On 07.08.2011 17:12 Craig Weinberg said the following:
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

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.

It seems that pain is some brain function, see for example


I have just searched in Google

people that do not experience pain

and this was the first link.

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.

A signal from neuron has electrical nature (see neuron spikes). Experiments show that brain operates at about 10 ms and this could be a typical reaction time. Pain (and consciousness experience in general) requires however say 200 ms. So, as I have said, first the action is made unconsciously and only after that comes pain. Hence pain could not be the cause for the action.

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.

Sure, I completely agree.

I have not meant that your theory is wrong. I just wanted to say that when you sell your theory to other people, it might be good to start talking their language. Well, sales is a hard problem on its own.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to