This page is on my watchlist. If you write on it, then I will read you. Robert Daoust

Robert, I stumbled across the article on suffering and your request for collaborators to join you in editing it. While, after reading your website, I haven't had your lifelong fascination with suffering, I would like to collaborate with you. My personal interest is in philosophical anthropology and therefore suffering as an aspect of the human condition. Equipoise 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very well! How shall we begin? Do you have any suggestion? Robert Daoust 06:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert, shall we take this to the suffering talk page? I've made initial comments there. Looking forward to working with you, and anyone else who joins. Equipoise 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:250px-The_Scream.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Hi Robert. I've been making and proposing changes. I just realised one of the changes I had made before and you had objected to it: deleting "Nociception" from the Terminology list. I've put my reasons on the talk page and welcome your thoughts. `Anthony (talk)

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in getting people to vote about this picture which was just removed from the sacrifice article, so am contacting some of the folks who have contributed to the page. Please consider taking a few minutes, looking it over, and voicing an opinion. Thanks. Carptrash 04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you fo stopping by and leaving an opinion. Carptrash 15:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS Here is a painting on a nearby rock that watched the whole scene, but who is not, unfortunately, talking. Carptrash 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! Robert Daoust 17:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hiii Robert i dont know wat is the wrong with the article now, it leads correctly to the article i made in the arabic wikipedia, and in arabic معاناة=ألم like pain and suffering --Mmustafa 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hii robert i made now a link in Pain and nociception to the same arabic article, may be in the future i will make a seperate article, and thank u very much for help --Mmustafa 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your involvement in bringing some order to the category emotion. I see that you are removing many articles from the category, but please remember that the present meaning of 'emotion' as a category is as a matter of fact 'anything closely related to affective states and processes'. As you must have seen, the category might soon be renamed, and several new subcategories might be created. So, your work could probably be more useful now if you would take part to the discussion going on about the category emotion, rather than removing inappropriate links: we need to create more appropriate ones, like perhaps Category:Religion (affective aspects), if you see what I mean.... Robert Daoust 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be a badly named category as so many inappropriate articles are in it. The link you sent, Category:Religion (affective aspects) is red-linked however. Also, I am a psychologist and not really interested in religion. I understand that the affective components for religion may be much different than in Psychology and so Category:Religion (affective aspects) seems like a needed category to separate the two very different disciplines. Where is this discussion taking place? Regards, --Mattisse 23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion main page is at Category_talk:Emotion. The link above is red because I just created it as an example. I understand your concern with psychology vs religion, but categories in Wikipedia do not form a tree: see Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories_do_not_form_a_tree. Thus disciplines may be intermingled... Robert Daoust 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could have used you when the speedy-delete police were after me when I was starting the Habits article. I think it's OK, but there are bunch of "watchers". I would like it if you could take a look at a new stub I started for Valence (psychology). The underconstruction tag is there to ward off evil spirits from the speedy-delete squad. In my copious free time I will look at the categories thing and undiscussed, unilateral categorization changes. DCDuring 17:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good. Do not miss http://polorovereto.unitn.it/~colombetti/docs/GC_AppraisingValence05.pdf. --Robert Daoust 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I liked the article. I extracted a couple of points and put it in the See Also. I'll probably pull some specific footnotes. Thanks a bunch. DCDuring 22:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truly I am. And I apologize for being too direct and most likely impolite. It is just that I believe you were/are misguided in your plan and it would have been catastrophe for categories in Psychology. But actually, that would not be a horrible outcome, as it might wake Psychologists up to the horrible mess of articles considered "Psychology" and the tremendous number of uncategorized articles resulting from editors misunderstanding the category system, believing it to be a tree and therefore adding the category "Psychology" unnecessarily when it is already in the super category.

