The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t have to imagine anything, most organism and most animals (all invertebrates) don´t feel conscious pain and they still avoid fire and are pretty good at surviving

I didn't speak about any invertebrates. I said "a person".

And btw, your assertion of all invertebrates not experiencing pain is flat out wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your whole reply is based on a straw man.

What I am saying is that conscious pain has no selective advantage, with conscious pain, I mean this mental statate in which your brain communicates with your nervous system such that one is aware that it´s in pain (and suffering)

That is exactly what I was replying to. So I don't see why you accuse me of a strawman.

Only some vertebrates seem to have this ability. Most animals simply react to avoid harm

Meaning that there is something that is signaling them that harm is being caused.
Any signal would be good enough for that, and would fit the evolutionary narrative.
That would include pain.

How does this not fit the evolutionary narrative?
Pain thus meets the need of an alert mechanism that harm is being caused.
That is the selective advantage.

Unless you can come up with a reasonable reason for how pain would give an evolutionary disadvantage so big that it would overshadow the selective advantage as an alert mechanism.... I don't see what your point or argument is.

Or when you touch a hot pan, you will” feel something “ and remove your hand, but you didn’t felt actual conscious pain.

Why would I remove my hand if I just "feel something" that doesn't actually bother me?
If it isn't unpleasant?

So this type of reaction (I call it unconscious pain) is very useful,

Less useful then conscious pain - where the sensation is thus unpleasant and distinguishable from say, a soft pillow, in our way of life.

But regardless, as I said above: ANY alert mechanism is better then no mechanism.
And you still haven't given a single example of selective disadvantage that overshadows the selective advantage of pain as such a mechanism as opposed to no mechanism.

You don't seem to be understanding that evolution doesn't necessarily shoot for "the best". It rather shoots for the "good enough".

It's for example also how we ended up with an eye with a blind spot, because all the nerves need to cross the retina. The Octopus doesn't have this problem.

It's just so that in our lineage, initially "sight" evolved like that - and at that point, that was still better then no sight at all.

Why would conscious pain be any different?


Then, just to pile on, in evolution many times traits are actually side effects of OTHER systems with selective advantage. So "conscious pain" could also be something that just piggy backed along with the development of more complex nervous systems. And I bet that if we would go into specifics of which animals do and don't feel "conscious" pain, it will pretty much go hand in hand with complexity of nervous systems.


So to conclude: there is nothing in the experience of "pain" that seems to pose a problem for any evolutionary underpinnings thereof.

So far, we only have your bare assertion thereof.

… my point is that adding this mental state of awareness (conscious pain) is useless and shouldn’t have been selected by natural selection.

Should backwards eyes, causing blind spots, have been selected by natural selection?

If you try to harm a clam, it will try to escape and run away despite the fact that it doesn’t feel concious pain..…. No imagine that this claim for some reason is feeling conscious pain, the claim would do the exact same thing, it will try to run away and scape, feeling pain doesn’t add any benefit.

Exactly. It would do the exact same thing. So it serves its purpose.
The blind spot in my eye doesn't add any benefit either.

 

[joelr]

T

So the argument is

1 Complex + Useless mechanism are not expected to evolve

2 suffering (as oppose to reacting) is a complex and useless mechanism

3 therefore suffering is not expected to evolve./ therefore atheist have the same problem than theists


Sure as a naturalist you can appeal to many excuses, perhaps there is “something” that we don’t know yet about, that would explain suffering, but theist can use the same excuse, “maybe” there is a good explanation for why we have suffering.

This is all wrong. What doesn't evolve is organisms that cannot reproduce. "Useless" is a nonsense term in this discussion and a useless label that isn't in play. The thing that matters is can you survive and reproduce. You can suffer, be "useless", all evolution needs is you to have offspring.

If an organism was constantly suffering and unable to do basic tasks like gather food, hunt, raise children, it would die and all similar organisms would die.
Hence, we evolved so most of us can reproduce, take care of children and that's it.
Evolution doesn't care how much we suffer when we lose family or when we get older and sick.

