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

[geordief]

That seems to deny that psychology, neuroscience, or science in general will ever make any progress with consciousness. Which seemingly leaves us with a bifurcated reality, a Cartesian-style dualism between the world of science and the spiritual realm.

That's why I sometimes think that the philosophy of mind has become the last philosophical bastion and redoubt of supernaturalism. It's where the philosophy of mind starts to resemble the philosophy of religion.

Obviously progress can and has been made but it is not hard to believe that the tools of scientific experimentation can only take one so far. (how is that different from any area of knowledge ,you may ask?)

Effectively the experimenter becomes the experiment and perhaps there comes a point when the chances of further success become merely 50/50.

And as I claimed earlier the "scientific method" has as one of its raisons d'etre to keep the bias of the experimenter/observer in some kind of check.Does this not become impossible when conciousness and its properties (as in "qualities of pain") have to be included in the equations?

Yes ,this "bifurcated reality" does trouble me. I rationalize it as the phenomena of the mind being a subset of the phenomena of the external physical world ,but cannot say why it could not be the other way around.

I do see the two "realms" as wildly different even though it is plain that they do affect each other.

 

[Write4U]

As I understand it, anesthesia is the administering of drugs to a specific part of the brain which is the seat of pain, in order to be able to perform otherwise painful surgery.

Obviously that is the area which produces the sensation of pain. Interestingly the very same drugs are effective in exactly the same ratio for all brained animals these drugs have been tested on. IMO, this is an important chemical phenomenon to consider. We also know that pain is only experienced while conscious or in the case of local anesthesia, the area surrounding the pain is rendered "insensitive" to pain.

We know what kills (masks) the sensation of pain, we should be able to figure out what the chemical mechanisms are which produce the sensation of pain and draw our conclusions from the implications.

 

[pluto2]

I think pain can be explained by just physics and chemistry.

This is why I think that biology is not really a solid science unlike physics and chemistry.

Think about it: When it comes down to things I think humans are just molecules in motion, just like all the other ordinary matter in the universe.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That seems to deny that psychology, neuroscience, or science in general will ever make any progress with consciousness. Which seemingly leaves us with a bifurcated reality, a Cartesian-style dualism between the world of science and the spiritual realm.
That's why I sometimes think that the philosophy of mind has become the last philosophical bastion and redoubt of supernaturalism. It's where the philosophy of mind starts to resemble the philosophy of religion.

I would expect a substantial number of people not philosophers throughout the world to feel like supernaturalism is the best idea. What's wrong exactly with this idea?
Supernaturalism is also a logical consequence of the scientific perspective on reality. Insisting on objectivity is objectifying subjectivity as a different realm. You got what you asked for.
There is in effect a simple solution, but it appears that most scientists are too ideologically materialist to even think of it. I think of this in terms of the Popes' insistance that it was the Sun that turned around the Earth, not the Earth around the Sun. That it could be the Earth orbiting the Sun has always been a logical possibility, but an ideologically inacceptable one for Church people. In the event, the Church sustained the dogma for at least 1600 years. I wish I could be there when the penny drop in the minds of all those brilliant scientists but I expect another millennium will have to elapse for that to happen.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

In the terms you have outlined I will lean towards "No" since subjectivity is not a scientific discipline almost by definition.

The whole raison d'etre of the "scientific method" is to steer the observer away from any trace of subjectivity.

That's the best answer yet. Congratulation!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think pain can be explained by just physics and chemistry.

I didn't say "pain". I said "the quality of pain".

Think about it: When it comes down to things I think humans are just molecules in motion, just like all the other ordinary matter in the universe.

I think about it, therefore I am.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's like the experience of color.

Exactly, and indeed like all qualia, including the impression that we exist now.

It also explains the properties of the experience that "cause" behavior, which is selected.

Yes. Evolution maybe can explain that we should be able to perceive the range of colours that we do but not the quality colours have.

But it does not necessarily explain the exact basis or embedded context of those properties - any subjective "feel" associated with directing attention to red objects as food or warning would in principle do, as elongation of any finger bone to support a wing membrane would (presumably) do. Anything from qwerty phenomenon to happenstance to direct selection on alternatives could be involved.

It seems indeed clear that our perception of colours is functionally arbitrary. Your red may be my blue. What you experience as painful pain maybe pleasurable to me, who would even know?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

They are hard. It takes work to produce a plausible answer. Especially for amateurs like us, seeing as how the professionals are still struggling with these questions.

I think most of them are desperately trying to find the socially acceptable answer rather than the correct one. Though, I would expect this to remain at the subconscious level...

I think that I'm inclined to disagree. I'm more inclined to think that pain is just a neural state

That's logically possible. Yet, even if pain was a neural state, there would still be no scientific theory to explain the quality of pain.

and that there isn't anything more to pain than what can (potentially) be said about it. What makes us think that there is, is the fact that pain isn't a discursive concept, it's an experience. Talking about it isn't the same thing as experiencing it and will never replace the experience. But I expect that the difference between thinking about a sensory modality and experiencing it can be explained in scientific concepts. Different parts of the brain involved, etc.

That's a rather strange position. How any description of pain could possibly make you know pain? We only understand each other about pain, if we do, because we all experience pain, assuming it's the same pain, which is an unfounded assumption.

Sure. But I don't automatically assume that the first-person perspective can't be explained from a third-person 'neuroscience' perspective. Of course explaining it that way wouldn't be the same thing as experiencing it firsthand. (Hence Mary's problem with color.)

Sure, but the question is as to a scientific theory now.
EB

 

[Write4U]

I would expect a substantial number of people not philosophers throughout the world to feel like supernaturalism is the best idea. What's wrong exactly with this idea?

