Detection of warm vs hot

[barfbag]

I.e. you were presenting speculations as facts and only now added a pdf that at least somewhat supported that claim.

 

 

If you read my 2nd post (I think) I mentioned I was having issues citing online because search terms "Hot" "Cold", etc are so common, and the majority of articles about this skip the hot sensation parts.

 

Did you say, "Somewhat support my claim"? I assure you I have much better "search terms" now like "Zotterman (1959)" if you are still on the fence over this.

 

What you mention is a speculation that was formed quite a while back, but is not substantiated by current knowledge anymore. See for example Craig and Bushnell, Science 1994 265/5169 p.252.

 

 

I was also formed quite a while back as was my education, but you are not countering the argument. If you actually have a link for " Craig and Bushnell, Science 1994 265/5169 p.252." I'll be happy to update my knowledge if need be. I googled but could not find that reference. I know I cited that abstract in post 6, but I am not purchasing the text for the sake of this thread.

 

I did not cite references because I thought most everyone knew this from age 10 by attending science centers and such. It was not until Hypervalent_Iodine questioned it in the 2nd post that I went out of my way to look for citations. If I say the Earth is round here it is likely nobody would want citations. I mentioned science centers thinking that would be enough anecdotal evidence for Hypervalent_Iodine, but as often happens you respond earnestly and then get (metaphorically) pounced on. I had no idea such a simple concept would create so much adversarial stances.

 

That is why no citations were given in OP. Also..... The OP was not an OP. This discussion was moved from another thread so it is not as if I was making such a grandiose claim that I needed citations or references. When I do start threads I normally have citations at hand. That was meant exactly as a stated, a fun fact referencing a previous posters words. That is why this is one of the few OP with a quote from previous post.

It was a quick short offhand post that I spent about a minute on, but I'm glad I stood my ground because as my last post shows... I WAS RIGHT!

 

Above a certain temperature the thermosensors do not react.

 

 

Yes. They stop firing. I said this in my last post with the quote, "For example, when heat or cold become too great, thermoreceptors stop firing. The signal is taken over by pain receptors".

 

Stopping does not mean they never started.

 

and only now added a pdf that at least somewhat supported that claim.

 

 

You must at least admit that based on 20 year old knowledge I am/was 100% correct. You claim there are new outlooks regarding this which I'd be happy to look at and revise my thinking if necessary, but I think they have more similarities than not.

 

Good luck.

Edited July 16, 2014 by barfbag

[CharonY]

Not even using old knowledge was the assumption you made 100% correct. The main issue is that you have a limited knowledge of the subject (which, again, is quite alright), which lead you to overinterpret things you need (which is slightly less alright). I feel there is too much I would need to convey to demonstrate all the points that you are simply wrong. And even worse, you like to argue from a position of ignorance rather than trying to fix the knowledge gaps.

 

For example the Zotterman reference most likely just refers to the detection of certain fibers that react to both extremes. Yet, this does not mean that this is the only mechanism of thermoception, nor does it explain at all the illusion of the grill. That actually requires the action of two parallel afferent pathways. Again, something completely ignored (presumably because it was not understood).

 

You claim that the mechanism behind the grill is a simple one and proposed early speculations as facts, whereas the actual understanding of the mechanism was elucidated around the 90s (though many speculations were debunked much earlier).

 

A basic ignorance on the way neurons function is somewhat revealed in this quote:

 

 

 

Yes. They stop firing. I said this in my last post with the quote, "For example, when heat or cold become too great, thermoreceptors stop firing. The signal is taken over by pain receptors".

Stopping does not mean they never started.

 

As I wrote above, thermosensors (and again, it is a different pathway than nociception) fire constantly at body temperature. However, for cold sensitive sensors, the frequency goes down, when the temperature rises, whereas for heat sensitive ones the frequency increases (and vice versa for cold sensation). It is not that suddenly there is an overflow of both types of neurons that suddenly than charge up or trigger nociceptors. They react to distinct stimuli.

In fact, the way the grill works is because the cold sensitive fibers are not acting (as they have an inhibitory effect). Pretty much the opposite to your claim.

You really have to understand that the sensation caused by the grill is physiologically distinct from actual harmful temps, in the latter case the nociceptors are triggered, whereas on the grill only the thermosensors are (and due to higher-level interaction it is perceived as burn).