In general if suffering causes an animal to move through problems, to figure out better ways to suffer less, than it has an excellent evolutionary purpose. That is exactly what it does.

Human suffering has led to countless advancements in war, technology, medicine and allowed us to become stronger.

If it didn't we would not be here. Suffering is perfectly aligned with the evolutionary process. In fact the fact that humans can survive, reproduce and be generally happy shows how we were forged through evolution. But the fact that sometimes there is unbelievable suffering (like during a war in the Ukraine) and the millions of children who pass from cancer, shows we live by probability. Not by a deity changing events for us.

Suffering helps species evolve or die. Unfortunately on the individual level it can be brutal. So religions are invented to help deal with this.

 

[leroy]

And btw, your assertion of all invertebrates not experiencing pain is flat out wrong.

Disagree, but that would make the problem worst,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Disagree, but that would make the problem worst,

You could at least try to support your bare assertion.

I'm finding loads of articles where plenty of experiments support the notion that plenty of invertebrates in fact do experience pain, and react to it in the very ways we would expect.

Beyond mere reactive responses. To the point of limping, attending to a possible wound, rubbing the spot that was harmed for a prolonged period - long after the harmful event happened.

And also, those behaviors all diminished when painkillers were applied.

Surely they will experience pain rather differently then we vertebrates / mammals do.
That should be no surprise, as we have vastly different nervous systems - and it's the nervous system that is central in the experience of pain as well as other sensory experiences.

This is also why I said that "pain" can not be viewed as a "trait" all by itself. You can't just take our human nervous system and just "replace" the experience of pain with something else.
It's all interconnected. Evolutionary changes are more often then not tradeoffs. Almost every beneficial mutation comes at a cost also.

A good example of such is for example if a mutation increases bone density. Let's suppose this benefits a hypothetical species because its way of life is perhaps prone to breaking bones. Surely higher bone density might be beneficial for it.
Let's say that the mutation accomplishes this by loading the bones up with more calcium.
Now, this additional calcium in the bones needs to come from somewhere.
The additional calcium spend on bone density, can no longer be spend elsewhere.
So perhaps the organism needs to alter its diet so that it gets more calcium input. Or, less calcium is available for other body processes. This might be for the creature's disadvantage.

But if the advantage of higher bone density outweighs the disadvantage of the decrease in calcium elsewhere, it will still get selected.

In that sense, what you are doing in this thread, seems to me to being the equivalent of then pointing to said disadvantage and then claiming that "evolution can't explain that".

And that's only assuming that experiencing pain is actually a selective disadvantage, as you claim.
I haven't seen you anywhere actually provide evidence that that is the case.

I asked multiple times now.

I'm not expecting answers though.

 

[leroy]

Meaning that there is something that is signaling them that harm is being caused.
Any signal would be good enough for that, and would fit the evolutionary narrative.
That would include pain.

.

Yes Yes, that is exactly my point, any signal would be good enough to prevent harm. ……. You don’t need this complex mental state that we call conscious pain (or suffering) a simple signal would be good enough.

A bacteria a clam or a tree doesn’t feel conscious pain , for example when someone is harming the tree an signal would be tuned on and a toxic substance would emanate form this tree . but the tree is obviously not aware of the harm and the pain, it is just a reaction.

Assuming that a hypothetical mutation occurred and the tree is now feeling conscious pain , this mutation would serve no additional benefit, the tree will still react in the same way, therefore this mutation is unlikely to be selected b natural selection

 

[leroy]

You could at least try to support your bare assertion.

I'm finding loads of articles where plenty of experiments support the notion that plenty of invertebrates in fact do experience pain, and react to it in the very ways we would expect.

Beyond mere reactive responses. To the point of limping, attending to a possible wound, rubbing the spot that was harmed for a prolonged period - long after the harmful event happened.

And also, those behaviors all diminished when painkillers were applied.

Surely they will experience pain rather differently then we vertebrates / mammals do.
That should be no surprise, as we have vastly different nervous systems - and it's the nervous system that is central in the experience of pain as well as other sensory experiences.

