“…We cannot learn not to do something by having inherent physiological back pain. That happens without cause in a lot of cases.” – GM
As to the last part of your sentence, I intentionally left it off. What I am suggesting is that many cases of back pain, although appearing to be ‘inherent’, need not be. A few examples would include back pain that turns out to be kidney pain…sometimes merely due to inadequate amounts of liquid intake. Also, mere tension and/or poor posture can cause back pain. The pain in this case can tell us that we need to relax and/or carry ourselves differently. Also, without going into detail, other medical modalities identify numerous different causes/treatments and cures for back pains than the western AMA model. In all cases, “we” have much to learn about this topic. On Jul 21, 2:16 am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > Please, don't omit the end of the sentence, which I feel is all > important. > > We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than that > we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals which walk > on its hind legs<b> - and that's not a lesson for us.</b> > > It's not a lesson for us, because it was not 'us' who consciously > decided that we would walk on our hind legs and abandon our front > paws. It wasn't even our ancestors. Nobody consciously decided that > this should happen, so it is not a lesson for anyone to learn. > > I was refuting the point that all pain acts as a warning for us to > learn not to do something again. To teach us a lesson about touching > fire, etc. I was saying that, yes, situational pain such as being > burnt by touching fire serves the purposes of teaching us not to do > such things. But chronic physiological pain does not 'teach' us any > lessons. We cannot learn not to do something by having inherent > physiological back pain. That happens without cause in a lot of cases. > > On Jul 21, 12:27 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “…We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than > > that we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals which > > walk on its hind legs…” – GM > > > This is quite a sweeping commentary Garrie. I would posit that the > > ‘we’ you suggest here have much to learn about this specific topic. > > > On Jul 20, 11:35 am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Situational pain is an evolutionary benefit, but chronic phsyiological > > > pain as the result of our particular course of evolution is not. > > > > We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than that > > > we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals which walk > > > on its hind legs - and that's not a lesson for us. > > > > A comparison to things like back pain is within the species of the > > > Cheetah. Cheetah's have had to evolve rather quickly to account for > > > the increasing speed of their prey. Their physiology, however, is > > > having a hard time compensating for these changes, and as such, the > > > modern cheetah has very chronic inherent problems with its limbs. This > > > is largely the reason why the modern cheetah is near extinction. That > > > kind of pain and suffering simply isn't beneficial to the species. > > > Situational pain and suffering is, I grant you. But that's not what > > > we're discussion when we talk about the things I was talking about. > > > > On Jul 20, 4:27 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "Natural selection has no inclination to remove the > > > > > > characteristics which cause us great pain and discomfort. Natural > > > > > selection doesn't care if we live or die. " and while careful to not > > > > > be interpreted as asserting the opposite again I claim: Facts not in > > > > > evidence. You just don't know. > > > > > I missed this quote in the original so I might be taking it out of > > > > context but our vulnerabilities to pain and discomfort are absolutely > > > > a survival benefit. We learn what not to do and how to be more > > > > careful by learning what causes us pain. Some people with rare > > > > conditions don't experience pain and have to be very, very careful to > > > > avoid injury. Lepers come to mind. Various neurological disorders > > > > that might cause insensitivity to pain are very dangerous. > > > > > djOn Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Justintruth<[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > It seems like a ridiculous argument to me. With regard to "After all, > > > > > sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for 1 > > > > > third of our lives.." > > > > > > First, it seems that by sleeping we stop moving around. To a nocturnal > > > > > predator we might be MORE vulnerable at night if we stayed awake and > > > > > thrashed around alerting them to our presence. But even with that, the > > > > > fact that we build fires and post guards and are "afraid of the > > > > > dark".... I am just not sure if we are more vulnerable at night. It > > > > > would be interesting to check experimentally whether species that > > > > > sleep are more vulnerable at night or whether their daytime activity > > > > > is the necessary risk they take to get food and they actually die in > > > > > greater numbers when awake. The little I remember of my childhood says > > > > > that I was "...tucked *safely* away in my bed". Also it would be > > > > > interesting to compare caloric consumption in sleep and out of it. > > > > > Both are "facts not in evidence" to me. > > > > > > In