COLOUR

[untermensche]

Pain is sensed.

Pain is a subjective experience.

The damage to tissue sends a signal to the brain that reflexively creates the experience of pain from it. The brain gets no information about pain from damaged tissue. Bone breaking is not pain. Nerves being torn is not pain. A mechanical or chemical or thermal stimulus is not pain.

All the information about pain and color is in the brain and in it's systems that create experience.

That an organism responds to these inputs is all that is needed for the organism to avoid further damage by withdrawing, retracting, or crying out.

The experience of pain is a survival mechanism.

The mechanics of pain response are mostly unconscious in nature.

There is the experience too.

That is for the mind and for the mind to learn the things to avoid.

A very successful survival skill.

 

[fromderinside]

Do by reflexive do you intend to suggest neural clusters along the spinal cord are brain. Or are you trying to suggest consciousness produces responses in under 200 ms time frame that reflex actions take to execute? Most protective responses are reflexive not conscious responses. Pain acts on consciousness in much the way I described in my post. It does not produce protective action consciousness is based on activating fearful behavior and protective, self serving, and defensive mental behavior.

Most all pain induced response is reflexive, quick, retreating, defensive. That is the beauty of pain sense responsiveness.

Most of the time we are on either automatic learned behavior patterns or reflexive patterns, most of what we refer to as conscious behavior is historical recording and rationalization and recall. Humans really don't spend much time experiencing present activity anything. More likely we spend lots of time reminiscing and rehearsing and justifying. the advanced brain is capable of producing mc uch creative activity if we permit it. Generally though the conscious brain is busy justifying what it has done.

if you've ever boxed you know that a good fighter learns to make proper defensive move almost reflectively via practice and conditioning. If he had to be inventing during the fight he'd get killed.

I'm glad you brought up pain because it is the perfect exemplar on how we survive mainly by reflex.

I agree it is for the mind to learn things to avoid and take advantage. But that is leisure time activity not on the job activity.

 

[untermensche]

Do by reflexive do you intend to suggest neural clusters along the spinal cord are brain.

I suggest that if there is any activity that is not experienced that activity is not pain.

Pain is the experience.

There is more than pain. There is reflexive activity of muscles. Sometimes shutting down muscles and sometimes ramping up their tone.

Pain is a subjective experience and can be worsened with emotional input. It can be controlled by the mind as well. But usually only if that is practiced.

 

[fromderinside]

I suggest that if there is any activity that is not experienced that activity is not pain.

So what we have is an integration of local, gate, and cognitive models of pain primarily oriented to clinical treatment of chronic pain pathologies. The theory acknowledges local, and systemic models of pain arousal and perception for treatment of pain syndromes. Yes, pathology of pain is a significant cost issue for those who experience chronic pain. Yet it must be acknowledged there are local and segmented aspects of pain response at the base of cognitive pathologies. Without local and spinal level response systems persons could not respond effectively to local signals that produce more or less reflexive outcomes which are those that permit immediate countermeasure action.

Pain and the Neuromatrix in the Brain https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.9099&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(This model is essentially an integration of local and systems models of pain concentrating on the cognitive aspects primarily for suggesting ways one should approach the issues of pain pathology and clinical treatment)

