Pain and Objectivity

[wellwisher]

We have all experienced pain of some sort or another. Yet pain is not uniform for all of us, under the same set of conditions. When you go to a doctor with back pain, they often ask you to rate your pain on a scale of 1 to 10, to get idea how strong the pain is for you. There is no one size fits all.

We may collectively call pain subjective, since pain is not the same for all. However, any individual can become objective to their own level of pain; give a number on a scale, therefore pain can also be objective based on first person observations. I know what I feel, based on hard painful data.

The subjective judgement for pain is based on a third person POV, where we observed and compare different people, to see how their reactions to pain differ. We notice there is no good third person way to objectify pain in unique cases, so we call it subjective. But in the first person, one can become objective to their own unique level of pain, so what is called subjective, in the third person, is objective in the first person.

This dual objectivity, based on reference; first or third person, creates a pitfall for the philosophy of science. What is called subjective is based only on third person observations; output affects. These fail to take into account the first person objective data, since you cannot see first person data in the third person. This is why science may overdue drugs or undergo them. They cannot see first person objectivity, from a third person philosophy. They may not even assume first person objectivity does not exist. But we all have objectified our pain to show there is another side to objectivity.

This brings up things such as religion. We may not see anything in the third person and call faith subjective. But can a person of faith be objective to how their faith pushes internal buttons and reinforce their belief? This could also hold true for gender, where the third person may not see it, but one may see it in the first person; inside truth. I am not sure how we can gain acceptance of both levels of objectivity, since science only uses the third person.

 

[PureX]

I am very confused about what you are calling "objectivity". Because it sounds completely subjective to me.

Also, what is this business about "first person", "third person" and so on? We are each ourselves, and we are not ever not ourselves. So our perspective is always going to be from the perspective of ourselves. And that is a subjective perspective, because we are the subject being referred to by the term "subjective".

 

[Ella S.]

We can detect pain and gender using brain scans. We've also demonstrated that there is a high enough correlation between these scans and self-report scales that the self-report scales can usually be taken as evidence for the underlying state.

I have no reason to doubt someone when they say that have faith in something. In fact, they are more likely being truthful when they say this, or at the very least they believe they are.

Faith does tend to undermine the objectivity of the faithful, because it leads to motivated reasoning. The best way to correct for this is to come up with a variety of counter-arguments and alternative conclusions or speculations and compare them. This takes a lot of practice with critical thinking and logic to do alone, and even then the individual can be prone to bias, so it's usually suggested that you submit your arguments to debate and critique by those who disagree with you.

Of course, there's not really a point in doing that if you don't already have a firm foundation in logical argumentation, because then you won't have the means to properly evaluate the criticism levied against your position. You also might want to practice applying logic to arguments that you have no biases on one way or the other as a way of honing your skills before moving on to a topic that's more difficult to remain dispassionate about.

It's important to note that complete objectivity is infeasible. Any time we extrapolate from incomplete data, and whether we even think data is incomplete or not, we are exhibiting some form of bias. The trick is to correct ourselves in the face of new data or superior logic so that we're constantly becoming more objective. It's an ideal, not a realistic goal.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The subjective judgement for pain is based on a third person POV, where we observed and compare different people, to see how their reactions to pain differ. We notice there is no good third person way to objectify pain in unique cases, so we call it subjective. But in the first person, one can become objective to their own unique level of pain, so what is called subjective, in the third person, is objective in the first person.

I grasp this I think. My pain is immediately known to me. I can tell it to 2nd party, however the pain score from 1-10 means different things to different people. Then to other people my pain is not readily understood from the number.

This dual objectivity, based on reference; first or third person, creates a pitfall for the philosophy of science. What is called subjective is based only on third person observations; output affects. These fail to take into account the first person objective data, since you cannot see first person data in the third person. This is why science may overdue drugs or undergo them. They cannot see first person objectivity, from a third person philosophy. They may not even assume first person objectivity does not exist. But we all have objectified our pain to show there is another side to objectivity.

We are talking about the effect of painkillers. Other aspects of drugs can be measured, such as their bioavailability. For any medicine there will be safety trials in which volunteers of various sizes have blood drawn at regular intervals. This then becomes objective information. It cannot, however, directly measure pain. In future that may change if we understand pain sensation better, but for now it is hard to measure objectively.

This brings up things such as religion. We may not see anything in the third person and call faith subjective. But can a person of faith be objective to how their faith pushes internal buttons and reinforce their belief? This could also hold true for gender, where the third person may not see it, but one may see it in the first person; inside truth. I am not sure how we can gain acceptance of both levels of objectivity, since science only uses the third person.

The psychological term is 'Religiosity'. I don't like this term, however its what they use. I think that a universal standard for measuring religiosity is one of several holy grails of sociology. (Sociologists have more than one holy grail to find.) Its a topic in Sociology, and its studied by sociologists, psychologists and economists sometimes. People in those fields study a lot of common things and probably picnic together. Usually religiosity is scored using standards of some kind which are generated as best as possible. Then those standards become part of some larger standard hopefully. The standards are probably not great, but they are an attempt to achieve at least some measure of objectivity. This is one of the problems with studying minds as opposed to easy thing like studying fusion or chemistry.

Gender is a whole other situation and is likely more of a clinical concern. You can't study gender without involving doctors in some way. Religiosity is probably much cheaper to study, because they aren't dealing with patients. Gender is one of those things that clinicians such as Psychiatrists are involved in studying, but you don't need psychiatrists to study religiosity. The methods are likely to be different. The statistics are likely to be similar, and so sociologists, psychologists and economists might be involved. (Also tons of grad students, but they aren't real humans and should be seen and not heard.)

