Pain Explored.

This is a generalised attempt to rationalise the phenomenon of pain. An injury or infection occurs at some location in the body, coded nerve signals are transmitted through the nervous system to the brain, and we become aware of a sensation of pain. What we’ve got there are 2 conscious events, i.e. an injury/infection and a sensation of pain, linked by sub-conscious coded nerve signals. The purpose of the sub-conscious nerve signalling is to prompt our conscious being into an appropriate reaction. The nerves, as pre-programmed defensive mechanisms, may have interpreted the injury/infection as one which requires further assistance other than a reliance on default self healing properties, already embedded in the cell structures, and so, they summon our conscious being to intervene.

Perhaps the nervous system has evolved, over many centuries of experiencing horrendous medical experiments, to have reason to mistrust our conscious reactions to it’s signals, and so it retains the option of control over the intensity of the pain sensations it instructs the brain to create, just in case our conscious reactions are not appropriate. That’s hypothetical, but possible just the same. It could also be argued that the pain sensations are simply the nervous system screaming at us that we are not de-coding it’s signals intelligently. Perhaps, all the information we need to know about healing the problem, is already encoded into the signal and we simply don’t know how to de-code this into our conscious reactions. The pain sensation is simply how the nervous system expresses its frustration at our ignorance. Hypothetical, but possible. It wouldn’t be the first time we failed to see the obvious.

It would seem that there would be greater complexity involved in the creation and transmitting of nerve signals, other than to simply create a sensation of confusing pain, which might lead to inappropriate conscious reactions. It just doesn’t make sense that this would be its only intention, and when it comes to sub-conscious activities such as these, one thing is for sure, they are conducted with absolute purpose. There is no allowance for wastage in these processes. Yet there is obviously a missing link between the sub-conscious and conscious activities, an inability to de-code from one to the other, which throws the whole process into a panic state. Again, hypothetical, but possible. In the future, we may well find a way to copy nerve signals onto a software programme, which de-codes them properly, and thus we could react properly, as instructed by our best advisor….the nervous system.

If we assume that our sub-conscious nervous system is always one step ahead of our conscious reactive system, which in all rational thinking, as our primary defense mechanism, it must be, then we can see that it is probably capable of using tactics to counteract our possible irrational reactions. The pain is likely to get worse if we don’t react intelligently. The nervous system is really fighting on two fronts. On one, it is encouraging local healing processes to kick in, and on the other it is engaged in a battle of wits with our conscious awareness. It could be argued that, over time, the nervous system should have evolved a less complicated way to instruct its host and thus achieve best results. Unfortunately, it doesn’t need to refine its systems, its already perfect, and we shouldn’t expect it to lower its methods to accommodate our ignorance. It is our conscious awareness which needs adjusting to make the equation work properly. We only have to look at our own conscious history of failures and inappropriate reactions to know who’s responsible for that broken link.

Gerry

I’m a big fan of that moment, just before I fall asleep, when something washes over me and I fall into painfree sleep. I can only put it down to the possibility of the sub-conscious taking over the default nerve processes, which have been subject to conscious control whilst awake. One of two events seems to occur, either the nervous system opens the neurological gateways for releasing natural pain killing chemicals, or it simply puts its signalling on hold. I find it hard to believe that it shuts down its signalling, when an injury whilst sleeping would cause pain and wake us. So, I’m more inclined towards the gateways being opened as an explanation. And that’s what it feels like, its like a unifying event occurs within us which gives us a ‘complete’ cozy feeling just as we doze off. This is probably more noticeable by anyone with a chronic painful condition, and more so when no medications are involved.

The big question here is…..why doesn’t this happen when we’re not sleeping, or just about to fall asleep. A probable explanation for this might be that, whilst awake, our conscious being is allowed to assume dominance over the sub-conscious, and it won’t allow the sub-conscious to instruct reactions which it doesn’t quite ‘understand’. Alternatively, there is also the issue that the sub-conscious, ‘knowing’ that its defense systems are perfect, won’t allow any ‘corrupt’ conscious control, which might compromise the integrity of its own endeavours, and so it stops short of finishing its task. There are no such barriers when we sleep. It might simply be that the day belongs to the conscious, and the night belongs to the sub-conscious. Either way, to me, when the sub-conscious is in control, it does its job well, and wins all arguments. When the conscious is in control, we seem confused, in pain, and open to all sorts of irrational responses.

One would normally assume that the sub-conscious processes, because of their nature as our primary defense, would take precedence all the time. This obviously doesn’t happen. Perhaps the sub-conscious has the ability to allow the conscious to be the dominant decision maker whilst awake, just so it can guage what our reactions might be if left to fend for ourselves. This would depend on our sub-conscious system being pre-programmed to allow for irrational responses, as a continual learning technique, on the assumption that our conscious being is capable of behaving like a wayward child. There’s nothing to say that it doesn’t have such-like properties, except our arrogance in assuming that our conscious awareness is somehow perfect.

So, just to get all this straight. The sub-conscious system is perfect, and reliable, and it offers us a painfree sleeping event. The conscious system, which overrides this whilst awake, is imperfect, unreliable, and it doesn’t know how to unlock neurological gateways to painkilling chemicals. There must have been a time when both these systems meshed together and worked for the greater good. There seems no sense in just accepting that they’re inherently designed to conflict with each other endlessly. Perhaps the one has had to evolve, over the millennia, to counteract the inconsistencies of the other. Where they both meet in conflict is where the sensation of pain is manifested. If the sub-conscious is capable of going about its business whilst we sleep in a painfree manner, then it is also capable of achieving similar results when we are awake. Unfortunately, its way is blocked, and that blockage is signalled to our conscious being in the form of pain. If all this sounds in any way probable, perhaps the solution lies in somehow allowing the sub-conscious to have dominance whilst awake. I’m not one to bother myself with Eastern Mysticism, but maybe those Sufi Whirling Dervishes were closer to the answers than we would care to imagine.

