'For should some cause, not in the foot, but in another part of the
nerves that extend from the foot to the brain, or even in the brain
itself, give rise to the motion ordinarily excited when the foot is
injuriously affected, pain will be felt as though it were in the
foot, and thus naturally the sense will be deceived;....'
the pain is what?
firstly an awareness - the experience of pain as such
felt in a specific space / time region - in this case my leg at 2.00 p.m. today
the actual expression of the pain - is to be described as what?
in itself -
isn't it really without description?
it is what it is
if we reflect on it we can use synonyms
or we can say what it is not
strictly it is primitive and undefined
(this may have more to do with the question of description than with the event itself)
relative to other experiences we call it - name it - pain
we can go on to give a comprehensive account in terms of the science of the event
but this is not what I mean here -
just the experience itself
can any experience - in itself - be defined - as anything other than an unknown?
I don't think so
an experience to be defined must be seen in the context of other experiences
an awareness?
the same applies
I experience the pain - as my pain - in my foot
my body is the outside of my awareness
the fact that it has occurred in my leg is incidental to the awareness
could I have a pain that is not located in my body?
no
that there is a location is necessary
where is not
how do I identify location?
does it come with awareness (even if it turns out to be a false location?)
yes
so actual location of pain - is really a question for science
the pain itself is never in question
it is located somewhere - in / on my body
OK
still the experience locates pain specifically - even if observation suggests this is
wrong -
consciousness identifies the event in space / time
even though observation - science might challenge this identification
Descartes wants to say the experience is not reliable
that the consciousness is not reliable
in relation to space / time
again the pain itself is not in question
immediate awareness
the identification - of consciousness is immediate
the analysis of science is not
the analysis of science is non-immediate - it is reflective - analytical
(immediate) awareness is not analytical - or reflective
it is immediate
is this not the difference between the explanans and the explanandum?
between experience and explanation
yes
my awareness qua awareness is valid
direct awareness is entirely guileless -
in terms of my surface (my body) I can observe a causal relation from foot to brain
such an account is not about awareness -
it is about the surface dimensions of the event
and it is essentially indirect - and of course unaware
also such an analysis is not event specific -
it could apply to any pain in any foot
my immediate awareness (consciousness) is event specific -
could you say such analysis (surface analysis) has no bearing on the conscious event?
yes
not on the event
but on the class of events
OK