This is also why I said that "pain" can not be viewed as a "trait" all by itself. You can't just take our human nervous system and just "replace" the experience of pain with something else.
It's all interconnected. Evolutionary changes are more often then not tradeoffs. Almost every beneficial mutation comes at a cost also.

A good example of such is for example if a mutation increases bone density. Let's suppose this benefits a hypothetical species because its way of life is perhaps prone to breaking bones. Surely higher bone density might be beneficial for it.
Let's say that the mutation accomplishes this by loading the bones up with more calcium.
Now, this additional calcium in the bones needs to come from somewhere.
The additional calcium spend on bone density, can no longer be spend elsewhere.
So perhaps the organism needs to alter its diet so that it gets more calcium input. Or, less calcium is available for other body processes. This might be for the creature's disadvantage.

But if the advantage of higher bone density outweighs the disadvantage of the decrease in calcium elsewhere, it will still get selected.

In that sense, what you are doing in this thread, seems to me to being the equivalent of then pointing to said disadvantage and then claiming that "evolution can't explain that".

And that's only assuming that experiencing pain is actually a selective disadvantage, as you claim.
I haven't seen you anywhere actually provide evidence that that is the case.

I asked multiple times now.

I'm not expecting answers though.

Again for the purpose of this discussion is irrelevant if vertebrates feel conscious pain or not, we can assume that they do.

And that's only assuming that experiencing pain is actually a selective disadvantage, as you claim.
I haven't seen you anywhere actually provide evidence that that is the case.

I asked multiple times now.

I'm not expecting answers though

I am not saying that conscious pain is a disadvantage (but an argument can be maid) all I am saying is that it is neutral, and therefore unlikely to have evolved.

Lets say that conscious pain “evolved” in the early Cambrian in a worm – like creature ….

Before that this worm reacted again stuff that can harm him, (in the same way trees, clams and bacteria do) but lacks the mental state that we call “suffering”

1 this worm doesn’t need “conscious pain” to avoid harm

2 feeling conscious pain has no clear benefit in that worm, he will react and do the same anyway

3 therefore there is not a selective advantage,

4 therefore it is unlikely to evolve


Which of this 4 points would you deny?

 

[leroy]

This is all wrong. What doesn't evolve is organisms that cannot reproduce. "Useless" is a nonsense term in this discussion and a useless label that isn't in play. The thing that matters is can you survive and reproduce. You can suffer, be "useless", all evolution needs is you to have offspring.

Sure but if your son has a useless trait, this trait is unlikely to become fixed and dominant in a population

In general if suffering causes an animal to move through problems, to figure out better ways to suffer less, than it has an excellent evolutionary purpose. That is exactly what it does.

You don’t need the complex mental experience that we call suffering in order to avoid danger…. Clams probably don’t feel conscious pain, but they would run away if a predator is trying to harm them … adding the ability to suffer in that clam, would serve no additional advantage, (the clam would still do the same, it would simply run away)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes Yes, that is exactly my point, any signal would be good enough to prevent harm.

Meaning that "pain" as such a signal doesn't require an extra special explanation as opposed to whatever other signal.

Yet you insist otherwise. Why?

……. You don’t need this complex mental state that we call conscious pain (or suffering) a simple signal would be good enough.

And it likely is a simple signal in organism with simple nervous systems.
But we have complex nervous systems.

Are you trying to imply that "pain" is the sole reason for that complexity?
Our nervous system and brain functions serve no other purpose then for us to feel pain?
Is that why you are saying?

A bacteria a clam or a tree doesn’t feel conscious pain

Neither do they have complex nervous systems.

, for example when someone is harming the tree an signal would be tuned on and a toxic substance would emanate form this tree . but the tree is obviously not aware of the harm and the pain,

It's not aware, full stop.

I think it's hilarious how you are comparing apples with oranges here. In fact, that saying doesn't even do it justice, as at least apples and oranges are both fruit.