Again, I apologize for being harsh. But just me, one person, is not enough to stop your crusade. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who would be involved with your plan if they knew about it. I only found out accidentally by taking on a Wikipedia cleanup task. You need to publish your intentions far and wide. If you did as you propose regarding category renaming, it would have a huge effect so many, many more people need to be notified of your plan. Regards, --Mattisse 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuses and encouragements well received. Thanks. --Robert Daoust 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've just made an alternative proposal regarding the renaming of Category:Emotion, and I thought you might like to comment before the discussion closes. Thanks. Cgingold 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message regarding the panetics article's deletion. I wondered if we might be able to create a decent article on Ralph G.H. Siu? Let me know if you're interested. --John (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said you agree with the closing administrator: I can understand you, one or two sources of notability are still missing... I believe they will be found soon. As about Ralph Siu, I am not available, but that article has definitely to be done. In any event, I will give you notice when I hear of someone doing it. Thanks. --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've moved the articles to User:Robert Daoust/Ralph G.H. Siu and User:Robert Daoust/Panetics. Keep in mind that unless the issues raised in the AfDs are addressed, the articles will likely be re-deleted. Good luck. Tijuana Brass (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you much. I'll make sure everything will be done appropriately. --Robert Daoust (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the new page: Ralph Siu. --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure that linking to the Judge article/page is going to help win favors - I understand the frustration in having your work deleted, but the guidelines of verifiability and notability exist to filter out content which isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. It's a tough line to walk, and editors often err on the side of deletion (for better or for worse). However, on an article that you have a personal stake in, pointing others to something like this can cause bad feelings. Assume good faith on the part of editors, even when it may seem otherwise, and you'll have an easier time recruiting help.

At any rate, the improvements are a good start on addressing the AfD issues. There's a better case for notability here, but it could use additional references that aren't related to panetics or appear to come from Siu himself. Maybe something from the federal government regarding to his appointment under Johnson? It'd help flesh things out. Also, including ISBN numbers for Siu's books will help; you can refer to the bibliography at Buckminster Fuller for a good example of how it's done.

Oh, by the way, don't take the "marginally notable" comment personally. I tend to interpret the guideline strictly; sometimes the brief nature of edit summaries don't allow a fuller explanation. Sorry if it came off in a condescending manner. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert,

Checked you're contribs and you're at around 700! Ya big noob :) So I thought I'd offer an essay I wrote for new editors (User:WLU/Generic sandbox) and any help that you may want with editing and whatnot. I like helping people out, it's fun. WLU (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings to you WLU, and thank you so much! I like your essay: there is always something to learn... I offer back to you my best collaborative effort. Cheers! --Robert Daoust (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! If you're accepting recommendations, I'd say install WP:POPUPS or User:Wikidudeman's hodgepodge. Tools are not invaluable, but they are incredibly handy. It's up to you, but they're insanely handy for editing. If nothing else than for the preview, which allows you to see if a wikilink ends up being a redirect. Or any tool really, they're all good at different tasks. `WLU (talk)

Thanks. I do use popups for looking at links without going to pages, but I can't see any editing function that I would use somewhat regularly! --Robert Daoust (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I can source that: Try this news article], which is in response to [this claim]. The IASP-style definitions of pain specifically require a neocortex so you can "understand" the nociception. I'm not saying that this definition or that definition is the One True Defintion™, or that every scientist agrees with the IASP definition. (Clearly some of them don't.)

What's interesting to me is the application of the definitions. What seems to happen when people talk about pain is this: "I believe the IASP-style definition, and according to that, fish don't feel pain. Therefore it's scientifically proven that fish always live a pain-free life." I'm sure you can see the fallacy here.

My two goals for the pain article are to show the diversity of definitions for pain (including a very short section that begins with ((Main|suffering)) instead of just a hatnote) and to show how the applications of these definitions affect the world. So IASP-style scientists says that fish can't experience pain; PETA will (I'm guessing) say that they avoid situations that would stimulate the nociceptors, and therefore fish clearly do experience pain. We need all views represented here.

And this talk about fish has reminded me that it's time for this omnivore to eat her lunch.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing in IASP definition requires a neocortex, except in the opinion of a few scientists. Pain specialists who studied pain in various animal species do attribute pain to fishes. Sources to come, if you wish. But I agree much with your goals. We need all views. --Robert Daoust (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of McGill Pain Questionnaire, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: McGill pain index. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of your last edits to pain have had "modifications" as their edit summary. I would suggest that perhaps you ought to be a bit more specific. JFW | T@lk 06:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. For the major intensive revision that I did, it became impracticable to specify the nature or motivation of each edit. It's all done now, so my edit summaries should come back to normal:-). --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The debate on the article has been rather heated, and has been a waste of resources and time. I disagree with your interpretation, but hope we all walk away from this with no hard feelings. Cordially, --evrik ^(talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for the olive branch. Waste of resources and time indeed, except that the debate might allow us to learn how to deal with similar issues in the future. Amicably, --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that, Robert. You're right.

Probably in the back of my mind was a reported statement of the Buddha. Anananda, his secretary, is said to have asked him, "Would it be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness & compassion is a part of our practice? " To which the Buddha replied, "No. It would not be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness & compassion is part of our practice. It would be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness & compassion is all of our practice."

