don't understand — Harry Hindu

I'm unable to clarify any further.

Again, what does survival mean? Why would it only apply to carbon-based systems and not silicon-based systems? Seems to me that you have a limited scope/definition of life and survival - an anthropomorphic one. — Harry Hindu

I just introduced robots and harm/injury sensors divested from pain into the discussion. Anthropomorphic?