I'm on a little roll here, so please forgive my persistance.

Nervous Systems V PC Systems

This is an attempt to draw parallels of understanding between the functioning of a computer and the functioning of our nervous system. Both systems are based on pre-programmed coding, but I’ve got no doubts that the nervous system is much more advanced because it operates and makes critical decisions even when its designated controller is asleep.

A PC is designed with an integrated programmable binary code system which will operate as instructed and produce a predictable outcome. It also has a protective system incorporated, which can detect unintelligible binary codes, and in order to protect itself from these rogue codes, it will create an Error Code Warning which, in turn, is interfaced to the controller. Most PC users won’t have a clue what these Error Codes mean, but they will recognise that it’s a critical warning of imminent PC crashing, and so they will resort to different methods of trying to erase the problem. A programmer would probably advise simply locating the rogue code and removing it before it manages to become a recognisable and accepted part of the operating system. But a user will probably try several types of rescue because they don’t have the programmer’s skills. Luckily, the PC has already been protectively programmed to allow for the user’s lack of skill, and it will usually negate any attempts which might cause further contamination. Viewed from the outside, this might seem awfully clever, but really its just safeguarding by blocking anything which hasn’t been previously approved.

The nervous system operates similarly, although with even greater complexity. For instance, a rogue infection is detected and a coded signal is transmitted to the brain, to warn the controller. Unfortunately, the controller doesn’t seem to have the necessary skills to translate the signal codes and, instead of getting an Error Code Warning which specifies exactly what the problem is, a blockage occurs, manifested by a sensation of pain, because the default protective system has not been able to display its error code properly. Complex as the nervous system is, it has highly refined self-protective systems which will not allow it to interface with another system (our conscious control) which it suspects might cause cross-contamination. It must protect its own integrity at all costs. So, the pain sensations, signifying a blockage, are a secondary warning system, when the main purpose of the signal has not been allowed to achieve its primary goal i.e. display an error code.

However, the functioning of the nervous system doesn’t just grind to a halt because of this blockage. It is still capable of instigating, on its own, local resistance to an infection, but I suspect that it does this mostly when the designated conscious controller has been switched off, when we sleep. It’s no coincidence that sleep and rest are always seen as the quickest route to recovery, as this is prime time for the sub-conscious to instruct local reactions. If we were honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that our conscious controller doesn’t seem to have either the intelligence or the power to switch on these healing processes….and yet, our sub-conscious can initiate these processes at will.

Basically, where we fall short in deciphering our nerve signalling, we have to resort to using our other sensory receptors to help determine the seriousness of any threat. These methods are somewhat less refined, and so we struggle to understand and react with purpose. There is also the big question of how synthetic masking agents (medications) are likely to interact with nervous system processes, perhaps causing the nervous system to protect itself even more thoroughly with possible future repercussions. That’s an issue which should be rationalised before we have to deal with the consequences.

Fear of Fear.

Having lived with a painful chronic condition ( Cervical Spondylosis ) for many years I’ve come to some conclusions about how it all affects my general ‘outlook’. My ‘outlook’ differs from 99% of other humans I encounter…in some important respects, and there are good reasons for this, which I accept.

For 30 years, I’ve experienced a certain fear, every day, for what tomorrow might bring me. It’s a basic instinctive fear, intellectually insurmountable, and ingrained into my default systems as a result of constant unpredictable repetitive symptoms playing havoc with all that I would have normally wished for. Its not an irrational fear…its an integral element in my survival strategy, and it won’t be wished away, because my plans for tomorrow depend on assessing my abilities according to the levels of discomfort I’m likely to experience. I don’t need to be told different, it is what it is. In fact, the fear may well have become, over the years, the prime mover in my decision making processes. I’m ok with this. It’s a naturally evolving protective system which instructs me to operate within a protective environment which best suits my needs.

It may seem irrational to others who don’t have this ‘fear of tomorrow’ default setting, but only because they see fear as irrational in the first place. Perhaps they’ve never had to deal with this ‘real’ recurring phenomenon. Anyway, the fear is there. It used to mess me up big-time, but now I’m more at home with it, and I use it constructively, hopefully, as in these postings. The fear helps me to focus, as it would do if I were being encircled by a pack of wolves.

Something I’ve become more aware of, in recent years, is the manner in which this ingrained unavoidable sense of fear can kick start other ‘irrational’ reactions, such as anxiety, confusion, medication dependency, and even depression. Most descriptions of Cervical Spondylosis (C/S) will include these possibles….almost like they are semi-expected add-ons to an already difficult situation….and all possibly evolving from a lack of understanding of the purpose of that initial sense of fear. However, they only become add-ons if we don’t apply ourselves to dealing rationally with that sense of fear. With medication dependency, in particular, besides the pain killing factor, what we’re really doing is digging a hole to bury that unwelcome sense of fear, out of sight, and out of mind.

Society doesn’t appreciate any display of fear. We know this, and we go to extraordinary lengths to hide the reality of what we experience. Maybe its only in forums such as this that the truth will out ! Think of it this way….I have an unobvious chronic condition and I must try to disguise it further in order to feel that I am not excluding myself from normal society, because I’m aware what society expects. It can get a bit convoluted, but, even so, better said than unsaid.