I shall try and find a reference for what I suspected at the time was a somewhat audacious assertion - most likely in the writings of the comparative religionist Karen Armstrong.

P.S. Your advocacy of the need for a recognized discipline called algonomy is important & wonderful. Thank you also for your user page, which I have bookmarked; I'm sure I shall find its tips most useful in the future.

Regards, Wingspeed (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. May our collaboration on Wikipedia be fruitful. Regards, --Robert Daoust (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just thought: What if we change it to: "Ranked a great virtue in numerous philosophies, compassion is considered in all the major religious traditions as among the greatest of virtues."? That tones it down. Wingspeed (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent correction (19 August). Thank you.--Dampinograaf (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. --Robert Daoust (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HI, I had my first look at the Pain article in over 6 months and two things struck me : 1. My prediction of before the "Pain and nociception" split that nociception would still figure large on the page is correct. and 2. The new version is superb; clear, concise, understandable. Great work. SmithBlue (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! Thanks a lot. So it is because of you too. I am surprised that there has been no substantial contribution to the article since many months now. Much could still be done about such a topic. --Robert Daoust (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Robert,

Fixed_fantasy has an Unreferenced citation - I would like to get the appropriate references. The original author and most substantive contributor, DashaKat, has had his/her user pages deleted.

Can you help me find Wikipedia user DashaKat? It looks like you communicated with him/her in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology/Archive_2#Request_for_assistance

I appreciate any assistance and apologize in advance if this is not the appropriate place to ask this question.

Thank you. DTPCucurbita (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I cannot be of any help. Good luck! --Robert Daoust (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reply to your message User talk:KYPark#New encyclopedism.

Hi Bob! It's nice of you to call me "Kyung-Youn" for the first time. Perhaps the best-known new encyclopedist H. G. Wells (1938) coined or at least used the very term, and Reginald Arthur Smith (1941) apparently seconded it in Towards a living Encyclopædia: A Contribution to Mr. Wells's New Encyclopædism ( London: Andrew Dakers). You would be furthermore convinced if you read this startup in pdf. In addition, you may google the term. Good luck! --KYPark (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the two external links and some extra information. I was surprised a bit at New encyclopedism newly created with marginal contents. I hope it could soon turn out a great stirrup. --KYPark (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's a better picture to be honest, a baby crying is doing so for attention generally, not being able to speak, not because it's "suffering".----occono (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, in every picture there is a part of interpretation. The crying woman of your "Deportation von Juden" might be just pleading rather than suffering: "Please, can I go to the bathroom?" Moreover, that picture was heavily loaded from an editorial viewpoint... A Palestinian might have said: "They are again taking Jewish suffering as the symbol of all suffering." A crying baby is more universal and uncontroversial. And it's cute! --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be cute but that's hardly appropriate for suffering, though. A crying baby just doesn't represent "Suffering" to me. I'm going to take it out, if you don't mind. Maybe I can find something less politically charged.----occono (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonjour Anthony. I am happy to see that work is being done on Pain. I cannot be involved now, but am following with great interest. I see that you wrote to Bud Craig. He is wonderful, but I am afraid his conception of consciousness is limited to self-consciousness. As far as I can understand, only animals who succeed in the mirror test are sentient, according to his theory that a functional insula is indispensable for producing a sentient mind that can feel. On another subject, congrats for starting the Dimensions section. We will have to explain somewhat or describe what are the three dimensions. Including Rainville's work in the section is a good idea, and it can be linked ideed to the conceptual model of Melzack and Casey, but I am wondering if the following sentences can be said:

"They theorized that pain's unpleasantness varies independently of its intensity"

"cognitive activities (...) can influence both unpleasantness and intensity"

"over the last forty years the effect of thinking on the intensity and unpleasantness of pain has been closely studied"

"In 1997 Rainville and colleagues[21] tested Melzack and Casey's 1968 model"