The Multiple Determinants of Pain The neuromatrix theory of pain proposes that the neuro-signature for pain experience is determined by the synaptic architecture of the neuromatrix, which is produced by genetic and sensory influences. The neuro-signature pattern is also modulated by sensory inputs and by cognitive events, such as psychological stress. It may also occur because stressors, physical as well as psychological, act on stress-regulation systems, which may produce lesions of muscle, bone, and nerve tissue, thereby contributing to the neuro-signature patterns that give rise to chronic pain. In short, the neuromatrix, as a result of homeostasis regulation patterns that have failed, produces the destructive conditions that may give rise to many of the chronic pains that so far have been resistant to treatments developed primarily to manage pains that are triggered by sensory inputs. The stress regulation system, with its complex, delicately balanced interactions, is an integral part of the multiple contributions that give rise to chronic pain. The neuromatrix theory guides us away from the Cartesian concept of pain as a sensation produced by injury, inflammation, or other tissue pathology and toward the concept of pain as a multi-dimensional experience produced by multiple influences. These influences range from the existing synaptic architecture of the neuromatrix—which is determined by genetic and sensory factors—to influences from within the body and from other areas in the brain. Genetic influences on synaptic architecture may determine, or predispose toward, the development of chronic pain syndromes. Figure 1 summarizes the factors that contribute to the output pattern from the neuromatrix that produce the sensory, affective, and cognitive dimensions of pain experience and behavior. We have traveled a long way from the psychophysical concept that seeks a simple one-to-one relationship between injury and pain. We now have a theoretical framework in which a genetically determined template for the body-self is modulated by the powerful stress system and the cognitive functions of the brain, in addition to the traditional sensory inputs. The neuromatrix theory of pain—which places genetic contributions and the neural-hormonal mechanisms of stress on a level of equal importance with the neural mechanisms of sensory transmission—has important implications for research and therapy. The expansion of the field of pain to include endocrinology and immunology may lead to insights and new research strategies that will reveal the underlying mechanisms of chronic pain and give rise to new therapies to relieve the tragedy of unrelenting suffering.

The following dissertation pretty much sums up thinking on pain as of 2021 as a modified particularized neuromatrix theory of pain.

The Pain and Movement Reasoning Model:Exploring utility and suitability http://file:///C:/Users/kendrick n williams/Downloads/Thesis.pdf

While a clinical reasoning model for Western acupuncture based on mechanisms is a useful basis for clinical practice, working from a holistic paradigm involves consideration of the individual’s psychological state in addition to their physiological state. There is strong evidence from neuroscience and brain–body medicine which supports current ideas that thinking and feeling can affect physiological responses in the human body. There is also good evidence that acupuncture can influence brain regions important for the integration of sensations and emotions, and modulate output transfer systems influencing homeostatic regulation. Acupuncture may prove to be an adjuvant in musculoskeletal disorders with emotional or psychosocial components. This has led to the development of a biopsychosocial clinical reasoning model for Western acupuncture

I'm aware of the cognitive price of chronic pain experience. My son has a genetic conditions whereby his skeletal system is fusing into a pain enclosure taking up most of his cognitive energy. This does not reduce the importance of the local genesis of pain nor his current disease state.

 

[untermensche]

The stimulus for pain like the stimulus for color is NOT the experience. The processing of pain like the processing of vision is NOT the experience.

The experience of pain is something the brain creates from the stimulation it receives from the periphery and that experience is influenced by the psychology of the sufferer.

Looking at peripheral nerves or brain architecture will never show you what pain is.

I remember 30 years ago and the first lecture in physical therapy school about pain and my expectation that pain would be explained and I will treat it easily.

Unfortunately the first thing the professor said was: "Pain is a subjective experience". Then we learned about how the experience of pain can arise how neural signals that lead to the creation of the experience of pain travel to the brain and how pain can be treated.

But it is not easy since pain is a subjective matter, not always something in the body.

 

[fromderinside]

The problem with your view is that there is really no way one can get to treatment. The primary objective of medicine, like most objective endeavors, is to provide operable tools with which to attack the problem at hand. Obviously gong down a subjective pathway always leads to wha?

A more reasonable approach is to attack the genesis of pain at it's sources, the damaging signals sent to the brain and why they are sent to the brain. Only by understanding pain in this way can one get to operable outcomes for treatment.

It's why rather than trying to understand why music or why language, I chose to answer why information and why this form of information when I went into psychoacoustics. I didn't get bogged down by trying to figure out why the the system could process 8000 hz. with only the capability to transmit input at 100 hz. Instead I acknowledged we do process 8000hz, then went about the business of figuring out how we can do that by looking at how we resolved information using neurons. It became a task of understanding human acoustic information processing. The answers came in receiving organism design and decision making processes along the auditory pathway. The answer came in the form of "we process information by resolving information over time."

