Is there a scientific theory that explains the quality of pain in terms of the physical universe?

[Speakpigeon]

Pain as a warning signal generated by a brain conveying the message that something is wrong, damage being done to the hand when touching a hot surface, for example. First the signal of damage, then the reaction, intense sensation of pain, perhaps a reflex withdrawal of the damaged hand, the realization of the cause of distress, the stove was hot, tissue/nerve damage caused by excessive heat.

Pain is not a warning signal. Pain is just painful experience. Nothing else. If you don't believe me, ask any idiot in the street. The only reason you know pain, or any scientist knows pain at all, is that we all experience pain at some point in our lives. No amount of scientific explanation will convey, let alone reproduce, the experience of pain. Obviously, pain is experienced in specific material conditions. We don't even need a scientific theory to understand that. Most of the time, our experience of pain comes with some physical injury, commotion, or stress. Science only provides greater details. Yet, nothing as to the quality of pain, i.e. painfulness. Pain is not a warning signal. Possibly it is used as a warning signal but it is not a warning signal. We don't know what pain is in physical terms. We only know pain as painful experience.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

OK, at this stage, it appears that only one person believes there is a scientific theory that explains the quality of pain. What bothers me is that the same who think there is none, still don't want to vote "no". How come? Are you all afraid to acknowledge the fact? Are you afraid that admitting to the limitation of science would constitute a sin?

Personally, I think the idea that pain is just the state of some neuron systems inside our brain is at least a rational hypothesis and in fact almost inevitable for scientists. I don't buy it but it's a rational idea. Still, even if it is true and we knew exactly how this neuron system worked, we would still not have any scientific theory explaining the painful quality of pain. We just have no idea whatsoever as to what such a scientific theory could possibly consist of. The one person who replied "yes" just disgraced himself.
EB

EDIT
But Leibniz already said it two hundred years ago...

The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz made the point vividly in 1714. Perception or consciousness, he wrote, is “inexplicable on mechanical principles, i.e. by shapes and movements. If we imagine a machine whose structure makes it think, sense, and be conscious, we can conceive of it being enlarged in such a way that we can go inside it like a mill” — think of the 1966 movie “Fantastic Voyage,” or imagine the ultimate brain scanner. Leibniz continued, “Suppose we do: visiting its insides, we will never find anything but parts pushing each other — never anything that could explain a conscious state.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html

 

[Politesse]

[I would have thought pain is fundamentally and quintessentially a painful experience. Tell me if you disagree.

I certainly do. Pain is a nervous response, perception is an afterthought that your brain cooks up to explain why it did what it just did. Try this little experiment: place your hand on a hot stove. What happens first, the conscious perception of pain or the instinctive flinch? The neural cascade of a pain response is well underway by the time conscious experience catches up with the bus. This also helps to explain why vertebrate organisms have similar pain responses in many respects, whether or not they are one of the creatures imagined to have a rich internal life.

No doubt these people know their stuff. I didn't find any explanation of the painful quality of pain, though. Why is it pain is experienced as painful rather than as sugary or blue. Or not at all. Why do we need to have this painful experience at all. And, crucially, how do you end up with this painful experience if you start with electrons and protons?

If you didn't experience it as unpleasant, it would fail to perform one of its key functions: preventing you from repeating the behavior that caused it. Anatomy does not actually have "purposes" of course, but certainly an organism adapted to feeling pleasant sensations when its anatomy becomes damaged would be much more accident prone and less likely to survive and bear live young. So it is certain that the pain response must be received as unpleasant. That is not to say that it is necessarily the same unpleasant experience between individuals. Not only has this never been proven, there are indeed substantive reasons to believe that people do not in fact all experience pain in the same way, as the linked article notes in detail.

 

[Speakpigeon]

[I would have thought pain is fundamentally and quintessentially a painful experience. Tell me if you disagree.

I certainly do. Pain is a nervous response, perception is an afterthought that your brain cooks up to explain why it did what it just did. Try this little experiment: place your hand on a hot stove. What happens first, the conscious perception of pain or the instinctive flinch? The neural cascade of a pain response is well underway by the time conscious experience catches up with the bus. This also helps to explain why vertebrate organisms have similar pain responses in many respects, whether or not they are one of the creatures imagined to have a rich internal life.

No doubt these people know their stuff. I didn't find any explanation of the painful quality of pain, though. Why is it pain is experienced as painful rather than as sugary or blue. Or not at all. Why do we need to have this painful experience at all. And, crucially, how do you end up with this painful experience if you start with electrons and protons?