Happy trail! --Robert Daoust (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. Do you mind if I paste this discussion onto the Pain Discussion page? It may be Useful to get other people's thoughts on this. Anthony (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I've done it. --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day Robert I have attempted to address your comments at Talk Dimensions of Pain. I got a reply from Prof. Craig. He mentioned you and he have been corresponding and said he would look in as soon as he gets a chance. Anthony (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert Thank you for your acknowledgment. I'm pretty bedridden these days, so have a lot of time on my hands. Do let me know if I'm being too savage here. I have emailed Ken Casey and asked if he could supply us with a photo of himself in 1968 for the article. He seems willing and thinks he can get one of Melzack of the same vintage, too. I've emailed the creative commons release form. Anthony (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert
When you said "Seems okay to me" did you mean the paragraph is okay or it's okay to delete? Anthony (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See response on Talk:Pain. --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this link talks a little about the good/bad welfare confusion. It might deserve mention further down the lead section or in the article body, but I don't think adding "good or bad" to the first sentence is a good solution. --Dodo bird (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. I've been making and proposing changes and just realised one of the changes I had made before and you had objected: Deleting "Nociception" from Terminology. I have put my reasons on Pain#talk and welcome your thoughts. Anthony (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See response on Talk:Pain. --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a merry Christmas, Robert! Anthony (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You too, dear friend on the far side of the globe, and may our work begin to yield its best in the year to come! --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all cool with me. Anthony (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At Talk:Chronic pain I'm proposing moving the pain management stuff into Pain management which is where I think it belongs, and which lacks this kind of detail; and replacing it with a summary paragraph about pain management with a "Main article" link to Pain management. (I'm going out now.) Anthony (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. I hope that wasn't offensive of me, dumping all that stuff onto your contribution. But yours got me very interested in the (extremely relevant) subject which I had hitherto not thought about, so I did an all-nighter, and couldn't resist the urge to insert what I found. Anthony (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! You whole contribution to this article, and others on the same topic, is becoming quite invaluable! I will copy your edit into Pain management... --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice contribution, man. What do you think about moving Under-treatment up to the first place under the lead? I think it deserves maximum prominence. Anthony (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think pain management is larger than 'pain medicine'. Presently the article is built as a pain medicine article and it would be strange not to explain what is the field before showing how it is lacking or could be improved... BTW, I should have told you before: I made a copy many months ago of your pebble 'pure gem' story. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, you're saying, apart from that branch of medicine that calls itself "Pain Management" there is simply pain management - what individuals and society have done to deal with pain? You're right, of course, about not making Under-treatment the first section. It would have been beyond controversial. Still, I wonder how many people never get down to the bottom of the article. You're welcome. Anthony (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. I haven't forgotten our discussion. I'm very lethargic at the moment and avoiding difficult thought. I shall resume the dialogue when my energy levels are up a bit. Take care. Anthony (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robert. I just saw this: "There are a couple of good editors at Pain, so I hope that if they agree, one of them will undertake the work." at WikiProject Medicine. I am having a break from thinking about medicine-related articles over at Christ myth theory where there's a bit of biffo. How are you doing? Anthony (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am doing fine, thanks. I am mostly reorienting my activities toward more practical jobs in algonomy than those that I did until now. Unless there is more collaboration in Wikipedia about pain in the broad sense, I am probably going to be only a sporadical editor here... --Robert Daoust (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am amazed at the lack of interest in pain-in-the-broad-sense. Or physical pain, for that matter. I think it is simply because to contemplate pain and suffering is to conjure it up. Why would you want to do that? I just wish I had more energy. You know, I think the executive function deficit and vulnerability to negative affect that I experience with pain is common to all homeostatic emotions. And, of course, social pain. But I can't find that proposition anywhere in "the literature." If you see that or evidence in support, could you alert me please? Is there anything you want me to keep an eye out for? (Though I'm not looking in the right places at the moment.) Anthony (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the open eye, Anthony, your messages are always welcome. I will keep an eye out myself since I continue to check my watchlist. As to your question about deficit and vulnerability with respect to homeostatic emotions, I am not sure to understand it. Are you looking, for instance, for an article linking hunger and that kind of effects? Concerning the 'lack of interest', this blog entry is worth seeing: http://reducing-suffering.blogspot.com/2010/04/salience-and-motivation.html. --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comments were right on the money! And yes, if you notice anything about the effect of hunger, low blood sugar, high blood pressure - any homeostatic imbalance - on cognition or affect, think of me. Anthony (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I had no notion of its existence. Early days, though. Have you seen this? Anthony (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I had read about the Google-Wikipedia project on health, but did not made the obvious link with Medpedia... There seems to be a strange duplication of efforts! Are people at WikiProject Medicine aware of Medpedia? --Robert Daoust (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having several efforts of this kind may be a good thing. Let a thousand flowers bloom! Anthony (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I'd continue this here, in case others may be interested in joining in. Just remove if you'd rather keep it private.

>If you search for 'social' in that journal, you get some 1,000 results, many of which with relation indeed to what I would call social pain.

OK. There are a few, but disappointingly few.

