On Aug 7, 10:31 am, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> On 07.08.2011 14:51 Craig Weinberg said the following:
> > The pain comes to 'us' after the event. That's not to say that the
> > cells of your burned finger are not in pain already. Cellular pain
> > may not be the same experience of course as a trillion cell human
> > being's version of it. We have to ramp up the significance of the
> > sensation. Cells die all the time, so their damage may not feel as
> > 'expensive' to us who, all things considered, consider our own
> > fingers pretty highly.
> Whether individual cells can experience pain is, I guess, an open
> question. It seems that there are no experimental results to this end.
Are we not composed of individual cells? If groups of cells can
experience pain, it seems at least as likely that the pain experience
is in some way an aggregate of fractional pain experiences rather than
emerging spontaneously out of a complete absence of awareness,
especially when there is no biological advantage for any kind of
experience to exist at all.
> What I meant was that the action to remove the hand is done
> unconsciously. I am not sure that pain in cells is the reason, in my
> view rather sensor neurons give signals to the brain and then it causes
> the action. All this however happens unconsciously and pain as we feel
> it comes after the action.
I understand the neuro-mechanical view, I just think that it's a
prejudiced interpretation of the data. The signal that the sensor
neurons give to the brain are none other than pain. Sure, it may get
amplified as the brain experiences it, as it invited cognitive
associations and memories, rattles around in the executive processing
senate, etc., but there is no reason to assume that the primary input
of the sense organ is anything less than sense itself. What is a
'signal' made of? On the outside it's orderly changes we can observe
occurring in matter, on the inside, in our own case, we can experience
changes in what we feel and think. They are the same phenomenon, only
seen from two different (opposite) perspectives. The experience of
pain spread through the tissues of the body like a crowd wave,
including the nervous system, which is a kind of expressway for
politicizing the experiences of the body and through the body.
> > As far as the book, it looks good at the beginning but then seems
> > like it creeps back down away from the hard problem. Most of what you
> The book considers experimental results and the Hard Problem is
> formulated in the context of experimental research. The book actually
> offers no solution, its goal rather to show the problem. To this end,
> the authors first tries to employ normal scientific knowledge as long as
> he can. This is why I like it. Yet, the book states pretty clear that
> the Hard Problem (Qualia) is right now incompatible with contemporary
> scientific knowledge.
That's why I like it too. I see my ideas as picking up where he leaves
off, and I think that it possibly may solve the problem by showing it
in a new light, stripped of it's original assumptions.
> > have quoted I agree with and have considered often. Here's my answers
> > to his qualia questions:
> Thanks. The problem is that you use your own language to model the world
> and it seems to be far away from that I get used to, hence no comments
> from my side here.
It may be a problem for others, but I think that it is the truth
nevertheless. I don't think that the truth has to fit into what people
have gotten used to.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at