Assuming that a hypothetical mutation occurred and the tree is now feeling conscious pain, this mutation would serve no additional benefit, the tree will still react in the same way, therefore this mutation is unlikely to be selected b natural selection

A single mutation is not going to give a tree a complex nervous system and neural network to become conscious and be able to experience sensations and emotions.

Your grasp of biology is truly embarrassing. Really.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not saying that conscious pain is a disadvantage (but an argument can be maid) all I am saying is that it is neutral, and therefore unlikely to have evolved.

Why would neutral traits be unlikely to evolve?

Lets say that conscious pain “evolved” in the early Cambrian in a worm – like creature ….

I sincerely doubt that.
I'ld rather expect conscious pain to be a side effect of complex nervous systems and brains.

Before that this worm reacted again stuff that can harm him, (in the same way trees, clams and bacteria do) but lacks the mental state that we call “suffering”

That worm lacks mental states, full stop.

You keep ignoring this point.
Yes, organisms that are incapable of mental states are also incapable of any specific mental states.



This is a very useless tautology.

1 this worm doesn’t need “conscious pain” to avoid harm

2 feeling conscious pain has no clear benefit in that worm, he will react and do the same anyway

3 therefore there is not a selective advantage,

4 therefore it is unlikely to evolve

Which of this 4 points would you deny?

The whole thing is absurd because you are looking at "pain" in a rather juvenile manner, as if it is a trait by itself that exists independently of the rest of the biology of the organism.

Pain can be divided up in 2 parts: the sensory experience itself (the "signal") and the experienced sensation thereof which potentially triggers a reaction. That last part involves the nervous system and the brain.

So the experience of pain is just how one's nervous system reacts to the signal.

The sooner you understand your mistake, the better.
Here's an interesting PDF read for you:

https://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=...vertebrates.&usg=AOvVaw1pE43bilzP838Fg2Ph4zkY

 

[leroy]

Meaning that "pain" as such a signal doesn't require an extra special explanation as opposed to whatever other signal.

Yet you insist otherwise. Why?[

We agree, I don’t insist otherwise

Are you trying to imply that "pain" is the sole reason for that complexity?

No, why would I sday somethign like that?


All I am saying is that say a worm or a tree that doesn’t feel conscious pain (it simply reacts and avoids harm without this mental experience that we call suffering) would not benefit if suddenly it evolves the ability to feel conscious pain.

do you agree with that specific point?

A single mutation is not going to give a tree a complex nervous system and neural network to become conscious and be able to experience sensations and emotions.

Your grasp of biology is truly embarrassing. Really.

It’s a hypothetical (and generous) example, i fan organism would require 1,000,000 mutations to obtain awareness and conscious pain, then that would make the case for naturalists/evolutionists harder


The point that IO made is that even assuming that conscious pain is easy to obtain (say just one mutation) this mutation would be neutral and therefore unlikely to get fixed and dominant in a population.

So ether agree or refute this specific point

 

[PureX]

The issue isn't really pain, it's suffering.

 

[leroy]

Why would neutral traits be unlikely to evolve?

Because that’s the way things are, neutral mutations are likely to “disappear” through genetic drift

I'ld rather expect conscious pain to be a side effect of complex nervous systems and brains.

Yes maybe, but theist use the same type of answer to explain the problem of suffering “maybe suffering is a side effect of something good (like free will, soul building, maturity empathy etc

That worm lacks mental states, full stop.

Yes that is my point……………obviously it´s a case where you are just responding without understanding my argument

I´LL tell you what, why don’t you explain my point and my argument with your own words, then I´ll tell you if you are understanding it or not.




worms can react and avoid harm even without feeling concious pain, (therefore concious pain is useless)

 

[joelr]

Sure but if your son has a useless trait, this trait is unlikely to become fixed and dominant in a population

But that still fits EXACTLY with random mutation. Mutations which produce useless traits are part of evolution. Most often are actually useless. Some are hinderances and the animal doesn't survive and some are useful and may be passed on if they effect the ability to better survive and reproduce.