If you didn't experience it as unpleasant, it would fail to perform one of its key functions: preventing you from repeating the behavior that caused it. Anatomy does not actually have "purposes" of course, but certainly an organism adapted to feeling pleasant sensations when its anatomy becomes damaged would be much more accident prone and less likely to survive and bear live young. So it is certain that the pain response must be received as unpleasant. That is not to say that it is necessarily the same unpleasant experience between individuals. Not only has this never been proven, there are indeed substantive reasons to believe that people do not in fact all experience pain in the same way, as the linked article notes in detail.

Then were not speaking the same language...

Pain
1.
a. An unpleasant feeling occurring as a result of injury or disease, usually localized in some part of the body: felt pains in his chest.
b. Bodily suffering characterized by such feelings: drugs to treat pain.
2.
a. Mental or emotional suffering; distress.
b. An instance of this: the pains of humiliation.

EB

 

[Politesse]

I certainly do. Pain is a nervous response, perception is an afterthought that your brain cooks up to explain why it did what it just did. Try this little experiment: place your hand on a hot stove. What happens first, the conscious perception of pain or the instinctive flinch? The neural cascade of a pain response is well underway by the time conscious experience catches up with the bus. This also helps to explain why vertebrate organisms have similar pain responses in many respects, whether or not they are one of the creatures imagined to have a rich internal life.

If you didn't experience it as unpleasant, it would fail to perform one of its key functions: preventing you from repeating the behavior that caused it. Anatomy does not actually have "purposes" of course, but certainly an organism adapted to feeling pleasant sensations when its anatomy becomes damaged would be much more accident prone and less likely to survive and bear live young. So it is certain that the pain response must be received as unpleasant. That is not to say that it is necessarily the same unpleasant experience between individuals. Not only has this never been proven, there are indeed substantive reasons to believe that people do not in fact all experience pain in the same way, as the linked article notes in detail.

Then were not speaking the same language...

Pain
1.
a. An unpleasant feeling occurring as a result of injury or disease, usually localized in some part of the body: felt pains in his chest.
b. Bodily suffering characterized by such feelings: drugs to treat pain.
2.
a. Mental or emotional suffering; distress.
b. An instance of this: the pains of humiliation.

EB

You inquired about what scientists knew about pain, not dictionaries. Not only is science not confined to a dictionary, it is not even confined to a language.

 

[untermensche]

Pain is a nervous response, perception is an afterthought that your brain cooks up to explain why it did what it just did.

Pain is an experience.

Nervous responses are not pain.

They are what may end up as the experience of pain.

But pain begins and ends as a subjective experience.

It is nothing else.

 

[Politesse]

Pain is a nervous response, perception is an afterthought that your brain cooks up to explain why it did what it just did.

Pain is an experience.

Nervous responses are not pain.

They are what may end up as the experience of pain.

But pain begins and ends as a subjective experience.

It is nothing else.

That's a fat load of horseshit, but if you insist on defining "pain" as a exclusively subjective experience, then no, science does not and cannot produce a theory to explain it. Obviously.

"If I define x as a thing beyond the reach of science and refuse any definition to the contrary, can science explain it?" No, of course not. Your thought patterns are safe from science!


Buffalo begin and end as an idea of buffalo in the mind. Can science explain buffalo? Nope! They only exist in the mind, I said so!

 

[untermensche]

Pain is a nervous response, perception is an afterthought that your brain cooks up to explain why it did what it just did.

Pain is an experience.

Nervous responses are not pain.

They are what may end up as the experience of pain.

But pain begins and ends as a subjective experience.

It is nothing else.

That's a fat load of horseshit, but if you insist on defining "pain" as a exclusively subjective experience, then no, science does not and cannot produce a theory to explain it. Obviously.

"If I define x as a thing beyond the reach of science and refuse any definition to the contrary, can science explain it?" No, of course not. Your thought patterns are safe from science!

It has nothing to do with my choice.

Experiences are not the neurology that produces them.

A person breaks their leg. They are in agony.

Give them some Dilaudid. Now no pain but the neural signal to the brain is still there.

Pain is not the neural signal obviously since it can be there but the pain is not necessarily there.

 

[Politesse]

That's a fat load of horseshit, but if you insist on defining "pain" as a exclusively subjective experience, then no, science does not and cannot produce a theory to explain it. Obviously.

"If I define x as a thing beyond the reach of science and refuse any definition to the contrary, can science explain it?" No, of course not. Your thought patterns are safe from science!

It has nothing to do with my choice.

Experiences are not the neurology that produces them.

A person breaks their leg. They are in agony.

Give them some Dilaudid. Now no pain but the neural signal to the brain is still there.

Pain is not the neural signal obviously since it can be there but the pain is not necessarily there.

Okay, fine. Define pain as outside the reach of science, and it will be beyond the reach of science. I agree. Your strategy is not only fool-proof, but indeed totally fool-friendly! Have fun! God, you people are clever.

 

[untermensche]

That's a fat load of horseshit, but if you insist on defining "pain" as a exclusively subjective experience, then no, science does not and cannot produce a theory to explain it. Obviously.