Why start with the most unlikely scenario? Supernatural is the least probable property of a natural object, IMO

 

[Yazata]

I think most of them are desperately trying to find the socially acceptable answer rather than the correct one.

You think that you know the "correct" answer? Even when the professional philosophers haven't succeeded in agreeing on one?

 

[Write4U]

That's a rather strange position. How any description of pain could possibly make you know pain? We only understand each other about pain, if we do, because we all experience pain, assuming it's the same pain, which is an unfounded assumption.

The interesting thing is that when we see someone in pain, our brain begins to order the production of the same associated chemicals as the person actually experiencing the pain. Empathic response from our "mirror neuron system"

Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another's position.[1]There are many definitions for empathy that encompass a broad range of emotional states. Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and somatic empathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

It causes us to wince without actually experiencing pain, but just by observation. That's an interesting mental trick.....

 

[iceaura]

That's logically possible. Yet, even if pain was a neural state, there would still be no scientific theory to explain the quality of pain.

That depends on what you regard as an explanation. The quality of pain is after all its mechanism of influence on behavior, and that has a variety of explanations derived from evolutionary theory.

As far as the quality of perceptions, there is no scientific accounting or description of any of them - consciousness is a new field, and poorly explored yet. The quality of shiny vs matte, bright vs dull, bitter vs sweet, etc, thin vs thick, deep vs shallow - - none of these has a scientific explanation. They are simpler and better understood than pain, though - better starting places?

 

[Write4U]

That depends on what you regard as an explanation. The quality of pain is after all its mechanism of influence on behavior, and that has a variety of explanations derived from evolutionary theory.

As far as the quality of perceptions, there is no scientific accounting or description of any of them - consciousness is a new field, and poorly explored yet. The quality of shiny vs matte, bright vs dull, bitter vs sweet, etc, thin vs thick, deep vs shallow - - none of these has a scientific explanation. They are simpler and better understood than pain, though - better starting places?

IMO, it seems to me that at least some partial answers can be found among these pioneers in the field of "consciousness", because we have a factual starting point. Consciousness resides within our brains, fact.

Max Tegmark proposes that all experiences are a result of dynamic pattern formation. Of all available knowledge, I believe this is still a most logical presumption, which may provide a foundation for deeper understanding.

MaxTegmark: "Consciousness is a mathematical pattern"

Anil Seth: "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo&t=39s

Stuart Hameroff: "Quantum consciousness"
and in collaboration with Roger Penrose: "ORCH OR"

Ron Vale: "Molecular motor proteins" (1,2,3)

I submit that cell division is a rudimentary conscious action. At a certain stage something within the cell "knows" it's time to divide!

Pain is a cellular experience, amplified by the entire neural network and weighed by the conscious part of the brain which is capable of imagination and the associated emotional experience, and production of "pleasant" or "unpleasant" physical experiences at microlevel scales.

 

[Write4U]

Seems that bipedal locomotion has been with us for a longggggggg time.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You think that you know the "correct" answer? Even when the professional philosophers haven't succeeded in agreeing on one?

Certainly not on consciousness although I was already there before reading on the idea of qualia and the so-called "hard problem". Most professional people, in any field, are not particularly bright. They are drudges, maybe doing good work but nothing most other normally intelligent people couldn't do. Philosophy is useful not because it gives the correct answers but because it provides new conceptual framework to think about reality. But how many philosophers have actually contributed to that? Only a small trickle. Descartes is one. Aristotle is another. There's a good number of them overall, but rather thin on the ground and that's more than 2,500 years of philosophy. So, I think there's no good reason to be impressed by most professional philosophers.
But don't worry, I'm well aware of my own limitations...
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That depends on what you regard as an explanation. The quality of pain is after all its mechanism of influence on behavior, and that has a variety of explanations derived from evolutionary theory.

The mechanism of influence on behaviour is definitely not what I think of as the quality of pain by any stretch of the imagination. As I see it, the main quality of pain to be explained is that pain is painful. That's it and I think it goes without saying because most people are very familiar with the painfulness of pain.

As far as the quality of perceptions, there is no scientific accounting or description of any of them - consciousness is a new field, and poorly explored yet. The quality of shiny vs matte, bright vs dull, bitter vs sweet, etc, thin vs thick, deep vs shallow - - none of these has a scientific explanation. They are simpler and better understood than pain, though - better starting places?

I don't think so. I don't think qualia could be explained in terms of the physical universe. But you can always try.
EB

 

[Write4U]

How is philosophy pertinent to the "question"?
IMO, "sentience", is the ability to experience self as related to environment.
It is a potential of the biochemistry in biological organisms, and is experienced at many levels in many forms. This ability is not necessarily conscious either. Humans have subconscious functional control mechanisms.

A single-celled paramecium is "sentient". IOW, it experiences pain when it runs into an obstacle and takes corrective action to avoid bumping into the obstacle repeatedly.

 

[iceaura]

The mechanism of influence on behaviour is definitely not what I think of as the quality of pain by any stretch of the imagination.

But it is - by observation, recorded. Doctors diagnose thereby - a dull ache affects a child's response to manipulation differently than a sharp burn, a "cramping" and unlocalized pain in the left shoulder and upper arm will cause the patient to present a different posture and attitude than a hot ripping sensation with a focus in the joint.

People behave differently according to the quality of their pain, the "kind" of pain they are experiencing - not just presence or absence.

 

[kx000]

Suffering goes to Hell... that's what I know.

 

[Write4U]

Suffering goes to Hell... that's what I know.

How do animals earn the punishment of Hell? Many animals have the ability to experience pain. Is this because they are evil or immoral?