tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4179212795068916934..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Stephen Law on animal sufferingRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3374273457250289912016-10-26T21:43:12.871-04:002016-10-26T21:43:12.871-04:00"I get the impression you're a newcomer t..."I get the impression you're a newcomer to Christian apologetics?"<br />LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50752340124977121512016-10-25T23:30:25.071-04:002016-10-25T23:30:25.071-04:005. Furthermore, we could distinguish between fast ...5. Furthermore, we could distinguish between fast and slow pain. Fast pain is in general localized and well-defined pain (in humans it is carried in the neospinothalamic tract), while slow pain is more diffuse and poorly localized (in humans it is thought to be carried in the paleospinothalamic tract). In the peripheral nervous system of humans, for example, C fibers generally subserve slow pain, while A-delta fibers subserve fast pain.<br /><br />6. Nevertheless, even in our distinctions, it's generally <i>inferred</i> pathophysiology. That is, there's rarely direct and deductively conclusive evidence there is pain; one must <i>infer</i> there is pain based on a set of signs and/or symptoms.<br /><br />7. What's more, paresthesia is any abnormal sensation. It may be spontaneous or evoked. Paresthesias are not necessarily painful. However, dysesthesias are painful.<br /><br />8. I'd also like to elaborate a bit on Steve's point distinguishing between pain threshold and pain tolerance. Pain threshold refers to the lowest intensity at which a given stimulus is perceived to be painful, whereas pain tolerance refers to the highest intensity at which a given stimulus is perceived to be painful. Animals and humans don't necessarily have the same pain thresholds nor pain tolerances. And even within the same species of animals there may be variations in pain threshold and tolerance, since we see it in humans, although presumably the same species will have similar pain thresholds and pain tolerances to one another in comparison to other species.<br /><br />9. Humans and many animals can produce their own natural pain killers, as it were. For starters, we could see the difference between anesthesia and analgesia. Anesthesia refers to the loss of sensory modalities in a particular area or entire body, whereas analgesia refers to the easing of painful sensation. Analgesia can occur in the presence of a normally painful stimulus, and it can be produced in both the central as well as peripheral nervous system. <br /><br />10. If an area of the body has had enough nerve damage, say if an animal survived and largely recovered from a previous attack, then it's possible it may not feel anything if the area is damaged enough.<br /><br />11. Yet another distinction is between acute and chronic pain. Law refers to living with excruciating pain. If so, that'd be chronic pain, not acute. Do most animals suffer from chronic pain?<br /><br />12. There's so much more to be said, but this should suffice for now.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33787648392934347662016-10-25T23:29:57.362-04:002016-10-25T23:29:57.362-04:00In no particular order:
1. At best, I think it...In no particular order:<br /><br />1. At best, I think it'd only apply to animals with a developed enough nervous system to experience pain in ways Law is describing. That rules out huge swathes of animals or organisms (e.g. microoganisms, insects, many fish, many reptiles). <br /><br />2. Of course, just because an animal experiences pain doesn't necessarily mean pain is always equivalent to suffering. For instance, we can distinguish between pain and suffering if we consider pain as a physical sensation plus a reaction to the same sensation, and suffering as involving both physical and psychological components. As such, pain may at times be an expression of suffering, but suffering can occur with or without pain.<br /><br />3. I don't necessarily agree, but here's how the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defines pain: "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage".<br /><br />The reason I bring this up is because in this definition of pain (among others) there is a <i>subjective</i> component involved. <br /><br />Hence, for example, there are some people who experience pain, but medical science doesn't detect their pain fibers firing. The experience of pain may indeed be real for them, but medical science can't detect anything is askew. Everything "seems" normal. If Law is a materialist or physicalist, how would he know such people are experiencing any pain if they don't communicate it to him? <br /><br />4. We can make further distinctions in defining pain. For example:<br /><br />a. Neuropthic central pain - nerve injury in the central nervous system<br />b. Neuropathic peripheral pain - nerve injury in the peripheral nervous system<br />c. Nociceptive somatic pain - lesions of muscle or bone <br />d. Nociceptive visceral pain - disease of the internal organs <br />e. Psychogenic pain - presumed to exist despite no nociceptive or neuropathic mechanism rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5787540646787416182016-10-25T17:47:38.737-04:002016-10-25T17:47:38.737-04:00Law:
'Compare: I have the choice of creating ...Law:<br /><br />'Compare: I have the choice of creating either a creature that will live happily, or one that will live in excruciating pain...'<br /><br />And that's the crux of it. No supporting arguments. Just unsubstantiated assertions about nonexistence being preferable to a painful death at the end of an animal's life, and then this absurd final claim. What on earth does it mean for an animal to 'Live in excruciating pain'? It seems to me that, by the end, Law was so battered and bruised that he was by now flailing around so badly that this absurd gem somehow found its way into the proceedings. Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20912233473395030432016-10-25T17:18:47.292-04:002016-10-25T17:18:47.292-04:00It was brutal! Law was utterly and completely scho...It was brutal! Law was utterly and completely schooled.<br /><br />'I get the impression you're a newcomer to Christian apologetics...'<br /><br />If I were a 'loller' I'd still be lolling. He won't make *that* mistake again. However, even with now 'knowing [his] enemy' I still fear for Law if he encounters Mr. Hays again in future.Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43529062557639868052016-10-25T15:07:22.532-04:002016-10-25T15:07:22.532-04:00The Skepticutioner, Steve of Destruction, strikes ...The Skepticutioner, Steve of Destruction, strikes again! ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com