This all fits in with random evolution, not a creator.

You don’t need the complex mental experience that we call suffering in order to avoid danger…. Clams probably don’t feel conscious pain, but they would run away if a predator is trying to harm them … adding the ability to suffer in that clam, would serve no additional advantage, (the clam would still do the same, it would simply run away)

No but higher order animals naturally evolved higher brain function. A simple tool nature used was chemicals in the brain that tell an organism something is wrong. Grief of losing a loved one has purpose, it keeps animals together to raise the young. Suffering is a huge part of the natural evolutionary process. Unfortunately because nature doesn't actually care about individual organisms (like religious people claim a deity does) sometimes an unusual amount of suffering is placed on one organism. Maybe constant kidney stone pain, or mental illness resulting in always feeling terrible. But the species as a whole uses suffering to learn to move through the brutality of life.

You do need suffering to learn. You get lost in the woods away from your tribe you suffer, if it was a good experience you would never learn and continue to make mistakes. Suffering isn't real the way you seem to think it is. It's a mix of chemicals, just like the clam gets a sensation to close the shell, we get a drop in dopamine, serotonin and a few others when we are doing something that could have a negative outcome. The organisms that didn't get the drop ended up doing more wrong things. It makes complete sense as a slow evolutionary process.

Emotions are mostly tricks of nature. After sex your brain releases prolactin, it causes desire for skin to skin contact and helps a chemical process of bonding two people so they can raise children.

 

[Sheldon]

If you can't feel pain, then there is nothing for you to avoid.

Derp di derp derp.

I don't walk into a fire because I'ld experience pain if I did.

Imagine a person with a nervous disorder which would render him/her immune to pain.
I bet that person would not live very long.

Some people are actually born with a pain threshold so high they actually can't feel pain, they usually don't live long, fatally injuring themselves as babies. As you say pain has evolved as a useful survival tool in animals tat have evolved a nervous system and brain capable of experiences it. .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We agree, I don’t insist otherwise

You agree it doesn't require a special explanation?
Then what is this thread about?

No, why would I sday somethign like that?

I don't know. You seemed to be implying it.

All I am saying is that say a worm or a tree that doesn’t feel conscious pain

It doesn't feel conscious anything.
It lacks the nervous systems and neural network for it to feel anything.

(it simply reacts and avoids harm without this mental experience that we call suffering) would not benefit if suddenly it evolves the ability to feel conscious pain.

It wouldn't "suddenly" evolve said ability because that requires complex nervous systems and neural network (brain).

do you agree with that specific point?

Yes, I agree with your useless tautology that things incapable of concsiously feeling anything are unable to consciously feel pain.

It’s a hypothetical (and generous) example

It's a ridiculous example that only exposes an embarrassing lack of knowledge concerning basic biology.

, i fan organism would require 1,000,000 mutations to obtain awareness and conscious pain, then that would make the case for naturalists/evolutionists harder

No. Your hypothetical strawmen are not a problem for anyone except those who entertain those strawmen.
Once again, you are assuming / pretending that "pain" is a trait all by itself that exists independently from anything else.

I linked you a paper. It is explained therein.
Pain (as a signal for "danger") is extremely old. The sensation of pain is just how that old signal manifests / is experienced in organisms with complex nervous systems and brains.

Your whole argument is based on false premises.

But you don't seem to care.

The point that IO made is that even assuming that conscious pain is easy to obtain (say just one mutation) this mutation would be neutral and therefore unlikely to get fixed and dominant in a population.

So ether agree or refute this specific point

I don't see the point to argue silly strawmen based on false assumptions.

 

[joelr]

Again for the purpose of this discussion is irrelevant if vertebrates feel conscious pain or not, we can assume that they do.


I am not saying that conscious pain is a disadvantage (but an argument can be maid) all I am saying is that it is neutral, and therefore unlikely to have evolved.

Lets say that conscious pain “evolved” in the early Cambrian in a worm – like creature ….