The average person’s experience of pain will be a pretty straightforward experience of cause and effect, and subsequently the application of a recognised healing programme. No real need for what might be perceived as unnecessary fear in that equation, and this is how society wants these issues dealt with. Unfortunately, when it comes to unexplained referred pain, where cause and effect cannot be linked, or even worse, where cause and effect are incorrectly assessed, it’s a completely different picture, a picture which has not yet been properly assumed into our social understandings. Perhaps the patient, in trying to emulate social expectations, and with the best of intentions, becomes a willing participant in a misguided programme, and all because society tells them that their sense of fear may be irrational. My instinctive response to that scenario would be to say “Befriend your fears and deal with the problems they are directing you towards. That’s what they are there for”. Its only when we are in conflict with fear i.e. assuming that its irrational, and trying to dismiss it, that we don’t see the reasons why that fear exists in the first place. Good honest fear is there for a reason. Its society’s ‘fear of fear’ which adds irrationality to the whole equation.

As an afterthought, I might just go and invent some exotic irrational fears for myself and play with them for a bit. Humour is in short supply here !

Subliminal Fear

The rules of social engagement define, quite efficiently, how we should react to expressions of fear, whether ‘real’ or ‘subliminal’, by others. For instance, if the source of the fear is obvious, we can empathise easily. Likewise, if the source is not obvious, or doubtful, we can easily override or dismiss the expressed fear as ‘irrational’. These default reactions allow us to carry on without unnecessary anxieties. We all do it. Even those with irrational fears do..(Lets do it, Lets fall…nevermind).
Unless there is good reason for assuming the validity of an expressed fear, then we must contain the possible contagious effects of something which we consider irrational. These are good standard accepted social reactions which help to keep the focus on ‘real’ problems. Even the ‘fear of fear’ scenario, as discussed before, is contained in this manner.

With subliminal fear, different rules come into play. By subliminal fear I mean a sense of fear not necessarily recognised by the person who experiences it, but quite often is obvious to someone who engages socially with that person. For instance, someone with an unobvious chronic condition, whilst recognising that there is no point in continually reminding others of a possible negative outlook for what tomorrow holds in store, will make certain efforts to hide their fear, whether subliminal (i.e. unknown) or not, so as not to encourage the accepted reaction. However, this disguise doesn’t always work, but is still acceptable with a slight bending of the rules by the assessor.

More to the point here is the situation where someone has a subliminal fear, and is not conscious that it is being physically expressed, but it is still obvious to the other person. Let me explain. About once a week, or so, I have these, what I call, my peculiar social reaction days. What happens is this…..I feel ok, I engage socially, and for some reason I get these strange social reactions. Whereas normally I would expect no problems, people just seem to withdraw from engaging with me. Their physical body language seems to turn a bit negative as well, as in certain avoidance gestures which I don’t usually encounter. And this is true for all I meet on that day. Its been happening for years and its always confused me, knocked me back. What the hell was I doing so differently that warranted such reactions ? Very annoying, irritating…you name it !

I think I now know the reasons for all this. On those days I have a certain look in my eyes, perhaps a look of ‘fear’, which I am totally unconscious of (never end a sentence on a preposition…so read as “of which I am totally unconscious”). I say this because I have also come to realise that the next day inevitably turns out to be my ‘worst symptoms’ day. So, in retrospect, what seems to be happening is that my body knows there’s a bad day coming, and I’m not conscious of this fact, but I display a sense of fear unknowingly, and I get these annoying disturbing social reactions to deal with. If I knew it was happening, I’d avoid encouraging it by avoiding interactions. But, on that day, the day before the symptoms kick in, I don’t know its that sort of day. Strangely, the following day, when I do feel rough, and would normally avoid too much socialising anyway, I don’t get these peculiar reactions….so, it’s a ‘double flumox’. What I figure is happening on the second day is this…the symptoms have manifested, there’s no longer a need for an unconscious expression of fear, and people’s reactions return to normal. Go figure !

The problem for me here is, although I’ve managed to rationalise the problem, I still haven’t gotten any closer to being able to predict or recognise these pre-symptom days. Thus would I be able to sit tight until it passes, and avoid the irritating reactions.
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Gerry

Gerry, is't it time you did some reading and study up on this interesting subject?, while sometimes close to the mark here and there, your constructs and self generated conclusions are full of the kind of holes that even one recent book on pain could clear up for you.
No disrespect intended honestly.
Try "Explain pain " by Butler and Mosely.
It's the kind of decent up to date detail you would find fascinating.
Stay curious .
Cheers
G

Hi G

I have previously come across Mosely's lectures on Youtube. It's really interesting and thought provoking. With my own postings, its a process of discovery almost, where I am analysing as I experience, and getting familiar with how I express it, even trying to create or explore new understandings as I go along. Mistakes will be made, but I never take my eye of what I see as the required goal...i.e learning to understand and thus manage pain better. I take no offence at a bit of learned advise, the purpose of my efforts are all inclusive. However, I seem to resist polluting my intuitive approach with already established ideas which I might or might not agree with. I don't want to get lost in technicalities. It seems to me to be more productive to just stay focused on my particular condition C/S and thus make better headway towards resolutions. When the arguments start to spread out into unfamiliar territory I worry that I'll lose that focus.

