“It's not really relevant because it doesn't refute, support or amend my point.” – BG
First, I don’t play by whatever rules you appear to demand. I discuss things. I add things. I comment on things etc. Formal debate is not my goal. This said, I still question your axiom that “That [inherent? back pain] happens without cause in a lot of cases.” This is why I added possible other causes that may be overlooked. And, the notion of “inherent back pain” itself is suspect and was another cause for me to add possible unexamined causes. Now I do admit that I am generally ignorant when it comes to both evolution and any possible ‘inherent back pain’. Perhaps you supported your claim earlier. Perhaps you defined your terms earlier. If so, I clearly missed it. So…even now when you say “…that humans have a particularly common problem with back pain as a result of our recent change to walking on our hind legs, and this is true.”, it would appear that one must either already know this ‘truth’ or blindly accept it as fact. So far, I do neither. On Jul 21, 12:56 pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not really relevant because it doesn't refute, support or amend > my point. > > Evolution did us a good turn by providing us with pain in general. It > did give us a cue to alter the way we were doing things, or a warning > not to do certain things again. Yes, pain that you experience in your > back included in this, and yes, back pain can be an indication that we > are to do things differently, or not do certain things again. But > evolution has not done us a good turn with regards to the switch to > walking on our hind legs as rapidly as we did, as that has caused a > physiological problem which results in inherent back problems and > chronic pain. This pain is not an indication that we need to do things > differently, or avoid certain things. It is pain that has resulted > from too rapid a change in our walking practieces coupled with a not- > rapid-enough change in our physiology to cope with it. > > Not all back pain is a result of this, and I never said it was. I > simply said that humans have a particularly common problem with back > pain as a result of our recent change to walking on our hind legs, and > this is true. > > On Jul 21, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “…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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