>As you wrote before, "There is no sensory/discriminative dimension to social pain." Whatever neural origins or substrates are assumed, physical pain and social pain are two different things, and what is "unique" to one cannot also belong to the other. However, unpleasantness is common to both...

Yes, but Eisenberger and Lieberman propose physical pain and rejection share not only ACC activity (distress/suffering/unpleasantness) but also AI activity - which Craig says is the feeling unique to pain. If this is so, they have a legitimate claim to calling both feelings "pain". But, as I said, fMRI spatial resolution is so low that the "feeling" of pain and the "feeling" of rejection may be adjacent, rather than overlapping, in the AI; like the feelings of nausea and itch are located in the AI but not (I think) overlapping. It makes no difference to my thesis, so, for now, I'm assuming Eisenberger and Lieberman's position for simplicity's sake, since they are a primary source for the thesis.

>People with CIDA are missing both, as far as physical pain is concerned. They do not feel noxious stimuli as noxious, to begin with. They have no nociceptive or neuropathic pain. However they know unpleasantness and aversiveness because they are apt to suffer mentally. As to a word-concept-thing difference, I imagine that it is possible to have unpleasantness or aversiveness without each other: the first is 'affective', the second 'conative'.

Mmm. People with cingulotomy recognise the feeling as pain - so I guess that means their AI function is normal - but say it doesn't bother them. I guess that meens no urge to escape. But do they describe it as unpleasant, and does the unpleasantness vary with stimulus intensity? If they claim the latter, that proves a distinction between aversiveness and unpleasantness. Just thinking out loud, here. I really should get off my arce and do some reading.

>I can understand that mild physical pain would give rise to distress. I think however that such a distress, be it mild or severe, is surely characterized by a high intensity of mental suffering, otherwise it would not be distress, it would be annoyance or worry or anxiety or whatever other less intense mental suffering. Again, problems may crop up with the use of words like intense and mild, which can mean anything and its contrary...

Are you saying that, for you, the distress of pain is categorical rather than dimensional: it is either there or it is not and it doesn't come in degrees of intensity? By distress I only mean the unpleasantness/aversiveness. (Language again!) I'm beginning to think I might replace "distress" with "unpleasantness". "Distress" is too entangled with anxiety.

Cheers

Anthony (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you tell I just got a delivery from Amazon? Anthony (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melzack's books are great! --Robert Daoust (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm reading "Feeling pain and being in pain" by Grahek, about pain asymbolia. Do I remember you mentioning it? My university email system has been crashed for a week; I'll respond to your last when I can get to it. I hope you are well. Anthony (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I must have mentioned it. Don't miss Murat Aydede's review of Grahek's book: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=12023. Hope you're well too. --Robert Daoust (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you a member? Anthony (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. I have been a member of Canadian Pain Society, but now I only take (very little) part in Canadian Pain Coalition. I have a question for you. When you speak of pain or suffering to people, they may ask whether you mean physical or mental-psychological-emotional... Which of the latter three words will they most often use? --Robert Daoust (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe emotional, psychological and mental in declining order of frequency - though there's not a lot in it. I think "mental" is more often coupled with anguish than pain. Anthony (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wishing you joy my friend. Anthony (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had a lot since two days, indeed. Thanks, and same to you for this year ending and the new year beginning. --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I reviewed the article at Talk:Encyclopedia_of_World_Problems_and_Human_Potential/GA1. Unfortunately, it had some pretty large problems in relation to policies, that I cannot foresee being fixed in a timely manner, so I failed the review. However, I recommend that you revise the article, and ask lots of questions on the review page or the articles talk page, that way I can clarify any problems you may have with my assessment of the article, Sadads (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks Sadads, I will ask questions on the article talk page. --Robert Daoust (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's awesome. Feel free to mass revert me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you referring to, Anthony? --Robert Daoust (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I just saw your edits at [suffering]]: they are very good, thanks a lot? --Robert Daoust (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article's a great read and I think your massive list of examples of mental suffering at footnote 3 is amazing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work on Happiness. I am also interested in the topic of Suffering. We'll likely cross paths. Thank you again for your excellence. Best Wishes, Coronerreport (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Looking forward... Best wishes too. --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Encyclopedia - example of visualization.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a matter of fact, I am realizing that this image is not a part of the Encyclopedia of World Problems but of a sister work, and therefore it should be deleted! --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert Daoust. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Suffering has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Ten Pound Hammer. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert Daoust. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert Daoust. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Displeasure. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Displeasure until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Psychology Barnstar
		For over a decade of work improving articles relating to suffering. --Xurizuri (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Xurizuri! --Robert Daoust (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]