Here's a peculiarity...I only do my deliberations early in the morning, 7am to 9am. After that the determination dissipates, I lose focus, and I just get on with normal daily stuff. So even though my posts are fairly condensed here, I really don't put a lot of background study into it. I know it may sound like 'hokum' but as I see it, I allow my condition a licence to inform me as I go along, and this is the regime it has imposed on me. I'm more than a willing participant, in fact I love every convoluted minute of it. And there is a good sense that I'm headed in the right direction. As you probably well know, accepted attitudes towards behavioural responses to nerve problems need better understanding of the real processes involved before there is any improvement in treatments, and that's what drives me.

In the meantime, I already had a post prepared before I read your comments, so I'm going to stick that up anyway. Its not connected.

Gerry

The Olympics !

The 2012 Olympics are being held a couple of miles down the road from where I live. A sense of being close to such a global event has inspired the following comments.

Although I can’t fully rationalise it, I am aware that we are all, with few exceptions, titillated by the prospect of displays of physical superiority, by means of regulated games, which pander to our basic tribalistic competitive instincts. Somewhere, in our nature, we desire confirmation that the elite representatives of our particular culture / nation can hold their own against all opponents. It’s a bit like the warrior champions of old engaging in single handed combat , to avert the prospect of both armies having to engage in a bloody battle. And we accept the results and go home peacefully, feeling like winners or losers respectively. The entire experience is probably only properly explained on a Freudian level.

The whole event is underpinned by some global desire to decide superiority, otherwise there is absolutely no point in running 100 metres faster than anyone else. I may be misguided here, but I actually believe that, when I get through a days work, and considering my limitations with cervical spondylosis, I have actually achieved more than Usain Bolt has achieved in his entire racing career. The fact that his rewards make my rewards look non-existent is merely relative to the insane global misunderstandings of relative achievements. However, I’ll bite the bullet on that one because I too have that tribalistic requirement to associate myself with genetically similar champions. No matter how they develop their physicality to freakish proportions just to appease my need for a sense of winning, I forgive them their dedication to a pretty useless pastime.


And now to the ParaOlympics. I’ve got real problems with this one. Real problems of ‘elitism’ and ‘exclusivity’. I can’t imagine that anyone with an unobvious painful chronic condition ( MS, Crohn’s, RA, Lupus, or even C/S etc etc ) could relate in any meaningful way to a display of seemingly overcoming disability by disabled athletes who are, maybe, lucky enough not to experience chronic pain. I’m not sure I’ve expressed that correctly…it’s a minefield of threatening terminology. I understand that people with certain disabilities might want to compete as the able bodied do, but I don’t see that that is representative of the vast majority of disabilities. I’d even go so far as to say that I suspect the whole ParaOlympic event is used to ease the conscience of the able bodied populace by only displaying an elite of disabled athletes. It has a pretence about it that, if only disabled people tried a bit harder, then they can achieve just like the able bodied. Strangely, we don’t apply that same argument / pressure to the able bodied audience of the able bodied Olympics. We just assume that some are better than others and leave it at that.

So, here’s a question…..Are the ParaOlympics used as a means to pressure the many varied disabled into trying harder to be ‘normal’ ? If I were to organise a ParaOlympic event, I would simply ask 5 wheelchair bound disabled to sit in their wheelchairs for 5 minutes, and then give all 5 a gold medal each for just enjoying themselves. Competing between different disabilies just doesn’t work in my mind. We should represent the struggle with disabilities as one of survival, rather than as one of competing to be better than another disabled person.

Gerry, athletes routinely decribe the thrills of competition as beyond words, though one word springs to mind,Fun.
Disabled athletes enjoy the same joys associated with exertion, connection to team building, committment to excellence and the benefits of fitness , as non disabled athletes. It's far broader field of human behaviours than tribalism and worth every moment.
Maybe there is a place for you amongst their ranks, can you make your neck crack ?, to music?, there have been stranger things on talent shows.
Keep up the thoughts, I fancy your early morning writing is akin to exercise as a way to vent steam and relax that curious mind of yours.
Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gerry the neck

The Olympics !

So, here’s a question…..Are the ParaOlympics used as a means to pressure the many varied disabled into trying harder to be ‘normal’ ? If I were to organise a ParaOlympic event, I would simply ask 5 wheelchair bound disabled to sit in their wheelchairs for 5 minutes, and then give all 5 a gold medal each for just enjoying themselves. Competing between different disabilies just doesn’t work in my mind. We should represent the struggle with disabilities as one of survival, rather than as one of competing to be better than another disabled person.

---

Agreed, lets tell the paralympians who have trained for years that they cant/shouldnt compete against each other in sporting activity. Its of no value. If you're disabled you should just sit down and have fun in your wheelchair

OK. Funny. Both of you. But I still think you miss my point. Firstly, of course I don't resent people doing whatever thrills them. I myself would gladly enter the 'thinking' olympics. Its my age, you see. And thats another point....shouldn't there be 'pensioner' Olympics....why exclude my demographic ? I just don't see the para Olympics as representing anybody except 'abled' disabled, and besides the challenges to the athletes involved, it runs the risk of simply increasing the general public's air of patronisation towards such an event. I don't believe the general interest is anything but media hyped patronage. A recent poll in The Guardian (check it out on net ) revealed that 60% of disabled people thought it was pointless, it didn't represent most disabilities, and there was a majority desire to have it combined with the 'main' olympics to encourage not viewing disabled as different. I don't agree with that desire, there's no way that could work to anybody's satisfaction.