I think a similar approach should be taken when how we treat tissue damage. An objective outcome is probably found in understanding the mechanics of injury and repair in humans. That leads to following those who study the processes of tissue growth and replacement and of those who follow the processes of tissue harm communication. We know the receptors have evolved to deal with damage chemically and physically. Ergo other systems in humans have access to the sources and types and time course of damage done.

I don't think I have to go in to feeling differently is not fixing something for you to understand such as fruitless endeavor.

And we're off ..... on a quest using only operable information.

 

[untermensche]

Treatment at first in the field of physical therapy was trial and error but after a while you learn what things could possibly work.

The source of pain may not always be discoverable.

Especially with chronic pain.

Something like phantom limb pain after an amputation is not usually treatable with physical therapy. They have to use drugs. The source of pain is gone but the brain for some reason is still creating the experience.

Phantom limb pain clearly points to the brain, not the foot, as the source of the experience of pain.

 

[untermensche]

It's why rather than trying to understand why music or why language, I chose to answer why information and why this form of information when I went into psychoacoustics.

That's great but the brain has it's own information and ability to create from that information.

It just needs to have some cells activated by energy and the brain can reflexively create color from information contained in the brain.

"we process information by resolving information over time."

The brain is not processing information about pain.

It is processing information from cellular stimulation. A severed nerve sends information to the brain.

The brain is triggered by information from nerve stimulation to use it's own information to create the experience of pain.

 

[fromderinside]

Untermensche you need to pause before you proclaim.

Mammalian nervous systems are arranged in tracts over evolutionary time. Nerves function in particular ways facilitating sharing of information up and down those tracts. Of course the nervous system processes pain and sensation over time.

Don't go so hard over on where or what constitutes pain just because you have a hard on for a particular frame. Leave yourself some room to improve your understanding.

There isn't a thing here or there that does this and that there is a brain that does all of that. I didn't say damage was pain. I said the information about pain is processed by the nervous system. Believe me there is no site for either consciousness or pain.

 

[untermensche]

You have a religious belief that the brain has no information of it's own and cannot construct things using that information.

It constructs an entire consciousness but you have problems believing it can construct a color.

The production of the visual experience is scattered and parts of it occur in different parts of the brain.

But you have trouble believing the visual experience is a construction.

There is no need for any color information in energy.

The brain does not need any such information.

It just needs the proper stimulus to construct the color.

 

[fromderinside]

You have a religious belief that the brain has no information of it's own and cannot construct things using that information.

Of course. How silly of me. It, this religious belief, has no information so it cannot construct things having the information it doesn't have.

So obvious. Is this your interpretation of Null A?

...and the proper stimulus to create color is ....... drum roll .... the information, no, the stimulus it doesn't have! Brilliant.


Actually I just outlined a possible evolution of what we call consciousness from what we already have available to us as language speaking, image processing mammals.

 

[untermensche]

The proper stimulus for color is just the stimulus that causes a chemical reaction.

The stimulus is not passing information.

It is a hand turning on a switch that turns on a blue light.

 

[fromderinside]

Of course the twisting of photosensitive - it's biophysical not chemical - molecules in receptors thence passing an potential down the interion of the receptor to dislodge transmitter substance is information.

I don't care how you construct it the actions going from input to output is transduction and processing of information. Classic definition.

What is turned on is actually a receptor passing on which signals to pass on to communication and thought processes about the remembered nature of the incoming stimuli in a particular sensing system.

Experience is a subvocal/visual theater reporting of the stimulus' name.

 

[untermensche]

Of course the twisting of photosensitive - it's biophysical not chemical - molecules in receptors thence passing an potential down the interion of the receptor to dislodge transmitter substance is information.

Energy can excite cells.

Energy cannot pass on information to evolving cells.

It can possibly excite, it could damage, or do nothing.

That's all.