 

[wellwisher]

I am very confused about what you are calling "objectivity". Because it sounds completely subjective to me.

Also, what is this business about "first person", "third person" and so on? We are each ourselves, and we are not ever not ourselves. So our perspective is always going to be from the perspective of ourselves. And that is a subjective perspective, because we are the subject being referred to by the term "subjective".

The third person is where we look at data, that is outside ourself, such as is done by science. It is not part of use but rather appears detached from us. First person is when you directly observe data that starts within your own brain. I used the example of pain. Both types of data can become objective; watch someone with pain and observe your own pain, since both involve consciousness, which can use the same tool for object observation and analysis.

I can be in a museum and see a work of art. Like anyone in the museum, I can describe the art as hanging on a specific wall with a certain size, colors, subject matter, etc. Others can see the same thing or find the painting based on my description. This is outside me and the others.

Art can also has an internal impact; how the painting affects one emotionally. This personal induction is also a type of data is unique to each person. It can only be perceived by that person, as feedback within their brain and body; their induced feelings. One can also be objective to that unique data; first person.

Others could find the painting based on my third person description of the external object But they cannot crawl into my skin and experience my inner world and feelings that are unique to me. However, one can also be objective to this type of unique interval data. This not covered by the philosophy of science since it is not a group type objectivity, but a unique objectivity based on internal neural feedback data inside each person's brain.

If you are sitting listening to music, you can treat the music in the third person as an external event. We can objectify the volume, the style of music, and even the name of the song. Others can agree; third person. But we may not all do like the same music. This "like" is an individual feedback affects that occurs within your own brain, that you can become objective of, by asking questions like why do I like that particular song? There is an entire range of data that makes each one of us tick. We can just accept it or like science we can analyze it to become objective to it.

Science cannot answer that "why I like it', question for you, nor can wikipedia. It requires you be objective to your own neural processing and any body feedback that you may feel, that may be unique to you, but which is still a type of reality data, that is subject to a type of first person objective analysis.

Subjective often means not collectively objective to all. Different people have different thresholds of pain which is not the same for all. But even unique personal data, that is not collectively objective in the third person, can be made objective by an individual if they apply the methods of science to internal observation within themselves. Why do I feel this level of pain? Science was not designed to go there, since people cannot read other peoples minds and some people will lie; present bad or misleading first person data.

For example, I go to a dinner party and the hostess asks me how was the meal. My internal objective analysis, based on the ratio of compulsive eating versus gag reflex was low, so the objective first person answer is I did not like it. But since the hostess tried so hard, I may use a white lie and say it was excellent; high ratio. They cannot crawl into my skin and read my mind in the first person. They can only assess this situation in the third person, based on external output; my kind words. This was not fully objective to my genuine first person assessment. That would be subjective, since it was not objective, both in the first and the third person.

The last frontier of science will be to investigate consciousness which is best assessed with consciousness. It will need to be a blend of first and third person data, since out inner world has an impact on how we see reality.

 

[wellwisher]

This is a tough subject in terms of defining objectivity, since there is more than one type of objectivity. We all understand the better known external objectivity, connected to the group and the external world. But there is also the lessor know internal objectivity, that may be unique to each of us; true to ourself.

These two can be in harmony or in conflict. Internal objectivity much easier to hide, since others cannot read your mind. You cannot hide your external objectivity, since others can compare what you say to what is accepted as being objective. Inside objectivity is connected to our own little world, that we may share with strangers, in a very limited way, based on some internal censor. Often we may only show a mask; persona. Deeper aspect of this inner world may only be shared with our intimate friends and family. But we also have very private thoughts that stay only with us.

Picture a situation, where you are required to conform to a group. In this case, what is expected; latest fad, is not fully rational or very objective. Different people may react in different ways relative to their internal and external objectivity.

Externally, some would learn about the system and try to determine if this is objective or subjective, based on the available data. Say it was subjective; faddish. Some may still go along, since they feel a positive internal feeling based on the camaraderie of the group. One knows it is not fully objective, but one also senses an internal objectivity to the positive feelings the group creates. It may not be fully objective, but it all feels natural to them. Why this positive feeling is occurring, is another story, that may not be fully conscious and objective; deeper hidden cause. This may need therapy to become objective.

Say anther person also was pushed into this system. They see it as irrational and subjective. Their inner objective sense, wants to avoid it, since they do not wish to be irrational. However, there are goons, who enforce the rules; peer pressure, who threaten you to go along or else.

You may use your external logic to find the best way to avoid the wrath of the goons by pretending to go along. They see what appears to be an objective oath of conformity. This external objective strategy, reduces your inner and outer stress and pain. However, inside, where you are private, you try to stay objective to the group think, and do not allow this subjective system to fully program you. You avoid external output that can be inferred by other to mean your are really not conforming. This is where internal objectivity can help deal with the needs of external objectivity. You can still come out of this healthy.

As a different example, say you had a neurosis connected to cats. You are afraid of cats. This is how you objectivity feel, internally. However, a part of you knows this is not normal. The fear of cats appears to stem from an irrational source you cannot pin down. However the internal fear and anxiety are real and objective.

The therapist will accept your objectivity to your inner fear, since you are being true to your internal data processing. However, since this is not objective to external reality; most cats are friendly, they may try to uncover where the subjective internal subroutine came from, that dominates your mind.

One may be asked to look at oneself in the third person. You stand outside yourself to face the objective facts that little kittens are harmless. You are required to observe at a distance. Their fun play may give you the internal courage, to face your objective internal fear, with baby steps, until the underlying internal program changes, so you can be both externally and internal objective to cats.