any case it seems that tuning to nighttime or daytime environments > > > > > is very fundamental in evolution. See:" Is Evolution an Algorithmic > > > > > Process?" onwww.researchchannel.org. There is a distinct survival > > > > > BENEFIT in being either nocturnal or a daytime species. Given that > > > > > fact, it seems that sleeping is a good choice and as it is akin to > > > > > hiding, it is probable it provides a survival advantage. > > > > > > But then we know it does don't we? By the circular logic of evolution: > > > > > If it has a survival benefit it survives implies that if it survived > > > > > it must have a survival benefit! ;) > > > > > > As for this: "Natural selection has no inclination to remove the > > > > > characteristics which cause us great pain and discomfort. Natural > > > > > selection doesn't care if we live or die. " and while careful to not > > > > > be interpreted as asserting the opposite again I claim: Facts not in > > > > > evidence. You just don't know. > > > > > > On Jul 19, 12:52 pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Jim, > > > > > >> In evolutionary terms, the most important goal is to hand down your > > > > >> genes. The prerequisites to this goal are reproduction and survival. > > > > >> Therefore, there is NOTHING more important than survival in > > > > >> evolutionary terms. > > > > > >> So no, I wouldn't say that sleep serves a purpose more important than > > > > >> survival. I would say that sleep serves the purpose of survival, in > > > > >> fact. > > > > > >> You are entirely right that sleep makes the sleeper vulnerable to > > > > >> prey > > > > >> that is not asleep. But natural selection does not know this. > > > > > >> Many people see evolution and natural selection as independent > > > > >> conscious agents who constantly and actively refine the organism to > > > > >> make it better and better at surviving. This just isn't the case. > > > > >> Natural selection and evolution aren't 'aware' of anything. They do > > > > >> not know that sleeps makes up vulnerable. I daresay that if evolution > > > > >> and natural selection were conscious creative agents, then sleep > > > > >> would > > > > >> have been abolished long ago. > > > > > >> It hasn't though. Why? This is your question, I believe. Why haven't > > > > >> we evolved to not require sleep, when in fact, it is a danger to the > > > > >> organism to be a sleep. > > > > > >> Well first of all, let me say that sleep is not the only phenomenon > > > > >> of > > > > >> living creatures which would seem to be a disadvantage to individual > > > > >> survival. Let me introduce to you a few of them within our own > > > > >> species: > > > > > >> 1) The human brain. > > > > > >> Around 2 to 2.5 million years ago, our ancestors had brains with a > > > > >> volume of only 400 cubic centimetres. Around that period, it bloomed > > > > >> to about 650 cubic centimetres. Around 500,000 years ago, it jumped > > > > >> to > > > > >> 1,200 cubic centimetres. And then around 150,000 to 200,000 years > > > > >> ago, > > > > >> when the first 'homo sapiens' walked the plains of africa, it jumped > > > > >> to its current volume of around 1,400 cubic centimetres. > > > > > >> But the problems that came from the increase in the volume of the > > > > >> brain were quite substantial. For starts, millions upon millions of > > > > >> women have died in the last 200,000 years because their pelvises have > > > > >> been unable to pass the head of a baby needed to house this massive > > > > >> organ. Quite a lot of the time, the baby perished too. > > > > > >> Not only that, but the brain takes up one fifth of the entire human > > > > >> energy reserve. So 200,000 years ago, our ancestors found themselves > > > > >> having to hunt and eat a lot more food than they had to when their > > > > >> brains were only 400 cubic centimetres. > > > > > >> Our heads are now so heavy that the risk of a human suffering from a > > > > >> broken neck is massive compared to that of our chimpanzee cousins. > > > > > >> 2) Walking on 2 legs. > > > > > >> Humans still haven't adapted to walking to 2 legs as fully as they > > > > >> could be. Walking on two legs is a relatively recent practice among > > > > >> the species, and as such, we haven't quite had the chance to > > > > >> assimilate to it. The statistics for the number of humans with > > > > >> chronic > > > > >> back problems are enough to convey this, and almost every single > > > > >> human > > > > >> will have personal experience of it at one point in their lives. > > > > >> Going > > > > >> back 200,000 years, the notion of back trouble was even more daunting > > > > >> than it is today. For us it means annoyance when rising from our > > > > >> chairs, but for our ancestors it was the difference between escaping > > > > >> predators and being gored to death. It was the difference between > > > > >> catching the extra prey necessary to provide the energy that our > > > > >> brains required and lying on the african plains, dying from > > > > >> starvation. It was the difference between between being sexually > > > > >> attractive and sexually selected, and being cast aside to die without > > > > >> ever passing on their genetic codes. > > > > > >> So why oh why has natural selection not ridded us of these burdens? > > > > > >> Well, because Natural Selection really doesn't care. Natural > > > > >> selection > > > > >> is indifferent to what makes us vulnerable. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