"If I define x as a thing beyond the reach of science and refuse any definition to the contrary, can science explain it?" No, of course not. Your thought patterns are safe from science!

It has nothing to do with my choice.

Experiences are not the neurology that produces them.

A person breaks their leg. They are in agony.

Give them some Dilaudid. Now no pain but the neural signal to the brain is still there.

Pain is not the neural signal obviously since it can be there but the pain is not necessarily there.

Okay, fine. Define pain as outside the reach of science, and it will be beyond the reach of science. I agree. Your strategy is not only fool-proof, but indeed totally fool-friendly! Have fun! God, you people are clever.

I am defining pain as what it is.

You are right there is no scientific explanation of experience, any experience.

There is no scientific explanation or understanding of the experience of pain or color or music or thought.

The phenomena of experiencing. It requires something capable of having an experience and something capable of being experienced.

 

[no-one-particular]

I know that nobody will listen to a word I say but:

yellow: pleasant white
red: pleasant grey
blue: pleasant black

any sensation can be pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant.

Sensations can also be combined.
green = blue + yellow

 

[untermensche]

I know that nobody will listen to a word I say but:

That's the spirit!

yellow: pleasant white
red: pleasant grey
blue: pleasant black

any sensation can be pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant.

Colors can be associated with other experiences.

So a shade of red may evoke in some an unpleasant experience.

But the red is not the unpleasant experience it is a stimulus.

Sensations can also be combined.
green = blue + yellow

Sounds can be combined too, like with an orchestra.

What do we make of it?

 

[Politesse]

Okay, fine. Define pain as outside the reach of science, and it will be beyond the reach of science. I agree. Your strategy is not only fool-proof, but indeed totally fool-friendly! Have fun! God, you people are clever.

I am defining pain as what it is.

You are right there is no scientific explanation of experience, any experience.

There is no scientific explanation or understanding of the experience of pain or color or music or thought.

The phenomena of experiencing. It requires something capable of having an experience and something capable of being experienced.

Ah, indeed! I agree completely. Let us all take a moment to wonder at the most powerful force in the universe: FEEWINGS!!

 

[untermensche]

Okay, fine. Define pain as outside the reach of science, and it will be beyond the reach of science. I agree. Your strategy is not only fool-proof, but indeed totally fool-friendly! Have fun! God, you people are clever.

I am defining pain as what it is.

You are right there is no scientific explanation of experience, any experience.

There is no scientific explanation or understanding of the experience of pain or color or music or thought.

The phenomena of experiencing. It requires something capable of having an experience and something capable of being experienced.

Ah, indeed! I agree completely. Let us all take a moment to wonder at the most powerful force in the universe: FEEWINGS!!

No matter the feelings the phenomena of experiencing is still unexplained in any way.

 

[DBT]

Something unexplained? God did it!

 

[Speakpigeon]

Then were not speaking the same language...

EB

You inquired about what scientists knew about pain, not dictionaries.

No, I know what scientists know about pain. What they know is exactly what any other human being knows and they know it exactly in the same way.

What I asked is whether there was a scientific theory that explained the painful quality of pain from the physical universe.

Not only is science not confined to a dictionary, it is not even confined to a language.

You think I'm talking to science here?! You think science talks? Are you hearing voices?!

I was talking to you in the belief that you are a human being using the English language. I can only have this conversation on this basis. I'm not in the belief I could talk to science or that science could talk to me. Which in a way is why I have to go through human beings to talk about it.

Scientists can express themselves as they want. But if they want to be understood from people who are not scientists, they better used their language. So, yes, dictionaries is a good place to start. And if they don't do it, they can't complain that people don't understand whatever they're trying to explain. In short, don't be autistic.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I know that nobody will listen to a word I say but:

yellow: pleasant white
red: pleasant grey
blue: pleasant black

any sensation can be pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant.

Sensations can also be combined.
green = blue + yellow

Yes? And? How that relates to the OP?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Something unexplained? God did it!

No something unexplained is just something unexplained. Something a few sciencey types around here can't seem to accept.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Something unexplained? God did it!

That's as wild a conclusion as somehow concluding one's mind is not autonomous.

Autonomy of mind is required for a coherent argument that one believes to be made.

How is a belief or observation translated into an argument unless the mind is free to make arguments?

 

[DBT]

Something unexplained? God did it!

That's as wild a conclusion as somehow concluding one's mind is not autonomous.

Autonomy of mind is required for a coherent argument that one believes to be made.

How is a belief or observation translated into an argument unless the mind is free to make arguments?

So you assume that my remark was serious? That it represents what I think? Sarcasm must be a difficult concept for some folk to grasp.

Not to mention that the 'God did it' explanation is still being used in this day and age. Your autonomy of mind falls into a similar category.