[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Ham Priday]

SA --


Jos asked:
> From your studies in neurosciences how far have things
> gotten with those cool fancy color images of the brain at
> work? Are those hard to get and require injecting people
> with radioactive stuff and tons of expensive equipment?
>
> What would you say the neurosciences tell us about the
> nature of consciousness beyond what you say below?

Case replied:

> Ham, this is completely inaccurate. There are a whole range
> of "neuropathic pain" states where individuals perceive immense
> discomfort and pain without any external stimulus.  People here
> seem to like to refer to pain as an objective commodity, (direct
> from the meat). The basing this on objective "scientific"
> evidence they then go on to use it as part of an argument
> against biologically derived consciousness.
> I can report that this is a misrepresentation of scientific
> opinion. Having trained as a neuroscientist I can assure you
> that all collegues and supervisors of mine were in complete
> agreement in their description of pain an emotional response.
> The meat derived element is generally described as
> "nociceptive stimulus" but the interpretation of that stimulus
< (pain) is a non objective experience derived from consciousness.
> Awareness includes more subtle sensibilities than pain.

It's interesting that you define the phenomenon of pain as a "response".
This makes the sensation objective (or universal), thus validating it
scientifically.  But the experience of pain is proprietary to the individual
subject and, therefore, is not a transferable or universal phenomenon.  It
is proprietary to the individual who experiences it.  I do not contest the
fact that pain is produced by truuma to
injured nerve cells.  But the experience of pain is proprietary to the
individual.  It is a subjective experience, and no amount of objective
evidence is going to explain it away.  There is a significant difference
between what is diagnostically recorded as the patient's "complaint of
experiencing pain" and the actual experience.

> All of these supposed "higher" or more subtle forms of
> awareness are no different from Pain; in fact they are
> absolutely intertwined with it and its role in consciousness.
> They are the other end of the same see-saw, we strive
> for the good stuff and move away from pain. Nociceptive
> stimulus is meat, but it no more defines "pain" than the
> firing pattern of certain cells in your amygdala defines love.

Any and all awareness is proprietary to the individual.  It is not universal
experience, and the attempt to define it in terms of a behavioral response
is a misrepresentation.  This is another example of Science defining
proprietary awareness in terms of behavior, which is an objective perversion
of subjectivity.

> Consciousness doesn't "emerge from a lump of meat",
> part of it is below the meat, part of it is the meat, part of it
> is written on top of the meat. The meat resides in
> consciousness and the two are interdependent.

The root of consciousness is self-awareness.  Tnis can no more be
universalized
than can the experience of love, joy, or contentment.  The fact that
subjectivity is inimical to Science does not mean that it does not exist.
Rather, it demonstrates the fact that Science is incapable of dealing with
subjective phenomena.  The scientist is bound to the objectivist approach to
knowledge, which is to disregard or remove subjective influences from the
objects of investigation.  The "meat" analogy of conscious awareness is not
only grossly disgusting, it is a total misconception of proprietary
awareness.

Regards,
Ham