As it happens, two of my nieces are involved in the opening ceremony and i wouldn't dare try to spoil the occasion for them with my disparaging views. However, there is an issue at stake here. Take Stephen Hawkins for instance. His image is constantly used in this condescending and patronising way. But he is a unique exception to the rule. If they did manage to invent a sport he could partake in, I expect he would receive a gold medal for just being sedantary. See my point ? I'm all for everyone doing whatever they are able to do, but its not representative if it excludes. Especially in matters of disability. And, I never suggested that anybody should be told not to compete !

PS.....in a way, I suppose, the Para Olympics, whilst seemingly offering inclusivity, might really be creating even more levels of exclusion in the general overview of disabilities.

PS again....Just noticed that these 'Pain Explored' posts have just reached 666 views ! Maybe they are being read by 'You know who ' !!

I was just going to post another comment related to the disabled athletes you have mentioned when I scolled down to your "666" gem.
Hmmm, maybe not.
Take care Gerry.

Fair enough G. It was a silly distraction...and serves no purpose here. Sorry. I'd still like to read your comments on Para Olympics if you can overlook this. Its one of the problems with anon posting, unlike real time encounters...it always tempts a wandering of the mind. Lesson learned, hopefully.

Gerry

There are "pensioner" Olympics , of a sort. Swimming and triathlon for instance have always had aged group competition world wide. Five year age groupings allow those of advanced years to continue to enjoy their sports till death takes them to a new start line. There is also Senior Grames, staged every four years just like the Olympics, with all the hubbub and striving for excellence that open competition have.
Like many of the experiences we can enjoy, it's about pitting yourself against your last best performance, much more than beating the next guy. Mature athletes definitely have heaps of fun. Just like disabled ones. Seen from a non athletes perspective this , like all sport, may seem like an odd way to spend lots of time and energy.
Taken instead , as a display of that incorrigable zeal humans have always had to pit themselves against the odds, to revel in their skills and energy, to exhult as only winners over personal limits can, age group and disabled competition makes the same sense as any other open sport. Long may it continue.

You're absolutely right. I'm being drawn into a discussion here that I already agree with. Everybody, whether disabled or not, should have an outlet to explore their capabilities, no matter what. My point is that a global event, claiming to represent disabled people, is drawing a veil over real disabled issues by just focussing on the abilities of elite 'enabled' disabled athletes. Unlike the main Olympics, where we can relate to the trials on show, and where we know that, with a lot of effort, that may well have been me out there, the Para Olympics simply don't offer the same sense of oneness with the event to the majority of disabled people who know they could never compete at these levels. The dream is only relevant to a minority. Good luck to them, but in my opinion. they are the chosen ones. I think most disabled people will see it as this. I'm also concerned about the 'eugenics' element attached which suggests that continuous improvement is the only goal, and the image that creates in the general public's mindset. That completely discounts situations which can't be improved upon, which is true of most chronic conditions. I think you can see why many disabled people won't see this iconic event in the same way that the able bodied might like to think. And I think that the media hype which patronises this event plays on able bodied perceptions rather than on real disabled issues.

G

ps....Call me cynical but its a lot easier to display our support for the disabled over a 2 week event than it is to maintain that support over a long 4 years. Perhaps the Para Olympics, by offering us an outlet to display our support, at the same time provides a reasonable guiltless excuse for ignoring the issues at other times. I'd like to see some para olympians raise their fist at this event and demand recognition for those who can't compete. Its all very well creating equal opps and non-discrimination laws to protect the disabled , but the very fact that we consider this necessary is because the social bond has already been broken. It needs fixing in a way that an athletic event could never achieve.

G

And the latest scandal on the Para Olympics.......Apparently some of the athletes, with a particular spinal condition, have been accused of trying to boost their performances with a little gruesome trick. It seems that, before an event, if they break a toe, or a finger, or injure themselves in any way, below the level of their spinal injury, then their performance is enhanced with increased blood pressure. Unbelievable ! What does that say about my humble attempts to explore the 'Pain' issue. They are so filled with the desire to win that they'll stoop to these insane levels. This is true. Accepted its just a minority, but still I feel my empathy is being mocked. I'll be watching the Opening Ceremony tonite, mostly because I've got two nieces involved as entertainment volunteers, but after that, I think I'll give it a miss, out of respect for my feelings.

What is ‘Referred Pain’ trying to tell us ?

Again, I’ll reiterate that I’m exploring these issues purely on an intuitive basis. Sometimes, too much knowledge is an obstruction. Just trying to focus rationally on why ‘referred pain’ exists at all, I believe, can reveal certain secrets about how the nervous system chooses to operate as it does.

I’m going to assume here that all referred pain originates with some actual threat to the nerve system itself. I don’t know if this is strictly true, but in my experience, it is. Its probably reasonable for anyone to assume that, where a nerve is compressed, it might cause pain further along its extremity, and only in that part of the body to which that nerve is dedicated. However, as I see it, it should cause numbness, not pain. Pain would only be relevant if there was an injury at that extremity. Where there is an occurrence of pain (referred pain) at an extremity, and there is no obvious injury there, then we must reverse our thinking on normal nerve system signalling processes so we can locate the actual problem.

To me, this is a clever tactic which the nerve system employs to slow down our responses, because it doesn’t trust how we might consciously react if it simply signalled pain at the actual source…i.e. a threat to itself. I know that sounds like I’m giving the nervous system a separate identity of its own, capable of making decisions and enacting processes, and capable of outwitting our conscious reactions. And I am, but only in the same way that we understand our conscious and subconscious beings tend to interact. One or the other must dominate according to the circumstances. But, with the nervous system, it must always dominate by default, otherwise its protective systems become vulnerable to corruption, and that just wouldn’t make sense. ‘Referred Pain’, in itself, causes this puzzle, and we must re-learn the process backwards to find the logic in it.

