Gustafson D
Department of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, USA.
Conscious Cogn. 1995 Sep;4(3):323-45. doi: 10.1006/ccog.1995.1041.
There is a traditional view of pain as a conscious phenomenon which satisfies the following two principles at least: Pain is essentially a belief- or cognition-independent sensation, given for consciousness in an immediate way, and pain's unitary physical base is responsible for both its phenomenal or felt qualities and its functional, causal features. These are "The Raw Feels Principle" (P) and "The Unity of Pain Principle" (Q). Each is shown to be implausible. Evidence comes from recent pain research in a number of dimensions. A further argument against The Unity of Pain Principle is constructed by analogy with facts about blindsight. The consequences of rejecting P or Q are examined in light of (i) the traditional epistemological role of pain as exemplar of sensations thought to be foundational for knowledge, (ii) the prospects of a modularity theory of the pain system, (iii) recent accounts of pain among contemporary philosophers, (iv) a naturalist and realist conception of pain, and (v) views about the status of Folk Psychology.
有一种关于疼痛的传统观点,认为疼痛是一种有意识的现象,至少满足以下两条原则:疼痛本质上是一种独立于信念或认知的感觉,以直接的方式呈现于意识之中,并且疼痛单一的生理基础对其现象学特征或感觉特性以及功能、因果特征均负有责任。这就是“原始感觉原则”(P)和“疼痛统一性原则”(Q)。事实证明,这两条原则都不太可信。证据来自近期多个维度的疼痛研究。通过类比盲视的相关事实,构建了另一个反对疼痛统一性原则的论据。我们依据以下几个方面来审视摒弃P或Q的后果:(i)疼痛作为被认为是知识基础的感觉范例所具有的传统认识论作用;(ii)疼痛系统模块化理论的前景;(iii)当代哲学家近期对疼痛的论述;(iv)对疼痛的自然主义和现实主义观念;以及(v)关于民间心理学地位的观点。