Before that this worm reacted again stuff that can harm him, (in the same way trees, clams and bacteria do) but lacks the mental state that we call “suffering”

1 this worm doesn’t need “conscious pain” to avoid harm

2 feeling conscious pain has no clear benefit in that worm, he will react and do the same anyway

3 therefore there is not a selective advantage,

4 therefore it is unlikely to evolve


Which of this 4 points would you deny?

Yes worms feel pain.
Evolutionist Argues that Worms Feel Pain | Evolution News

Pain is not neutral, it signals to an animal that something is hurt or about to break and is extremely important. Again you are confusing suffering with some metaphysical state. The more advanced animals have more advanced brains so we have multiple neural pathways at once. Pain and suffering both are just chemical and neuronal reactions. They feel the way they do because as animals were evolving the versions of pain and suffering that was too little didn't work. Versions that were too distracting also didn't work. Evolution perfected it.
Humans evolved to have strong intellectual pathways which also gave us more emotional and philosophical abilities. But being smart was our tool so that had to evolve to a high degree.

Everything about pain, suffering fits perfectly with the evolutionary model. It completely negates the idea of a deity who created us to then live in a spirit afterlife. Because people die, sometimes before they are even born. That fits the probabilistic model.

You do need pain to avoid harm. How do you know you are stepping on a rock too hard and it's going to cut you? A cut could lead to infection and death in animals and early hominids/humans.
You need a signal, that is what's happening. It also needs to be intense so you learn to not want to feel it.

 

[leroy]

You agree it doesn't require a special explanation?
Then what is this thread about?
we agree on this

TagliatelliMonster said
Meaning that there is something that is signaling them that harm is being caused.
Any signal would be good enough for that, and would fit the evolutionary narrative.
That would include pain.


leroy replied
Yes Yes, that is exactly my point, any signal would be good enough to prevent harm.



You don’t need the complex mental state that we call “conscious suffering” in order to have a signal that would allow the organism to react and prevent harm.

At this point we apparently agree


I am just making the claim that having conscious suffering doesn’t add any extra benefit, if a tree or a clam or a worm already react to prevent harm, then adding the experience of feeling conscious suffering has no extra benefits


Please let me know exactly at what point do you disagree with me

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@leroy Fix your quotes

 

[leroy]

Yes worms feel pain.
Evolutionist Argues that Worms Feel Pain | Evolution News

Pain is not neutral, it signals to an animal that something is hurt or about to break and is extremely important. Again you are confusing suffering with some metaphysical state. The more advanced animals have more advanced brains so we have multiple neural pathways at once. Pain and suffering both are just chemical and neuronal reactions. They feel the way they do because as animals were evolving the versions of pain and suffering that was too little didn't work. Versions that were too distracting also didn't work. Evolution perfected it.
Humans evolved to have strong intellectual pathways which also gave us more emotional and philosophical abilities. But being smart was our tool so that had to evolve to a high degree.

Everything about pain, suffering fits perfectly with the evolutionary model. It completely negates the idea of a deity who created us to then live in a spirit afterlife. Because people die, sometimes before they are even born. That fits the probabilistic model.

You do need pain to avoid harm. How do you know you are stepping on a rock too hard and it's going to cut you? A cut could lead to infection and death in animals and early hominids/humans.
You need a signal, that is what's happening. It also needs to be intense so you learn to not want to feel it.

Again the problem is that you didn’t read the OP

Yes reacting to avoid harm is useful (I am arbitrally labeling this as uncurious pain but feel free to use a different label) this includes this like the worm describe in your paper, clams running away when someone is trying to eat them, plants producing toxic chemicals when someone is trying to chop it or even you removing your hand after touching a hot pan

But the mental state that we call suffering offers no additional selective benefit , the tree will produce chemicals anyway regardless if it’s just reacting or feeling in actual conscious pain and suffering, feeling conscious pain wouldn’t represent an additional benefit for the tree, nor the worm, nor the clam.

ave strong intellectual pathways which also gave us more emotional and philosophical abilities

Why would Natural Selection and random mutations build pathways that produce philosophical abilities?