Where the neck is concerned, I can easily see why the nervous system resorts to such ‘referred pain’ to achieve its protective aims. The neck must carry on functioning regardless of its own distress, and any actual neck pain is reserved by the nervous system as a last resort. Considering the human race has gone through many thousands of years unaware that referred pain in the hand might signify a threat to a nerve in the neck, I think that the nervous system has been very patient, waiting for us to gain the knowledge to interpret its signals correctly. And now that we know, what do we do ? It seems that we resort to interfering aggressively with external manipulations, which seem to me to go against the very reason why the nervous system adopted ‘referred pain’ signalling processes in the first place. Maybe the whole ‘referred pain’ system worked better when we knew less !

And, the nervous system hasn’t yet adjusted itself to our new methods. If its original intention was to somehow distract us from the source of the problem, what must it do now that we are no longer distracted ? Should it evolve an electric shock for anyone who dares to touch the damaged area ? Of one thing we can be sure. Now that the secrets of referred pain are being unravelled, we must assume that the nervous system is likely to resort to other, as yet unknown, methods, to maintain its position in the hierarchy of control over threats to itself.


Gerry

Valuable information. :)

So, moving on. Been reading a lot of PT forums recently, and one thing stands out for me.....many Pts are still trying to come to some good understanding for the source and meaning of 'pain'. That only means one thing....it hasn't yet been properly explained to them. Perhaps there is no explanation as yet, despite the worthy efforts of some. How much better would it be if the essential nature of 'pain' was better understood, and how much better would the treatments be ?

The problem, it seems to me, is that they are looking in the wrong place for that elusive understanding. All focus seems to be on the conscious brain, and whether pain is a product of the brain. Try thinking about it this way....when we sleep, why do we have a painfree experience ? Is it because our nervous system and our unconscious brain are capable of synchronising perfectly in a combined effort to heal a problem, thus the need for painful sensations are negated ? It seems that the element of pain is not essential to this process, so why should it become essential when the conscious mind is awake ? Doesn't make sense !
Perhaps the nervous system, which is an integral incorruptable autonomous system, can easily synchronise with the unconscious brain, but has difficulty doing so with the conscious brain, which as we all know can be a corrupted deluded confused system. Our arrogance in assumming some sort of superiority for the conscious brain doesn't help either. That might suggest to me that any painful sensations made apparent to the conscious brain are simply the nervous system expressing its frustration, knowing that the perfect synchronisation with the brain is now hampered by an underperforming and corrupted conscious brain. The difference between the two states of sleep and wakefulness is where pain enters the equation and manifests itself, and there must be a perfectly rational reason for that. Pain, as a beneficial component in any healing process makes no sense whatsoever. Where it might make sense is where it might be used , by the nervous system, to highlight a problem with that healing process, and as it is only experienced when the brain is conscious, that suggests that's where the problem is.

So, pain might be the nervous system expressing its frustration that its perfectly coded instructions for healing are not being obeyed. Seems we have two internal autonomous organs which can synchronise or conflict....wouldn't be the first time we've encountered this in the natural order. In fact, why should we even assume that it shouldn't be so, except that we might like to assume that our conscious brain is dominant. It's not...fact ! The nervous system is only capable of sticking to it's purpose and that makes it a substantially more reliable system. After all, when did anybody ever recover from an illness just by thinking ? Without the nervous/immune systems slogging away in the background, I doubt that any of us would have exited the maternity ward.

The idea of pain being a product of conflict between nervous system and conscious brain may seem a bit abstract to anyone experiencing pain. But, when you look into the fact that pain only manifests when we are awake, it asks a big question about the essential nature of pain. Couple that with the fact that many experts have still not opted for one good theory of pain which suits all. The debate is still open and any reasonable theories should be explored.

- - - Updated - - -

PS....If only we could replicate the synchronisation which occurs when we sleep and apply it to our waking hours, then perhaps pain would become irrelevant !

Well it is so needed information you have provided here that i was wondering for the same from a long time ago.

The mystery of Referred Pain

Referred Pain is most commonly experienced when a nerve is somehow compromised, either threatened or obstructed in the spinal structure. A sensation of pain, seemingly ‘real’ pain, is felt in an otherwise perfectly healthy local area (for instance hand, arm, leg etc ) . The pain feels just as ‘real’ as it would if there was an injury to that local area, and thus begins a process of analysing by the conscious mind ( C/M) to identify a possible source. With no obvious injury in the local area apparent, that analysis must adopt lateral means of cognition to aid identifying a possible source for the referred pain. However, part of that analysis should also be to identify what created this sensation of ‘fictitious’ referred pain, and what was the purpose in adopting such oblique methods in order to engage the conscious mind ( C/M) with a possible threat or injury.

There must be a purpose, and there must be a purpose for the methods employed also, otherwise we are dealing with something which makes no sense whatsoever. That purpose seems to be that some ‘intelligence’ has contrived to alert our C/M into a process of seeking some hidden ‘silent’ malfunction, most likely a threat to a nerve somewhere. The creation of a ‘fictitious’ sensation of pain in an otherwise healthy local area may be the least compromising way of raising this alert. This may well be the nervous system’s (N/S) adopted best method for raising the alarm about a threat to itself, because any direct indication (sensation of pain) to the actual threatened area might be too traumatic and counter-productive. The N/S is inherently designed, or has evolved, to always maximise its protective qualities, and as such, chooses to alert its own distress by means of ‘fictitious’ referred pain.

