fogh said:
There is an argument about understanding: you state that
understanding is necessary before one can come to a proof, a
defendable thesis. I would rather say that the a demand of research
is to be able to deal with what is not understood. A study that comes
from a situation where "pain" has no metaphysical definition and no
clinical definition, and arrives at a point where there is at least a
clinical definition is AOK in my book.
And so it would for me too, unfortunately, such a definition would be
arbitrary, and therefore meaningless.
Convince me that you actually hurt when I kick you in the balls. All I
hear from you are the screams and whimpering. This proves nothing.
Generally speaking, I would
not think that science provides "understanding" or "explanations".
Science provides explanations, essentially by definition.
Being able to follow a theory, read some specific formalism an
jargon, or assess wether a theory has the required properties to be
scientific (cartesian reasoning, refutability, etc.) do not bring
"understanding". ( It a nice kick sometimes though )
I agree. Understanding and explanations are not the same. An explanation
may be considered the black and white description e.g. mathematical
equations that make predictions based on axioms. "Understanding" is that
*emotion* we feel when we go Eureka!
It has been probably stg like 70 years since physicists have agreed
that the question of conscience is not relevant to their theories,
i.e. physics theories can hold independently of the outcome of
philosophical questions of conscience, reality, existence.
Agreed.
It is a
feelgood fairytale we tell kids that physics explains reality, and
that it has thus a strong grasp on technology.
Physics does explains reality, by making explanations based on arbitrary
axioms. The axioms, of course are not explainable.
"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." -
Einstein.
For example, we *invent* the concept of mass. We then "explain" motion
with reference to that invention. In principle, we could invent some
other quantity and have different explanations.
But try saying that to
a physicist and you ll be confronted to a grin and a long silence, at
best. And conversely physics theories have nothing to say about those
questions. So you can hold assured that I did not at anytime believe
that there is a mechanically provable relation between pain and
physical manifestation.
Agreed. There is no *provable* relation between the electro-chemical
construction of the brain with emotions such as pain. However, emotions
are indeed only a sole result of such physical construction. This is an
example of a Goedal Statement. A relation that is true, but not provable
or derivable.
The relation between pain and metabolic
manifestations that can be defended by a medical thesis is not a
"mechanical" relation. The relation does involves conscience: the
conscience of all individuals from so-called group A and the
conscience of the Phd student. So, indeed, you can not f rom such a
study create a machine that detects pain, or a machine that
calculates the dosis of opium to give a preborn. Even if you put a
well programmed computer in that machine. But you can create a
medical procedure, since the procedure involves the conscience of the
medical staff.
Yes, but not one for foetus that has meaning. There is no way to set up
the control system. We simply do not know whether or not 6 month
foetuses feel pain at all. They cant tell us. Any result is pure
supposition.
Medical practice is not too concerned with conscience either.
It is concerned with pain, which is de-facto consciousness.
Who
ever saw veterinarian having a big dilemma on prescribing a
painkiller " Oh, no. Wait ... I can t prescribe these, Fifi is not an
alter-ego and it is not proven that it has conscience. OK, lets tear
off this slip and put more expensive antibiotics instead." Hence, I
still _miss_ the point and so far I keep accepting that a doctor in
medicine studies, treats, influences, or causes pain without
understanding what it is, and still be considered a scientist.
My issue is regarding situations where we cannot with any reasonable
doubt conclude that something feels pain or not. Most "older"
individuals can mutually agree that a kick in the balls hurts. We can
discuss it such that, even without absolute proof, we can reasonable
conclude that there is no "reasonable" doubt. For a 6 month foetus this
is not possible.
BTW, why do you find conscience to be so closely related to pain ?
Its trivial. Without conscience awareness there can be no pain. Period.
Pain is something that is directly attributed to conscience awareness.
Consciousness is the ability to "feel" emotions. Its essentially a
definition of conscience, although of course, a circular one. One cannot
define emotions (pain, laughter etc) without introducing consciousness.
If we were not conscious, pain would have zero meaning. That is why
consciousness is not derivable from the laws of physics. There is no
independent way of defining it without referring to itself in its
definition (
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/consciousness.html)
Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
