[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Laycock, Jos (OSPT)]

Dont really know where to start, are you drunk man?
It's addressed to SA although he isn't mentioned?
Also you've blended me and case together in some bits and then in others
shown things I said as quotes from him and vica versa - I hope this was an
accident?

My entire description below shows that "pain" is subjective, my use of the
word "response" cannot negate the rest of the paragraph. 
I re-state:
If negative qaulity is expressed, that expression permeates all static
levels and is percieved at the top as the emotion pain. It is also however
manifest at the lower levels in different forms, some of these forms can be
described by analogies traditionaly applied to objective phenomena (eg nerve
firing patterns.)

This is entirely MOQ compatible, it has nothing in particular to do with
proprietry awarenss so can't be a misrepresentation of it.

You seem to want to tell scientists what they believe, on what grounds?
experiments are conducted because they are practical and useful, they say
nothing about belief.

(If you're disgusted by the anolgy go be disgusted by Platt he started it.)

Misrepresentation?
please.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: 24 August 2006 01:37
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Ham on Esthesia
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by 
> the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service 
> supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with 
> MessageLabs.
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed 
> service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM 
> Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality 
> mark initiative for information security products and 
> services.  For more information about this please visit 
www.cctmark.gov.uk


This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.



The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi)  virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services.  For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk