Tag Archives: supervenience

Catfight Safari

I didn’t seek a share in the house or anything that went along with it. I was drafted for it by my friend, Tim. I had been living in Seattle after graduating from college and came back to southeast Tennessee to help my parents after my mother became ill. The move was abrupt and left me renting a basement room from my parents. Mom’s health stabilized over the next few weeks, and I began looking around for alternative accommodations. I had a lead on a new job by that time too. I had been working on a landscaping crew in Seattle. Landscaping work, however, was harder to come by in the South, so I checked in with a former employer, the local Hibachi steakhouse. I had parted ways with the restaurant on good terms. I thought maybe they would be willing to take me back doing kitchen prep and cleaning up alongside Tim and two of his brothers. I was ready to settle for the same, but lucky for me, Tim stayed with the restaurant after I left, and subsequently got promoted to bartender. He put in a good word for me and may have exaggerated my mixological experience. Soon, I was blending daiquiris in a dress shirt and shiny shoes, behind an air-conditioned bar, for about the same wage as I got for kitchen work, plus tips.

While Tim was orienting me to the new job, I mentioned my living situation to him. He perked up immediately. Destiny must be at work he told me. He was just finishing up a successful house hunt and needed people to sign on for rooms and shares of the rent and deposit. I said yes without a second thought.

The landlord was more responsive than most to cash payments, and we had the place within a week. By that time, 3 others had joined the enterprise. Like me, they were on intermission. They had well-paying jobs. In different circumstances, they might have committed to those jobs and the brands that came with them and become Dan the Welder or Jim the Waiter, for instance. The last step, where the aspirant gave up their soul for security was always semi-voluntary and taken under pressure from various directions. We could put off the big moment because we had education, a little bit of family wealth, and a friendly social network. We were destined for more than socioeconomic stagnation at a decent wage. We had little insight into our fortunes, yet we behaved like we were well aware of the backstop between us and total disaster. The barrier meant that we could be a little lax, take a break from expectations and explore socioeconomic alternatives, like voluntary communal living.

The house sat on the corner of an intersection between a numbered street and a dead-end, frontage road. The single story, brick residence started life as a duplex at some more hopeful time in the distant past. It predated the ‘race riots’ the city strove to deny or, better yet pointedly forget. It was old enough to come with a warning that lead might be present in the paint flakes that fell from the windows whenever we opened or closed them. The floor was not level and sagged in spots to boot. The adjacent houses, as well as those on the next block down, were of similar construction and in similar shape. At the time, my only means of transportation was a motorcycle, and I was glad for it, because the driveway was tiny, and the parking on the street was crowded. Though they looked functional, somewhere around half of the cars parked on the curb never appeared to move. The frontage road dead ended to the west, where it disappeared under a freeway off ramp. Beyond the frontage road to the south, a fence topped with barbed wire secured the railroad tracks.

I was not with Tim when he went to pick up the keys,. He was determined to assimilate to the neighborhood as much as possible. He said that he wanted to set the tone before everybody moved in, and he told me that he wanted to begin the process by introducing himself on behalf of all the tenants, to the neighbor who lived across the numbered street from us. The neighbor was an older gentleman whose ancestors had likely been brought to the region as slaves. He sat on the front porch when I rode by to have a look at our rental before signing my copy of the lease. He did not look particularly interested in what I was doing. He did not look particularly interested in making new friends. Yet he was still probably the best point of contact for the neighborhood. The house up the street from us was vacant, as was the house up the street from his.

The neighbor’s house was smaller than others on the block. It was 2 bedrooms at most. The rest of the space on the lot was taken up by a much larger than normal side yard. At least, we assumed that it was a side yard. We could not see directly into the area, as it was obscured by an 8-foot-high strip of chain-link, unsupported in the middle and leaning towards the sidewalk under the weight of several sheets of three-quarter inch plywood laid loose across the inside of the fencing for its entire length.

I doubted that our neighbor had ever had much of a break from anything, and although none of us asked for our status, and none of us could change it, his experience may have engendered some resentment towards those who could indulge in an intermission. Though I favored my friend’s intention, I suggested that we might let the man across the street make the first move. Tim later informed me that he had paused for a few seconds on the basis of my advice before he went to knock on the door.

We worked evenings, so he picked up the keys for our rental late in the day. It was dark when he crossed the street. No one was on the porch, and all the windows were black. He had just stepped across the sidewalk when the plywood sheets slammed against the chain-link fencing just a few feet to his left. Horrible growling, snapping, and scrabbling sounds followed the impact . He bolted back across the street and hid in the rental house until the sounds died down. He never went back to knock on the door, and he never wavered in his assessment that whatever lurked behind that plywood, it was no dog.

Once everyone moved in, we quickly stopped bothering with the neighborhood. We lost interest partly because we found other, more immediate concerns, and partially because we realized that the neighborhood was not concerned with us, or anybody else, who lived there. The occupants of all the nearby houses were bound by a tacit agreement to, more or less, mind their own business. For our part, we took care where we parked. I never cranked the throttle until I got my motorcycle out of the area. The bimonthly parties stayed in the house, including the ethanol fireballs, card games, and fighting.

We gave nothing and we took nothing. After a few months, when our commitment to the pact of benign indifference, was unquestionable the neighborhood sent us a liaison. Tim insisted that he heard a knock, but when he opened the door, all he found on the threshold was a somewhat undersized, sick looking, black-and-white male cat. Without a sound or an upward glance, the animal just walked right into our kitchen, limping on his right front leg. When he reached the middle of the room, he flopped down on the linoleum and looked up at us. We stood by for a minute or two with the door propped open while he failed to find a reason to go back outside.

It became apparent over the next 48 hours, that he was there to stay. He was a good cat. He was very calm and would sit by you on the couch without ever inviting himself onto your lap. He never stole food from the counter or squeegeed your face with his tail. Tim invested in a vet visit which revealed that the cat did not have feline leukemia virus, but did have a bite wound which had healed over a bone infection in his right elbow. The cat even took the pills for his infection without too much fuss. Since he had obviously been socialized before he arrived on our doorstep, we made a reasonable effort to find out if he belonged to someone else in the vicinity. We put up signs on a few telephone poles, but never received any inquiries.

Once he was clearly ours, we set about finding him a name. Nothing really seemed to fit though. His personality was thoroughly feline, so something like “Jim Bob” or “Melvin” was out of the question. He wasn’t particularly fat or bony. He didn’t have any really distinctive markings. He wasn’t especially lazy or rambunctious. We decided to table the matter until something happened to show us the way. We would not have to wait long.

The cat was getting a drink from his water bowl, which sat on a windowsill at the far end of the kitchen counter. In the garbage can below, the empty bottle of antibiotic sat atop the trash. The kitchen window looked out across the alleyway to the building behind us. Another cat appeared in a lower-level window of that building. The interloper showed no signs of hostility, and judging by its behavior, may not have even seen us watching it. Our cat exploded in a screeching, growling, hissing fury. He slapped at the window as if blows to the image could transmit the force of his hatred indirectly to the other cat. He remained transfixed by rage until his enemy jumped down from the windowsill and disappeared into the neighboring house.

The sounds of murder had drawn a crowd in the meantime. We stared dumbfounded at our mascot, who now sat calmly licking his foot.
Tim spoke for the crowd in summary, “Jesus fucking Christ!”
And so our cat had a name.
In the interest of comity, we agreed to limit the use of his full name to conversations between housemates alone. In all other circumstances, JFC would suffice. His transformation repulsed the others. I was fascinated. Something so dramatic must mean something. I could not imagine what force could completely and immediately overturn a personality, especially without an existing foothold in the nature of the affected individual.

At that point, we should have kept JFC inside. But the concept of an indoor cat was unfamiliar to us, so we did not block him when he slipped between our feet as we left the house, and some of us even let him out when he begged at the door. I’ll admit, I should have restrained myself, but I was one who let him out whenever he asked, and I took every opportunity to follow him when he went out. He never travelled far. Sometimes he would just slink around the backs of nearby buildings and alleyways. More often, he would duck under the railroad fence. The vast majority of his excursions consisted of sniffing tours around curbs and stairwells punctuated by an occasional spritz of urine on the walls. Sometimes however, he encountered another cat and that was why I was along. Inevitably a fight ensued. The sheer violence was compelling enough, but as I became accustomed to the shrieking and the swirling chunks of fur, I discovered a pattern in these conflicts. I needed to learn more, so I began to venture into the alleyways and through holes in the railroad fence without JFC in the lead. This was easy enough in the neighborhood. I’d take a beer with me and sit down on one of the garbage cans to wait for the action. If someone walked by or came out of a door, I was protected by the pact of benign indifference. As soon as people recognized me they went back to their own business. The same was not true of the railyard. I had to skulk around like the cats themselves when I went there. Security was easy enough to evade in that era, and the very best fights happened in the isolated corners of the yard, so I ended up spending most of my nights out sitting in the shadows of stacked ties and surplus freight cars listening for yowling or footsteps.

I learned a lot. Of course, cat fights basically depended on angle and anticipation, like any other fight. There was much more beyond the basics though. All fights began with growling and shrieking. Intense scrutiny accompanied the noise and prompted subtle shifts in position. Each cat was waiting for the other to experience a brief lapse in concentration. Cats are prone to such lapses, so it was a worthwhile tactic. When the other cat’s nose twitched or their gaze shifted slightly, the aggressor leapt. An ideal pounce would land the jumper on his enemies back, well positioned to deliver a bite to the spinal column or the back of the skull. A cat’s long, relatively thin, and gently curved canines were perfect for that purpose, and it was how they killed larger prey.

The bite never worked on other cats however. The defender reacted by rolling onto his back and fending off the leap with his hind legs, while attempting to get a grip on the opponent’s upper body with his front claws. When the defense worked perfectly, the combatants ended up on their sides, facing each other. From that position, they both launched raking attacks with their back feet while attempting a bite to the shoulder. Since the claws on the back feet got used for running and jumping, the tips were not very sharp, and the raking attacks resulted in loss of belly fur, and not much more. The biting option was fraught. A successful bite on an opponent’s shoulder left the attacker open to a similar move.

Sometimes a cat would just accept the return bite and try to work their teeth deeper into the opponent’s shoulder, wagering that the additional pain would make the other cat let go. However they played it, the position was unstable. Most of the time one or the other would try to break out of it and get back on his feet. Several maneuvers were possible when escaping the face-to-face, recumbent position. The best ones ended up with the attacker standing perpendicular to the defender with the defender on his back. From that position, the attacker had a couple of options. First, he could try for an elbow bite. If executed safely, an elbow bite was much more effective than a shoulder bite. It stood a better chance of disabling the leg, and it was much more painful, since it meant teeth digging into bone. Though the cats could not factor it into their strategy, by the same token, an elbow bite would frequently result in a bone infection like JFC had suffered.

It was difficult to achieve a safe elbow bite however. Positioning for the bite left the attacker open to a similar bite in response, like the situation with the shoulder bite. And as with the shoulder bite, some cats would simply accept the return bite to deliver the attack. More often, the attacker went for a neck bite instead. From the standing, perpendicular position, the front and middle of the opponent’s neck were theoretically accessible. Because of the anatomy in the area, a bite to those structures was very difficult to achieve in practice. All the defender had to do was tuck his chin a little bit and the bite would land on the cheek or the side of the face in front of the ear. That outcome was still a good one. A face bite could injure the jaw muscles, and typically resulted in quite a bit of bleeding. Moreover, it blocked the return bite.

The fights carried on for anywhere from half a minute to half an hour. I typically had trouble predicting who would yield based on injuries sustained. Both cats came away with bite wounds. Often, it was simply down to which cat was more enthralled by its own aggression, and so willing to suffer the injury. As an outsider examining the phenomena objectively, I knew that it all boiled down to territory, which really meant access to female cats. But the combatants couldn’t see that. They felt the push and pull of fury, pain, and fear, which were driven in turn by chemicals in their bloodstream and in their brains, which were driven in turn by genes.

The genetic forces would balance themselves out across the population regardless of what happened to the individual cats and even if someone could wave a magic wand and bestow clear and complete understanding of the situation upon the cats, they lived for the sensations and would do no different. Now, it was my turn to feel repulsed.

I stopped going to the railyard, which towards the end of my catfight investigations, had become an almost daily event. As a result, I was hanging around the house a lot more, and noted some deterioration in the atmosphere. Camaraderie had taken a beating. None of the housemates would deny that, but none of us understood the implications. We didn’t understand that camaraderie, as the sentiment resulting from a commitment to the well-being of one’s fellows, served as the foundation for any group effort, including communal living.

The decay of foundational sentiment began where it always does, in the refrigerator. At the beginning, when the household was solid, we shared food with each other, and even prepared group meals on occasion. As the novelty wore off, extravagant meal prep came to feel more like a chore than a celebration. Inequities in food sharing developed. A couple of the tenants began eating out almost exclusively. If they needed a snack, there was no recourse other than what was in the fridge, which was necessarily other people’s food. Eventually, those of us who still ate at home resorted to hiding our supplies. Most of us accepted that nothing was safe in the refrigerator and switched entirely to nonperishable foods. Two of us continued to stock the fridge. One of those diehards secured his food with padlocks attached to ammo cans from the Army surplus store. For things which did not fit the containers, he attached the following note, “Would I poison something just to prove a point? Have a taste and find out.”

The next thing to go rotten was the housework. When everyone first moved in, we drew up the customary list of chores to be assigned on a rotating basis. When food violations progressed to the point where some housemates resorted to dining out exclusively, dishes began to accumulate in the sink. Additionally, fast food bags, plastic utensils, and pizza boxes built up on the counter and on the tables. The backlog of cleaning got worse and worse until somebody broke and took care of it all themselves in a single Herculean effort which left them resenting all the slackers. By the time I had finished my research with the cats, the chore rotation calendar, whose completion constituted the final chore, was blank going back several months.

Occupancy of the house grew progressively unstable. Some of those who were paying rent, barely came by anymore. To them, the place had become an expensive shower and closet. As the main signer on the lease, Tim had to track these people down and get the money from them in person. That wasn’t easy, because most of them were sleeping in various places on a weekly or even nightly basis. Our house became one of those places for other people. If friends of friends had come over the night before to drink or throw darts or wrestle on the living room carpet, it was not surprising to find several of them still there in the morning, sleeping on the couch or the floor, or perusing the fridge for breakfast items which appeared least likely to be spiked with strychnine.

JFC was a constant in the flux. Stuck with the household through its devolution. He didn’t seem to mind strangers picking him up. He would help with the cleanup of edible scraps, and when his litter box got full and did not get cleaned for a week at a time, he would go outside instead of making a mess in the house. Yet he was becoming a problem at the same time. Unlike me, he had not stopped attending the cat fights. He kept coming back with hematomas and abscesses. Some of these injuries required expensive veterinary services. Evolutionary forces had shaped the cats to survive their fights. Those same forces made him a good companion which pushed us to care for his health and so inadvertently ensured that he was in tip top shape for the next round.

A similar set of forces propped up the house in its devolved state. From the outside, it looked like one out-of-control, endless party. It had such a large pool of prospective occupants that on any given night someone with some claim on the right to flop would have steam to blow off. For those of us who still slept there for most nights of the week, the transient population became a concern, because most of them did not know about the pact. Neighbors up the street had to come by a couple of times to ask us to keep the volume down. The visits were brief, and not overly friendly, but through those brief conversations, we solved the mystery of the others’ relative invisibility. They were working up to 3 jobs each. Some of these were combinations of full and part-time jobs, and some were multiple part-time jobs, all carefully stitched together so that, in theory, if a person immediately fell asleep at the end of their last shift, they could get a full 8 hours of sleep before the next shift began. When they got home, they went straight to bed, and when they woke up, they went straight to work.

Without any conversation or formal agreement, several of us took it in turns to referee nighttime activities. We did whatever it took to keep the noise down. For reasons less clear, our devolution piqued the interest of the neighbor across the street as well. We never exchanged a single word with the man, but he took to sitting out on his porch again, almost every night. He drank from a Mason jar while he stared at the goings-on and chuckled to himself now and then. He would sit there until late in the night or until someone waved to him. He would then return the gesture with a wave hello which turned into a wave get lost, whereupon he stood up laughing quietly and shaking his head, as he staggered back into his house. I kept it to myself, but I knew why he kept watch over the disintegration across the street. Somehow, he knew bootleggers who brought him moonshine to power his vigil. He somehow survived in the face of malicious neglect meted out by the society writ large and his relations in particular. He kept the embodiment of blood thirsty rage in the side yard, just for spite. He watched chaos overcome until he became it himself. Our comedy alone brought him satisfaction, but It seems he lost interest after a couple of months, because he returned to his hermitage, and nobody saw him ever again. We wouldn’t have noticed except a 2nd generation housemate, who had formally taken over rent payments from one of the originals, mentioned it to us. He brought it up because he was planning to walk across the street and check on the old guy. He had exchanged waves with the man once or twice during the emergence, and had the weird notion that there was some kind of bond between them.

The conversation with the 2nd generation fellow came about in the first place because we were trying to formally hand over responsibility for rent by that time. During the slide into disorder, most of us had quietly been looking for alternative accommodations. We’d seen the writing on the wall. The situation was going to continue to deteriorate until some disaster ensued, or the remaining housemates were evicted. Intermission was over. It was time for the backstop to gobble us up. None of us were ever going to feel compelled by cat-like sentiments distilled from indifferent evolutionary forces, not in that house or anyplace else. Better to get it over with. Before he ended the conversation, the gen2 guy mentioned that no one had seen JFC for a couple days. They had set his food and water outside, and it had been consumed, but they couldn’t be sure by who.

Tim decided to stay over to try and find the cat. He heard about the results of the welfare check on the old man across the street. The monster was still behind the plywood. Nobody answered the door. Our detective even had the guts to walk around the side of the house and knock on some windows there. He had seen no sign of life.

On the morning of the 3rd day, the cat returned. Tim found him on the back porch by the door, laid out on his side, panting. The vet confirmed a recurrent bone infection. It was in the same elbow as before, but it was much more extensive. He could take antibiotics again, but even then, there was no guarantee that the leg would not need amputation. The whole process was going to be expensive. Tim was exasperated. He was not going to go on subsidizing the cat’s stupidity. He was also unable to find some sucker to take JFC off his hands.

So, JFC died by lethal injection. Really, it wasn’t the potassium infused directly into his heart that killed him. He died from a shift in those indifferent forces which drove him to fight and us to take care of him. He was a martyr because of that, but he was a sort of champion as well. No matter the consequences, JFC heeded the call of those forces and stayed true to the end. I am sure that if we amputated his leg, he would have hopped right back to the fights.

A week or so after we killed JFC, the remainder of the original housemates packed up and formally vacated the premises. We went on to various occupations and living situations, but wherever we went, we became more and more subject to the expectations of other people. With time, martyrdom and triumph passed out of reach entirely. The original housemates did not keep in touch. The whole enterprise felt more like a bad experience as it faded into the past. For my part, once adequate time had elapsed, I felt the desire to watch cat fights again.

It was different upon return, and more like what I imagined that the Romans felt when they watched slaves and captive animals tear each other to pieces. I wanted to see them fight despite themselves. I wanted to see them driven to kill an enemy who had inherited the capacity to survive all their attacks. And when they walked away with their bite wounds festering, I wanted to feel sorry for them and feel for a moment like I was above it all.

Tagged , , , , ,

The E-Word

Last night, the wife and I brewed up some nice Medicare mimosas (that’s orange Metamucil with a pinch of MiraLAX for those who don’t know, yet) and sat down to watch a documentary on the desktop. It was my night to choose, so we didn’t watch the National Geographic folks anthropomorphizing the animal of the week. Instead, we watched something interesting on PBS. It’s an old series imaginatively entitled “The Brain”. It’s really very good, except for one thing. Within the first few minutes, the narrator says the E word (emergence), and he just keeps saying it.

I’m prone to let this sort of thing go. Saying a property emerges in the subject of a micro structural description is often a means of stepping over a steaming pile of metaphysics in the path between discussion of the properties of an object’s components, and the properties of the object itself. I can forgive the use of shorthand..

The narrator initially uses this shorthand meaning of emergence. But as things go along, it becomes clear that he also endorses weak emergence. Then he offhandedly states that colors exist in the mind and not in reality, which indicates that he really does have things the wrong way around.

In defense of the narrator, he still isn’t advocating for strong emergence. Strong emergence is the idea that once some threshold condition is met among components of an object, the group of components comprising the object acquires a new property which then takes over the behavior of the object as a whole, and by extension, that object’s components.

This magical event effectively erases, at least temporarily, the properties of the object’s components. While they remain pieces of the whole, they participate in events according to the dictates of the new property. It is only when they fall off the bus, either accidentally, or via our purposeful examination, that they reacquire their individual properties once again.

For instance, neurons generate electrical impulses, regulate their membrane potentials, and secrete paracrine signals until they are gathered in a certain number and arranged in a certain pattern, at which point they exceed the threshold for becoming a mind and begin to do things like experience, think, and remember. As long as we look at the collection of neurons gathered in the threshold number and arrangement, we will see them exemplifying mental properties. If we pull one of the neurons out of the brain or touch a subthreshold group of them with an electrode probe, we see them revert to exemplifying neuronal properties.

Weak emergence differs from the claims above in that it takes those claims to be metaphorical. When we get to the threshold state for the components of an object, we don’t get an actual, new, causal force out of that last brick added to the structure. Instead, it just becomes more convenient to speak of the object as if it had developed such a new property.

In the case of the mind, that would mean that the threshold number and arrangement of neurons simply becomes too difficult to manage descriptively. It makes sense to begin to use mental terminology to describe their collective behavior rather than trying to persist in using neurologic terminology.

In the case of both strong and weak emergence, we generate additional mysteries to solve, and those mysteries appear to be unsolvable. We have no account of how or why threshold conditions are established or met. We have no idea how properties flip on and off in the components and in the designated objects composed by those subunits. The difference between the two positions is that, in weak emergence we have the above difficulties in explaining a metaphor rather than a mechanism.

The root problem however, is not flipping properties. The root problem is the non-relational account inherent in the treatment of objects and their components. We get another glimpse of this inverted view when the narrator of “The Brain” describes colors as constructs of the brain which are absent in reality. If we take the implied structure seriously, then there’s nothing to save neurons from a similar fate. The only difference might be that we have examples of people who live without colors, but no examples of people who live without neurons. However, we do have examples of people who seem happy to live without minds, from solipsists to eliminatrivists.

To clarify, minds are explained by brains which are explained by neurons which are explained by genes. Colors are explained by retinal pigment, neurons, cone cells, and wavelengths of light. The explanations begin with the object in question, and proceed down to the microstructure.

The microstructure doesn’t represent the object like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle or a pile of little homunculi. Instead, the components provide a history of relationships and record of events situating the object of examination in the causal web of space and time.
A couple of examples, in the interest of de-spookifying the statement above. First, take the illustration that the documentary offers for neuronal activity generating consciousness. Our narrator gives the example of the unconscious brain during sleep. In deep sleep, the electrical activity generates a rudimentary waveform on EEG. In REM sleep, when the brain is ostensibly conscious, as well as during wakefulness, the EEG tracing shows a complex waveform. He compares this circumstance to a group of drummers, each initially drumming to their own rhythm. As they listen to each other and begin to coordinate their beats, music emerges.

If the implicit claim really held, John Coltrane wasn’t doing much of anything that any of the rest of us couldn’t do as long as we knew how to work the reed on a saxophone. The drummers can improvise a musical outcome because they understand the object (music) and the components’ (speed and timing of stick strikes on the drum head) relationship to the object composed. That relationship is a series of events involving hearing, drum making skills, proprioceptive experiences and the response of previous brains to frequencies of stick strikes on drum heads. This explains why we can’t play jazz like John Coltrane. We speak of him improvising, but he improvised off of an explanation that situated him in a most musical zone.

More to the point, we can look at the example of neurons and minds itself. Fully developed neurons can’t be placed in a bag, (to borrow from a more gruesome tale offered up by a substance dualist – they are disgusting people), and shaken up to make a brain, much less a mind. The neurons have to go through the developmental process to provide an adequate explanation for the supervening mind. By developmental process, I mean to say the whole history of neuronal development from primordial cells emitting chemical signals in response to changes in membrane polarization to cell migration during gestation, to sensory integration during early childhood. The neurons bear the history of events identified with mental events. The state of affairs is the same as the status of drumsticks and drum heads and drummers regarding music. Those components explain the music because they offer a narrative of events which situates music in the course of events overall. And those specific components pertain to the tune of the day because those components have specific, music related events explaining the components in their turn.

So that’s why I don’t like the E word. When it comes to minds, brains, and neurons, it perpetuates a mystery where there should be none. Worse, it dumbs things down generally, because it substitutes new properties for deep histories.
Problems remain. Dualisms will survive. The hard problem will still wake people in a cold sweat at night (go back to sleep, it’s epiphenomenal). People will still use their minds to insist that we don’t need minds.
Getting rid of the E word solve much.
But it’s a step in the right direction.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

A Few, Very Specific Things

People are always asking me, “What do you believe?”

Nah, nobody actually asks me that, but I tell them anyway, just like this:

When it comes to consciousness, it comes with identity, and therefore locality.

When it comes to cause, it causes identity.

And, of course, that’s about it for classical theism.

Tagged , , ,

AI, Determinism and Supervenience

Recently, NPR interviewed the man who “de-aged” Robert De Niro for the film, “The Irishman”. The conversation drifted into the metaphysics of computer-generated imaging:

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And what you’re describing is a technology that’s only going to get better and better, which I think brings up some ethical issues because as the technology gets more seamless and commonplace and those likenesses that you’ve just described get more subtle, could we end up doing away with the actual actor altogether? I mean, could it come to a point where a studio owns the digital image of an actor and just uses that instead of the real thing?

HELMAN: I don’t think so ’cause the performance has to come from somewhere, and that has to be the actor. And so just think about what it’ll take for a computer to do what Robert De Niro does. You need to train the computer – right? – to do those kinds of things. And basically, if you think about the behavior or likeness of somebody, how do you become yourself? You become yourself by living, you know, by having a bunch of experiences. And then you also have all the connections that are made in your face, the way you smile, all the cultural things that you live.

So if you want a computer to act like Robert De Niro, you need to train the computer like Robert De Niro. And then you spend a lifetime, you know, basically training the computer. And for that, you might as well just use Robert De Niro, you know?

Quite right, and more generally correct than I suspect Mr. Helman intended. Explanations pertain to the past, where things could not have been otherwise. The future will always be the realm of probability, else, to echo Mr. Helman, it will already have been.

The supervenient identity specifies its base. Otherwise, there is no explanation of the identity by the base. The point is: there are no loose ends – no theoretical De Niro’s.

Tagged , , , , , ,

A Bucket of Wings and a Pitcher of PBR with the Baby Jesus

The first time that the Baby Jesus talked to me was at YMCA Summer camp. I heard him on assignment, lying on my bunk in a group cabin while the cicadas droned outside. Us campers had been sent back to our quarters after an evening devotional to listen for a message from God. Around the campfire, our counselors had had admonished us to listen with humility. We had to silence all our selfish desires if we hoped to perceive a divine whisper. We even had to relinquish our hope to hear a whisper from the Lord, if we hoped to hear a whisper from the Lord.

As I lay with my eyes open in the darkness, I was having more trouble tuning out the insects than the cacophony of my selfish desires. The cicadas’ ballad seemed to come from the darkness itself. I had long practice ignoring the undulating buzz, having grown up in the South with no central air and therefore reliant upon open windows for enough cool to allow Summer sleep. With no clamor in my head, the bug song rose from the suppressed depths of my consciousness to make a noise again. I tried to block it out while not trying to block it out, or trying to try to block it out, and so on, until my attention became exhausted and let go of the sound.

Just then, something happened. A voice, or maybe just a feeling, told me not to worry. The speaker was there. Everything was going perfectly according to plan. I felt great. Maybe I even let go a few tears of joy that night. In any case, I soon fell asleep and when I woke the next morning, the world seemed to have a fresh scent, like it had been sprinkled with the lavender water of permeating divinity. The divine freshness lingered for a couple years, but from the moment of spritzing, it was doomed to fade. It could not be reconciled with events on the road to camp.

Our family had set out with a very aggressive vacationing agenda that year. We had left home two weeks prior on a mission to visit my grandmother and Disney World, both a day’s drive away. We would then loop back up to drop me at Summer camp, while my brother would go on to baseball camp, leaving my parents with a week of real vacation for themselves. The schedule was tight, and my father was not pleased when we pulled up behind a row of parked cars on a two lane road in the flatlands of North Florida. When we stepped out of the car, we could see an object blocking both lanes in the distance. Other people were getting out of their cars too, and it was quiet. We walked forward with all the rest.

On the opposite side of the road, about 30 yards up, a distraught elderly couple sat on the ground by their car. The car had a dent in the hood and its windshield was caved in. A few yards beyond lay a mangled bicycle. It was nice, or it had been. I had wanted a BMX bike like that for a couple of years, and I would have done with it what I imagined its rider was doing when the old folks hit him: jumping the banks on either side of the elevated roadway. The boy lay a dozen yards beyond his wrecked bike, diagonally across the lane lines. He was on his side with no apparent injury, from a distance, but with a puddle of blood around his upper body.

Standing over the boy, one could see that the blood was coming from his ears. His gaze fixed on something impossibly distant and his breaths came halting and deep. We circled around him as he died. Someone remarked that an ambulance was on its way, A nurse in the crowd screamed at the rest not to just stand there, but to run and get a blanket. She was upset to a degree beyond what the collective paralysis of the bystanders merited. She may have been wondering how Baby Jesus could allow such a thing. As a child, I knew that adults had their reasons and that those reasons were sometimes unfathomable. I just assumed that the same was true of the Baby Jesus.

I saw no injustice, but I saw his stare. Surely, the distant thing upon which the boy’s gaze fixed was his own death. Yet he would never get to that far place. If he just snuffed out, then he just snuffed out, like when the dentist gave me anesthesia to remove my wisdom teeth and asked me to count to ten as the drug took effect. I didn’t even fail to count to eight. I counted to seven and that was it; there was no experience of looking back on an unsuccessful effort to count to eight, only a memory of seven, then nothing. Likewise, if he saw a light at the end of a tunnel or rose into the ether to look down on his inert body, then he experienced a metamorphosis. He got yanked away from those final moments of physiologic cessation just like the anesthetic yanked me away from counting to eight.

If I had asked any of my fellow onlookers gathered around the body that day, I’m sure they would have spoken of death as a thing which might bear a scythe and a cowl. They would have named it an independent reality. But after that day on the road, I slowly came to see that they were wrong. I fantasized about what would happen if the boy could tell us about leaving his body. Jesus’ disciples were said to have had that very experience, when Jesus returned from the dead to speak to his inner circle. Yet they were only twelve meeting The One. I imagined a world where meetings with the dead were common. I imagined ghosts at first, but engaging in spectrology proved an unnecessary complication. The situation was the same if what happened to Jesus happened to everybody. Your bodily functions stopped. You went up into the clouds. You got a bit of a rebuild. You came back down.

If universal resurrection came to pass, the first generation affected might continue to speak of the Grim Reaper. But as the reportage of the pierced, crushed and disintegrated became commonplace, no one would refer to Death as a thing in itself. There would be misadventures and resurrections, and all would be properly seen as aspects of our total experience. Eventually, no one would even talk about Life anymore.

Though I did not appreciate it at the time, the considerations which began on that roadway in the Southern plains generated a frictional heat, which would finally evaporate the lavender water of permeating divinity. Over years, it dawned on me that Eau Divine had already transcended itself if we could put a name to it, even if we just spoke metaphorically. Like life and death, the scent arose from a great continuity of experience, which we could never look back upon from a discontinuous beyond. It was a slow drying out, and I did not even miss the scent until the next time Jesus spoke to me. That final time, I was sitting in a bar at lunch, far from Christian Summer camp, when the voice of the Lord came to me from a bucket of wings.

I don’t know why I ordered the wings. I was at a crossroads career-wise, so maybe I felt a little unstable and subject to whimsy. As I stared into the jumble of battered and fried appendages however, I recalled why I had become a de facto vegetarian. I felt sick as I imagined all the capabilities which those little wings had possessed in life, reduced to the mess before me on the plastic table cloth. But it was too late by then. I understood my place in the supply chain (having ordered) and besides, I could not leave food uneaten in my financial circumstances. Luckily, there was cheap beer on tap. I asked the bartender to bring me a pitcher.

I took a solid gulp of the rice-brew swill before having a second look at the wings. That’s when the voice, or maybe it was more like a feeling, came to me out of the bucket. It told me not to worry. Life had been given for life. It was all going according to plan. I could eat those chicken wings with a clear conscience, because that’s how it was meant to be. The essence of life got passed on, said the voice, and carried on from the poor little chickens to me. I stared at the crusty wings, and was not reassured. Those bits of bone and muscle that had been, could be taken for almost anything now. But they could not be taken out of circumstance or consequence, anymore than that boy on the road, Life and Death, plans both mortal and divine, or the voice of the Baby Jesus, coming, as it did, from the bucket, or the ether, or any other relatively distinguishable source.

I downed the remainder of the swill and pushed back from the table. Somebody else got the wings, and that was the last I heard from the Baby Jesus.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Curse You Peter Higgs

“Mass was so simple before you. Mass was just a property. Actually it was just a property of having another property: inertia. Inertia was so simple, though. It was just the property of resisting changes in motion.

Of course, we all know what ‘resisting’ means. And, we all know what motion is: d/t. If anyone must ask what distance and time are…well, there is little hope for someone so dim. At least, there is little hope for such a dimwit in physics. Hah! It looks like someone needs a metaphysician!”

The line of thought is a big hit with dualists. Actually, it is the best thing about mind/body dualism, and is why it’s good to have mind/body dualists around. Without them, physicalism grows too complacent.

The physicalist can be forgiven. It seems so obvious what we mean when we say that something is physical. But what does that mean? Is it simply anything that’s the proper business of physics? Is physics itself the proper business of physics?

The question of what makes something physical is actually difficult, even within physics. Take the Higgs field. It is not a ‘thing’; it is not even a ‘property’ of a ‘thing’. It is a property of space. It is a phenomenon which physics considers, but it is really weird, from the perspective of the old extended/unextended divide which Descartes proposed.

Yet we are prepared to accept the Higgs field as something physical, along with apples and atoms. That’s because we have been prepared to accept the physicality of the Higgs field by accepting  the physicality of things like d and t in the Newtonian scheme, as physical. Time and distance are not any less weird – they are strangely malleable, for instance – but they are more easily recognizable as our own phenomena. We experience time and distance, and we are comfortable with the idea that physics is a phenomenology of time and distance.

If we have drilled down to the notion of physics as phenomenology, and understand phenomena as our experience, then the remaining question is: What is our experience? I am not sure there is an all-encompassing answer to that question. Yet I think we can say a few things around the question which are instructive as to the notion of physicality.

At base, our experience is identity, and identity is interdependence. If I am watching an egg roll off the counter and hit the floor, I am the one watching that egg. The rolling egg, among other things, is making me, me. The memories of eggs, dependent upon the shape, color, texture and historical context of my current experience, shape my thoughts and expectations regarding the egg, just as the color, shape and texture of the egg depend upon the impression that the kitchen light delivers to my eyes after it bounces off the rolling egg. That is what the notion of supervenience is getting at: identity is fixed by spatial and temporal history.

And such a thing cannot be ‘transcendent’. It comes with the here and now; (physical) existence has a tense. ‘Tenseless’ existence is a product of reflection and not what we directly experience. Transcendence, in other words, occurs in the storybook, not in the story (else we would never read a story twice).

The trouble with this whole picture is that it looks like a truism. If physicality consists of an interdependent identity which avoids transcendence, then what is left? Ghosts are live possibilities; so are Higgs fields. Of course, that is the point of physicalism. When we look at our experience in total, physicality seems to exhaust all the explanatory possibilities, or at least the ones we could hope to know.

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking Trail

For the umpteenth time, my snowshoe breaks through the crust and dives into hopeless depth hoar. The continental snowpack nibbles away at one’s soul with a false promise in every step. The crust feels solid when one’s foot first rests upon it. It even holds as weight shifts from back foot to front foot. But, it can sense when the full weight of body and pack has shifted, and then it collapses.

The slog would be bad enough were it a grueling monotony of breakthrough after breakthrough, but it is worse that that. Because sometimes, the crust gives you a few steps on top, and just when you relax, then it lets you fall through into the great vat of cornstarch beneath. What’s still worse about my current situation is that I am following a trail. Minus the snow, it would be easy walking.

If I persist, I will soon get a little psychological boost, as my course turns off the cut trail and into untracked forest. Though it really isn’t any harder or easier than wallowing above the Summer trail, breaking off the established path onto the section that only I know, feels like progress and is an antidote to the demoralizing snow conditions.

I used to do the walk to high camp with a map and compass. I no longer need those. The rocks, trees, sequences of slopes and their conformations chart a more accurate course in my memory. These days, I can get to my destination despite the snow cover because the trail isn’t really on the ground; it is in my mind. Or, so it would seem,

One might say that the trail presupposes or lies in the potential of, my mind and memory. For a trail to be, the possibility of a trail must have been. But the trail is not made of possibilities. It is made of my memories of trees, slopes, rocks, and all the other landmarks on the way. It is made of my senses of time, space and distance, which are properties of the phenomena which constitute thought and memory. My memory, and its possibilities, are dependent upon its contents. And so it is with memory in general; it is defined by having extant referents.

In other words, my memory is nothing without memories, and all the possibilities of memory lie in its contents, including its metaphysical possibilities, which lie in its having contents. When I recall looking down the trail in this moment, I trace a path through the space and time of my memory, just as I did when I stood in the snow on the day I recall. And I do so on background – all the historical infrastructure which orients my current experience and dictates its aspectual shape.

My recollection at the keyboard can’t get going without the background, yet the background can’t be background except in relation to current experience, which links it all together. The possibility of a trail inheres in legs, eyes, slopes and trees. Memory resides in its defining contents. The contents of my memory rely upon where and when I am now.

Some folks get frustrated with all this interdependence and would retreat to the simple certainty of a hierarchy. I can understand the appeal of a world where there is a separate mental substance, an uncaused cause, memory as an independent faculty among other independent faculties, and a trail waiting beneath the snow to accommodate our walk without the hard work of trail breaking.

But that means a world where there may be memory which doesn’t necessarily remember anything, a mind which doesn’t necessarily think about anything,  an agent which does not experience the changes it makes, and destinations which don’t belong to anybody – a world which is not possible.

 

 

Tagged , , , , , ,

Curse You Peter Higgs

“Mass was so simple before you. Mass was just a property. Actually it was just a property of having another property: inertia. Inertia was so simple, though. It was just the property of resisting changes in motion.

Of course, we all know what ‘resisting’ means. And, we all know what motion is: d/t. If anyone must ask what distance and time are…well, there is little hope for someone so dim. At least, there is little hope for such a dimwit in physics. Hah! It looks like someone needs a metaphysician!”

The line of thought is a big hit with dualists. Actually, it is the best thing about mind/body dualism, and is why it’s good to have mind/body dualists around. Without them, physicalism grows too complacent.

The physicalist can be forgiven. It seems so obvious what we mean when we say that something is physical. But what does that mean? Is it simply anything that’s the proper business of physics? Is physics itself the proper business of physics?

The question of what makes something physical is actually difficult, even within physics. Take the Higgs field. It is not a ‘thing’; it is not even a ‘property’ of a ‘thing’. It is a property of space. It is a phenomenon which physics considers, but it is really weird, from the perspective of the old extended/unextended divide which Descartes proposed.

Yet we are prepared to accept the Higgs field as something physical, along with apples and atoms. That’s because we have been prepared to accept the physicality of the Higgs field by accepting  the physicality of things like d and t in the Newtonian scheme, as physical. Time and distance are not any less weird – they are strangely malleable, for instance – but they are more easily recognizable as our own phenomena. We experience time and distance, and we are comfortable with the idea that physics is a phenomenology of time and distance.

If we have drilled down to the notion of physics as phenomenology, and understand phenomena as our experience, then the remaining question is: What is our experience? I am not sure there is an all-encompassing answer to that question. Yet I think we can say a few things around the question which are instructive as to the notion of physicality.

At base, our experience is identity, and identity is interdependence. If I am watching an egg roll off the counter and hit the floor, I am the one watching that egg. The rolling egg, among other things, is making me, me. The memories of eggs, dependent upon the shape, color, texture and historical context of my current experience, shape my thoughts and expectations regarding the egg, just as the color, shape and texture of the egg depend upon the impression that the kitchen light delivers to my eyes after it bounces off the rolling egg. That is what the notion of supervenience is getting at: identity is fixed by spatial and temporal history.

And such a thing cannot be ‘transcendent’. It comes with the here and now; (physical) existence has a tense. ‘Tenseless’ existence is a product of reflection and not what we directly experience. Transcendence, in other words, occurs in the storybook, not in the story (else we would never read a story twice).

The trouble with this whole picture is that it looks like a truism. If physicality consists of an interdependent identity which avoids transcendence, then what is left? Ghosts are live possibilities; so are Higgs fields. Of course, that is the point of physicalism. When we look at our experience in total, physicality seems to exhaust all the explanatory possibilities, or at least the ones we could hope to know.

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Is a Virus Alive?

life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction. – Encyclopedia Brittanica

Close enough, and encompassing the generally accepted criteria: responsiveness, reproduction, metabolism and adaptation. My older son asked the question about viruses the other day. I have been looking forward to this question. It means that he is prepared to understand some things about life which are important. It is a tricky question if considered from the wrong viewpoint. A virus displays some of the characteristics which define a living organism. It can respond to stimuli, attaching to the proper cells and injecting its genetic material through the cell membrane when it makes contact. It can replicate. It can adapt to avoid a host immune response. But it does not have the capacity to metabolize. It cannot, in other words, run its own show. It is entirely dependent on its host organism in that respect. Nor is the virus alone on the gray borders of life. Certain families of bacteria lack some essential metabolic processes which would make them autonomous. They must live inside another cell, and depend on their host’s metabolism to survive. Yet, they too can reproduce, adapt, and respond to stimuli in their environment. Because they have a membrane which is active, biologists are prone to give obligate intracellular bacteria, like mycoplasma and Rickettsia, a break. Most biologists are less charitable when it comes to prions. Prions are mis-folded proteins which replicate by somehow inducing their own conformal change in normally folded proteins with which they come in contact. Prions can reproduce, but they cannot metabolize. They cannot adapt much (although they have managed to pass from cows to humans), but they can respond to their environment, albeit in a very limited way. Still, the difference between the prion and the obligate intracellular bacterium would seem to be one of magnitude rather than quality. Differences in their classification reflect a little bit of membrane chauvinism on the part of biologists. The same prejudice is evident in the gray zone at the other end of the complexity scale. By our criteria for life, is a male angler fish alive? The fish can survive for a short period of time independently, but it cannot carry on its own metabolic processes independently for the long-term. It must rely on a female angler fish. It must quickly sniff out a female and attach itself to her, permanently. The male fish spends most of its existence as a tissue of the female angler fish’s body; its brief, free swimming existence is a transitional aberration. Its ability to adapt is extremely limited. Its existence can be mapped on an algorithm only barely more complex than the one which describes a prion’s lifestyle. So what does differentiate the male angler fish from a mycoplasma bacterium, a virus, or even a prion? A few extra membranes make the only difference. Even our own status as living things is at risk if we apply our criteria strictly. We can certainly reproduce, just like the viruses, obligate intracellular bacteria, prions, and angler fish. But it is questionable whether or not we can independently metabolize. We actually rely on hereditary intracellular symbionts for our primary metabolic process. Without these symbionts, our mitochondria, we could live only minutes on the metabolic processes encoded by our own genetic material. So, we can hardly be blamed for fudging our criteria. We certainly want to call ourselves alive. Since it looks and acts alive, we want to call the male angler fish alive. For practical purposes, we also want to call Rickettsia and mycoplasma alive, as well as viruses from time to time. As for the prions, it is often more convenient to view them as sophisticated toxins rather than living things. And that’s the upshot of my son’s question. The issue of whether or not a virus is alive is only confusing if we consider “life” an actual, efficacious thing. But life is just a category. When we look out across the terrible landscape of things, we see phenomena which cluster about each other by dint of their shared heritage. Our account of our cluster is biology, and our criteria for life provide the outline for our biological stories. This is correct viewpoint on the question of life, and what is alive. But this is not the popular viewpoint. The popular viewpoint attempts to preserve life as a thing, as vital essence or emergent property. Unfortunately, the popular viewpoint is not feasible. It leads inexorably back to the original question rephrased, “where is the life in a thing to be found?” In the end, we find that the essence or the emergent property is explained by the operational mechanisms and properties of the thing in question, but it in turn, explains nothing about the thing; it just notes where that particular thing lies on the vast, terrible landscape of things. Despite its glaring inadequacy, the popular viewpoint remains popular because it seems to save us from losing an idea that we don’t feel comfortable losing. But we don’t need to worry, becoming a category doesn’t vitiate life. We have the things which the category marks clustered around us after all, even if it’s only according to our viewpoint. We can’t escape life anymore than we can climb out of our skins. So, the answer to the question? Sure, a virus is alive – as long as you can explain why.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

They Solved It! They Solved It!

Geriatricians have solved the hard problem of consciousness! From the July 1st issue of American Family Physician: “Some validated scales, such as Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia…use objective measures to assess pain intensity and response to intervention.” The objective measures: abnormal breathing pattern, increased vocalizations, observed tension in the face and body, and capacity to be calmed by caregiver voice and touch. In short, agitation is synonymous with pain. And how do we know this? Because the researchers have observed that opiates attenuated agitation in their subjects with advanced dementia. That’s how the scale and its underlying assumptions were validated at once.
Many have questioned the utility of philosophy. Well, here it is. The PAINAD scale is valid, no doubt. This is something that can be determined by definition. If two different people observe the same demented patient, it is quite likely, predictably likely, that the observers will come up with the same score on the scale. But that begs the question. The real problem is not coherence. Coherence does not make truth. The real problem is the truth of the claim that agitation represents pain in a person with advanced dementia. Such information is not available to us, at least not in the defined, quantifiable way which we would prefer.
We can’t know anybody’s pain, really. That’s because it is everybody’s pain that gives us the concept of pain in the first place. The sensation I experience when I grab an electric fence, for instance supervenes on the action of the fence charger, the conductivity of my body and the ground, activation of peripheral nocioceptors, mediation by inter-neurons in my spinal cord, and finally my thalamus and cortex where it is contextualized as my very own experience of shock. My experience of the shock from the fence, indeed all my pain experience, is unique. In the case of a shock from the electric fence, my experience is trivially unique – to the extent that I can predict my friend’s response if I tell him why he shouldn’t touch the fence. But the pain-concept supervenes on all those unique experiences in the same way that my own experience supervenes on the collection of events surrounding my hand’s contact with the wire. A thing called pain doesn’t appear out of the process. If that were so, I should have ready access to it and the PAINAD scale would be unnecessary. I would just slap some electrodes on the patient’s skull and watch for the pain signature in his cortical electrical activity. But I can’t, nor will I in the future, though I might have such a tool. Cortical electrical patterns might be the narrow point in the pain experience, the place where the difference in my experience and the patient’s is most trivial. But I must still correlate the activity with some report from the individual or a set of individuals in a similar condition. Some kind of PAINAD-type analogy will always be the best that I can do.
So what does this application of philosophy to pain treatment tell me? What use is philosophy? First, it tells me that I should not expect to fix everyone’s, or anyone’s, pain by stimulating their opiate receptors. The experience becomes pain-type only when it is put in context. We can easily imagine pain experiences where the opiate receptors play a very different role. Take the poet’s description of the pain of a broken heart. Do we write off his report entirely as a quaint analogy as opposed to our serious ones? If so, how is his report effective in communicating a sense of the experience to us? What do we say when we find out that he used laudanum and found some partial relief? Addressing the mechanisms of pain can only go so far, because mechanisms only go so far in explaining the painfulness of an experience.
The application of philosophy to pain can save me from a different pragmatist’s mistake in treating pain as well. I’ll pick on my surgical colleagues for a moment. On multiple occasions, I’ve had a surgeon tell me, “Nobody ever died from pain.” Inevitably, this little bubble of wisdom surfaces in reference to a patient whose pain management has passed from the surgeon to myself. My knee-jerk response is to point out that nobody ever died from hip arthritis either, but surgeons are still quite happy to replace hip joints. Yet I understand the pragmatic meaning of the statement: people have died from opiate overdoses, so we can’t just capitulate to a person’s demands for ever-increasing doses of opiates to treat their pain. As noted above, the notion that simply stimulating opiate receptors necessarily fixes pain is misguided. But there is a subtext. Death is measurable. Respiratory suppression due to opiates does something, and therefore it is real in way in which pain is not. When you get right down to it, pain can be ignored. But it isn’t that easy. The human condition won’t be ignored anymore than it will be medicated. The hard problem remains hard. It isn’t hard because our subjectivity is some spooky ectoplasm or narcissistic property. It isn’t hard because our experiences will never move a dial or tip a scale. It is hard because things which explain and are explained have a reality to them as much as things which do something, yet we’re stuck working with the functional things, like the observed behaviors in the PAINAD scale. So we have a tightrope to walk. We can only ever come close to helping others with problems like pain, and only then if we act comprehensively. We can never completely succeed. But that doesn’t mean we must fail. We can just never get too sure of ourselves when we do something like suppress a demented patient’s agitation with an opiate – and think we can call it good.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,