Re: Fish don't have ethical feet it doesn't mean they can't move- was Re: Ethical feet


"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dblngb$bki$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3k5c7kFsjdumU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> Well, yes and no; we are conscious beings, and therefore everything we
>> experience is filtered through our consciousness. however, physically
>> speaking, there is a biochemical process which can be defined as "pain",
> No there isn't because it's just chemicals intracting, strong acid doesn't
> cause pain,

Strong acid sitting ina bottle doesn't cause pain. Strong acid poured onto
unprotected living tissue causes tissue damage which triggers a chain
reaction which includes the biochemical process we define as "pain".

>> which usually results from cell damage, which involves neurons, usually
>> (though not exclusively) nociceptors (that is, nerves specifically
>> designed to receive and transmit pain), and which involves the release
>> and re-uptake of specific neurotransmitters which are specific to pain.
>> It would be rather odd to ignore all that underlying process and claim
>> that pain is just "in the brain", when clearly there's a much more
>> extensive system at work.
>
> Yes put the pain is located in the brain.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly? Remember, you've set the
standard here; I want repeatable experimental evidence from an unbiased
source which proves that pain is always and exclusively in the brain,
please.

>> Well, no. Pain is in the nerves,
> No pain is in the brain how many more times.

Until you get it right, or show repeateable experimental evidence from an
unbiased source that you're right. Is that fair?

>>but we can, in some cases, over-ride the messages and therefore avoid
>>being consciously aware of pain, or in some cases we can kick out natural
>>painkillers into action voluntarily
> Yes this is done by stoping the signals getting to the brain.

Well, not just from getting to the brain, but from starting in the first
place.

>> Yes, but that's not terribly relevant; we know that the brain sometimes
>> gets things wrong; false positives, false negatives, misfires, and so on.
> So, that proves nothing other than the brain is where the signals are
> processed,
> until processed they don't mean much.

Actually, they can do, as they can trigger other reactions in the muscles or
other body parts, even before they are processed by the brain; see my other
post about spinal cats and paraplegics with bladder control.

>>That doesn't mean that pain is _only_ in the brain, just as the fact that
>>we sometimes hallucinate doesn't mean that we don't see anything through
>>our eyes.
>
> Our eyes see everything upside down, our brains always interprete the
> image
> the other way around looking at the back of the retina the image is upside
> down.

*heh* Well, not quite; our eyes see things the right way up, but at one
point in the visual process, the image appears upseide-down on the retina.
That's not quite the same thing.

>> Think of it as a circuit with a light bulb on it, where pain is the
>> signal, and injury is a switch. If everything's working OK, when you
>> receive an injury, the switch changes to an "on" position, and the
>> light-bulb lights, so that you're consciously aware of pain. In some
>> cases though, there's a short circuit or something by-passes the circuit;
>> the lightbulb may be able to come on without the switch being switched.
>> On other occasions, the lightbulb may not light, even though the switch
>> is on. Either way, the signal is still there, whether or not it is
>> consciously perceived.
> But what if the lightbul;b doesn't work how will you tell whether
> the signal would light up the bulb if the bulb doesn't work.

You measure the current, or you put some other device in the circuit which
will react if there is a current.

> Or if the bulb isn't there just the bulb holder, which is simialr to the
> way I see the situation the siganl is there, but there's nothing complex
> enough to recive it.

If the bulb-holder is empty, then the circuit would be incomplete and there
wouldn't be a signal, surely? Fish do have a brain, it's just not as complex
as ours, so their bulb-holder isn't empty, just less complex.

> Liek mdog whisles you can blow & blow but hear virtually nothing because
> you
> can not hear that freqenciey but the sound is there but you can't hear it
> so you wouldn't complain if 50 people all started blowing dog whistles
> outside
> your window you while you were trying to sleep.

Exactly; the signal is there, even if you're not consciously aware of it.

H


.

Relevant Pages