 

[fromderinside]

Your constraints are unrealistic. Any induced activity can be seen as changing the status, providing information, to that which is excited, especially if that which is excited is designed to pass information. A filter passes information if energy passes through it, it also can be seen as transducer changing one kind of energy to another. Both are information processes.

 

[untermensche]

This is about cells not filters.

Energy cannot pass on information to evolving cells.

It can possibly excite, it could damage, or do nothing.

Show me external energy doing more than exciting a sensory cell in some way?

Energy cannot pass on information to cells.

It can either cause a reaction or not cause a reaction.

There is no mechanism for energy to give a cell specific information.

The cell is not seeing.

We do not see at the eyes.

Vision is 3D.

 

[fromderinside]

This is about cells not filters.

Energy cannot pass on information to evolving cells.

It can possibly excite, it could damage, or do nothing.

Show me external energy doing more than exciting a sensory cell in some way?

Energy cannot pass on information to cells.

It can either cause a reaction or not cause a reaction.

There is no mechanism for energy to give a cell specific information.

The cell is not seeing.

We do not see at the eyes.

Vision is 3D.

...and throwing garbage against the post does nothing.

 Filter (signal processing)

In signal processing, a filter is a device or process that removes some unwanted components or features from a signal. Filtering is a class of signal processing, the defining feature of filters being the complete or partial suppression of some aspect of the signal. Most often, this means removing some frequencies or frequency bands. However, filters do not exclusively act in the frequency domain; especially in the field of image processing many other targets for filtering exist. Correlations can be removed for certain frequency components and not for others without having to act in the frequency domain. Filters are widely used in electronics and telecommunication, in radio, television, audio recording, radar, control systems, music synthesis, image processing, and computer graphics.

 Information theory

Information theory is the scientific study of the quantification, storage, and communication of information. The field was fundamentally established by the works of Harry Nyquist and Ralph Hartley, in the 1920s, and Claude Shannon in the 1940s. The field is at the intersection of probability theory, statistics, computer science, statistical mechanics, information engineering, and electrical engineering.
A key measure in information theory is entropy. Entropy quantifies the amount of uncertainty involved in the value of a random variable or the outcome of a random process. For example, identifying the outcome of a fair coin flip (with two equally likely outcomes) provides less information (lower entropy) than specifying the outcome from a roll of a die (with six equally likely outcomes). Some other important measures in information theory are mutual information, channel capacity, error exponents, and relative entropy. Important sub-fields of information theory include source coding, algorithmic complexity theory, algorithmic information theory, and information-theoretic security.

You should never go a gun fight with a rubber knife.

 

[untermensche]

Humans do signal processing.

Brains convert a stimulation, mere stimulation from energy, with no information passed, to an experience.

There is no information about pain in a broken bone. It is tissue damaged. That is not pain in any way.

Show me external energy doing more than exciting a sensory cell in some way?

Your hand waving does not address this.

 

[fromderinside]

Gee and I thought two major two major subfields of communication theory would be sufficient. Apparently you have trouble with anything more precise than chemical change which, by the way, is the same as both filter and information process.

If you truly believe chemical change is neither of these two terms then we have nothing more to say to each other. You are going in the wrong direction if you think that chemical change isn't the same as information processing. You can't save experience with that artificial dodge. To do so is to deny the function of receptors as machines for converting information from one form to another for use by the being.

 

[untermensche]

Gee and I thought two major two major subfields of communication theory would be sufficient. Apparently you have trouble with anything more precise than chemical change which, by the way, is the same as both filter and information process.

If you truly believe chemical change is neither of these two terms then we have nothing more to say to each other. You are going in the wrong direction if you think that chemical change isn't the same as information processing. You can't save experience with that artificial dodge. To do so is to deny the function of receptors as machines for converting information from one form to another for use by the being.

They have no connection to cells and the fact that a stimulus can only activate a cell or damage a cell or not activate a cell.

A stimulus can do no more and posting two meaningless articles about human activity is a smokescreen of ignorance.

Show me the cell that energy can do more than stimulate.