This peculiar behaviour also gives us some insight into the essential nature of pain itself. If it is possible for a ‘fictitious’, but seemingly ‘real’ sensation of pain to be felt in a healthy local area, what does that say about the nature of pain ? It suggests that pain can be manipulated by some unknown force. It suggests that pain is being used as a tool by some ‘intelligence’. It suggests that our normal understandings of the processes of injury / pain are being overridden whenever a nerve is threatened. It also suggests that our C/M can easily be confused with these conflicting overlapping purposes which we perceive in the experience of referred pain in particular. However, if we alter our perceptions slightly, and try to see these events from the perspective of what the N/S is trying to achieve, it can begin to make sense. The N/S has irrevocable duties and responsibilities to ensure survival, one of which is to inform the C/M of any ‘silent’ threats. How it achieves this goal, and the complex methods and tactics it uses, are probably the least traumatic and most favourable methods available to it. The less our C/M is aware of these tactics is probably a beneficial side effect as well, because the slower we are in becoming aware of a threatened nerve might serve its own purpose. A compromised nerve, because it might compromise the whole protective system, has its own set of behavioural rules, one of which is to override normal injury/pain relationships, which are known to our C/M, and to employ methods which slowdown our responses….thus allowing the N/S more time to rectify any threat to itself, without the interference of questionable interventions contrived by the C/M.

In an attempt to visualise the relationship between the N/S and the C/M I’m inclined to view the both as different operating systems using the same hard drive. As such, they might only have the capacity to influence each other on very minimal levels. Any cross-contamination, particularly from the C/M to the N/S is prohibited because, although the C/M is programmed to allow for errors of judgement, the N/S isn’t. Any compromising of the responsibilities or functions of the N/S could be disastrous. If we assume that the N/S is capable of using the ‘illusion’ of ‘fictitious’ referred pain in order to influence the behaviour and reactions of the C/M, then we must summarise that the N/S is capable of resorting to deceptive means in order to achieve its goals, irrespective of how the C/M might actually react.

Only one explanation can be read into such events and that is, that the N/S is somehow ‘aware’ of the possible incorrect assessments which the C/M is capable of, and therefore the N/S attempts to pre-empt any possible C/M mistakes. It might be said that the N/S has learned its lessons from the irrational reactions of the C/M, and has adjusted its methods, over time, to suit such unpredictable reactions. It might even be said that the N/S allows the introduction of a sensation of pain, as a constant reminder to the C/M that any injury / threat must be treated with care and proper consideration. Why is it that, when the C/M is sleeping (i.e. unconscious) there seems less need for the sensation of pain to enter the equation. Perhaps the N/S detects less possibility for irrational reactions, orchestrated by the C/M.

I’m aware that much current research into the enigma of pain tends to view pain as a construct of the C/M, i.e. that the N/S provides the warning signals and the C/M does the rest. I disagree with this approach, simply because of what seems to occur during a referred pain event i.e. a ‘fictitious’ pain is signalled in an otherwise healthy local area in order to prompt the C/M into assessing a ‘silent’ threat elsewhere. That would suggest that the referred pain was instigated by something other than the C/M. After all, why would the C/M need to prompt itself into such a reaction, if it was already aware of the location of the ‘silent’ threat. Of course, the C/M isn’t aware of any of this…..but the N/S is, and the means it uses to prompt an appropriate C/M reaction are very interesting when attempting to consider the essential nature of pain, and how and why it is used as a tool by the N/S.

Admittedly, there are some instances where the C/M seems to have some influence over pain sensations, but these are mostly illusionary in nature, and can easily be put down to the meanderings of a low grade, sometimes defective, operating system, which resides well down the pecking order in terms of integrity of function. The C/M is fallible. The N/S isn’t. The N/S only seems fallible when the C/M has distorted our interpretations. To view the real action we must disengage from our pressing need to always allow our C/M to sit on top of the hierarchy of our understanding.

Lumbar Trapped Nerve V Cervical Trapped Nerve

In an attempt to gain some further insights into nervous system behaviour, I’m going to ask the following question : “What’s the difference between Lumbar Trapped Nerve and Cervical Trapped Nerve ?”. Essentially, there should be no difference except for the fact they are located in different body areas. Yet, the manifested symptoms differ greatly.

In the Lumbar case, usually it initiates with a twanging elastic band / electric shock sensation, which quickly clarifies into a sharp pain at point of entrapment, rendering the subject immobile, temporarily. Over the next few days, if the subject rests and rehabs properly, the pain gradually dissipates into the surrounding areas ( muscles, thigh, leg etc ) until, as the threat to the nerve lessens, gradually, mobility is restored. It would seem that the trapped nerve issue is somehow self-resolvable with proper rest ensuring no further aggravation, in most cases.

In the Cervical case, because of the need to maintain some flexibility of the neck to ensure the functionality of other vital organs which also use the neck, there usually is no painful indication at the point of entrapment. Instead, what is usually experienced is a range of ‘associated’ protective reactions in the local neck / head / shoulder areas, and possibly referred pain / symptoms in the arm or hand. The main difference is the obvious lack of immobilising pain at the source. So , why this difference in nerve responses ?

With the Lumbar entrapment, there are no local vital organs which depend on mobility in that region. So, the nervous system can instigate symptoms which do immobilise, and thus ensure speedy recovery. With the Cervical entrapment, the nervous system responding in a similar manner might easily compromise other vital functions which use the flexible neck, and so, it ‘chooses’ an array of ‘safe’ symptoms to avoid any possible reflected problems. This method of response can obviously cause a delay in the healing processes, but it seems that ‘choosing’ the safer option is worth that inconvenience.

If this is so, then it would also seem that the nervous system can ‘decide’ which functions are prioritised, even at the expense of an extended healing of the real problem i.e. the trapped nerve. Of course, it also suggests that the nervous system can predict possible associated outcomes, even long term outcomes, before it even manifests its first responsive symptoms. I’d even suggest that the nature of the symptoms it ‘chooses’ are somehow designed to gradually make us aware of the location of the ‘silent’ entrapment, and thus help avert any rash inappropriate conscious responses. If the nervous system has this inherent ability to ‘choose’ between direct or indirect responses, dependant upon the priorities of other local vital functions, then we have to assume that it has this means at its disposal in any given similar situation. Perhaps we have gotten too used to a less complex overview of the nervous system, and thus tend not to focus on its predictive, pre-emptive and protective qualities.

Pain……A restraint on conscious reactions ?


When we look at ‘pain’, we have very few, if any, relative experiences to compare it to which might help us to consciously understand its nature. Mostly, we fall back on assuming a purpose for ‘pain’, and that gives us a framework of sorts for building concepts of what is actually happening during a ‘pain’ event. If we assume an incorrect purpose, then we end up constructing concepts on a false premise, and subsequently all conclusions arrived at are disposable. If we can’t prove a purpose for ‘pain’ then all theories, concepts or notions are of equal speculative value…..unless proved otherwise.

Seems to me that the purpose of ‘pain’ has never been defined without contained assumptions which are difficult, if not impossible, to prove. Those assumptions must be challenged vigorously. I think it’s only natural for anyone to want to assume a purpose onto ‘pain’, if only to help direct all our interactions with such an enigmatic event. Almost everybody will tend towards the assumption that pain must be part of some kind of warning/protective system, because of its common association with the fact that it might be instigating a conscious awareness of an injury. It’s easy to see a connection, and it’s easy to make an assumption which most will tentatively agree with. I know there are also some ideas around which suggest that ‘pain’ is a conscious mind output, and as such is vulnerable to conscious mind alterations, but nonetheless the purpose is still perceived as a warning which is manifested according to an individual’s conscious mind settings. I see a need to challenge this assumed purpose of pain, simply because it is an assumption, and it must be challenged before acceptance in any sense.

So, I’m going to put forward an argument which suggests an alternative possible purpose for ‘pain’, just to see if this new ‘purpose’ can hold its own against previously described assumptions. There will be no proof, just as there is no proof for assuming otherwise. My argument is that “the purpose of ‘pain’, as we know it, is to restrain inappropriate conscious mind reactions to an injury” . In support of that argument, I’m going to list several pros and cons for both types of assumptions, and try and ascertain which seems the more plausible :

On ‘pain’ as a warning:

Pain causes confusion, irritability.
Pain creates a sense of wanting to negate our awareness of it.
Pain creates a sense of wanting to evacuate our conscious mind.
Pain doesn’t help directly with healing in any sense.
Pain might even obstruct healing, because it can encourage irrational decision choices.
Pain could drive us insane in a crisis which needs attention.
Surely there should be less distressing ways of drawing our attention to a threat.
There is no need for pain in the nonconscious state.
Healing continues in the nonconscious state without pain.
Why would there be a requirement for a warning after an injury has already happened ?
If we’re already consciously aware of an injury, why do we need a continuous warning ?


On ‘pain’ as a conscious reaction restraint

Pain causes confusion, which slows our conscious reactions.
Pain dominates our consciousness and confuses decision making processes.
Pain possibly alternates its intensity in direct relation to how much consciousness it requires to be negated..
Severe pain can cause a nonconscious state where pain becomes irrelevant, and healing is possibly better served.
The conscious mind is capable of reacting dangerously to a threat, and so it must be restrained to avert further possible threats.
Pain draws attention to itself, not to an injury….if we have an internal injury we are only aware of the pain, not the nature of the injury.
Pain is a tool utilised to influence conscious mind reactions…a tool which is surplus to requirement in the nonconscious state.
The conscious mind has no influence over autonomic reactions to an injury. However, it does have the ability to choose to interfere with the injury, whether wisely or not. Pain may well be the autonomic system’s defense against perceived inappropriate interference.
Pain fits the description of something designed to confuse reaction, better than it fits a description of something designed simply to warn.



Obviously, this is a hugely biased argument, and intentionally so in order to highlight the differences in alternative perspectives. There is probably a natural reluctance to view the purpose of pain as anything other than a warning, and that comes at the expense of not fully considering alternative concepts which conflict with already held opinions. But if those opinions aren’t questioned for the assumptions they obviously are, then we are just restricting ourselves to groping in the dark. Assumptions only allow for the building of possibility concepts, which are valid concepts until proved otherwise. Science requires facts. The conceptualising of the purpose of pain is still in the assumptive phase.

I think there is good argument for conceptualising the purpose of ‘pain’ as being an unpleasant but nonetheless necessary means of controlling or influencing the conscious mind from making inappropriate decisions. Compared to how we tend to assume the purpose of ‘pain’ , there would be implications to accepting, or even considering as an equally possible valid assumption, an alternative overview.


I'm not overruling the possibility that pain may have two purposes...to warn, and to restrain. But, as the 'restraint' issue is generally so conveniently overlooked, I think that needs my support more.