 

I really do not get the childish insistence on being right. The claim can be summarized that temperature and associated pain perception requires different afferent pathways that interact on the intermediate level and can be tricked using setups such as the thermal grill. The claim that every heat perception is requiring both cold and warm sensor neurons being triggered is simply wrong.

[barfbag]

@ Chalcony,

 

I have extended my stay on this thread because you gave a well thought out argument even though I thought remarking on ion channels was borderline off topic. Discussion of how a car runs will not get that car to its destination.

 

I gave a reference from an Indiana University published in 1984 that fully supported my claims on this thread.

 

Here it is again...

 

(Note. I l added bolds and underlines/color to the following quote for emphasis.....)

 

Experiencing Sensation and Perception

Page 12.

9

Chapter 12: Skin Senses

reduction of warms to another part of the skin. It took a bit of time, but at the edge of the warm area, an extra warm band developed and next to the cooler area an even cooler area was experienced.

The Perception of Hot The discussion to this point of thermal responses of the body has been in terms of cold and warm, not cold and hot. In the stimulation of discussion of stimulating the skin with fine thermal stimuli, cold and warm spots were discovered (Dallenbach, 1927). But most of us have acute experiences of hot. Still, all of the physiology to still finds two types of sensory fibers responding to temperature and they seem to correspond to cold and warm, well mostly. Zotterman (1959) found that cold fibers respond strongly to both cold stimuli and at hot stimuli. Warm fibers respond most around body temperature but still seem torespond to the higher temperatures. This leads to a hypothesis about how the experience of hot might be generated. Perhaps, hot is experienced when both the cold and warm receptors fire at the same time. Asimple apparatus, called the heat grill, supports this contention about how a hot experience happens, Figure12.x. In the heat grill a cold stimulus is placed right next to a warm stimulus. Neither stimulus along generate the perception of heat or hot

[ Barfbag note: Also note how this University feels comfortable saying Heat and Hot ].

In fact, the cold stimulus alone generates a cold experience and the warm stimulus feels pleasantly warm. However, together the person feels heat and many will jerk their armaway as if it were being burnt. Others report a stinging burning sensation but can still keep the arm on theheat grill.

 

From this free University PDF

http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/sensation/chapters/Chapter%2012.pdf

 

I think that fully supports what I said in the OP, which was,

 

 

Fun Fact: The body has no nerves designed to feel heat. The nerves can detect cold and they can detect warm, but not heat.

The heat sensation comes when something is so hot it can stimulate both the warm and cold receptors at the same time.

 

 

So it appears my view was correct in 1984.

 

You are arguing that this is no longer the accepted version of what occurs, but you have not cited anything to make me believe that is so.

 

I do not mind if the accepted Theory has changed, and if you actually do get around to citing or proving it I will be content knowing I was quoting from knowledge from my school days.

 

I feel there is too much I would need to convey to demonstrate all the points

 

 

You claim it is too difficult to argue your point. That may be, but it is hardly evidence of your stance. I am sorry I am not just accepting your word for it.

 

I really do not get the childish insistence on being right

 

 

Although I am growing accustomed to thinly veiled (cough) insults, it does lower my opinion of the writer. Do ad hominem attacks normally serve you well? It normally makes me think the writer has little ability to defend their position using science. It certainly does not make me regret leaving the thread as I said many posts ago (I gave you a chance to prove yourself). I think I've been polite.

 

I think this post is fairly convincing to anyone without bias that reads it that I was correct. Maybe you need to dig deep if you are wanting to prove otherwise.

 

I will not continue on this thread. My point has been proved well enough, and I am thinking any contrary belief is fairly silly. I have heard other notions like mechanoreceptors are involved in heat sensing, but they seem to be untrue.

 

This is my last post on the subject. I had said that in post 21, but gave Chalcony a chance to prove his version. I no longer feel that is warranted.

 

I have proved my point to the point I think it is obvious to everyone (despite what is said).

 

Best of luck, cheers.

 

the cold stimulus alone generates a cold experience and the warm stimulus feels pleasantly warm. However, together the person feels heat - Hanover University, Indiana. (from above quote)

 

Perhaps, hot is experienced when both the cold and warm receptors fire at the same time. - Hanover University, Indiana (from above quote)

 

Zotterman (1959) found that cold fibers respond strongly to both cold stimuli and at hot stimuli - Hanover University, Indiana (from above quote).

 

These all confirm my view as of 1984. For me to be wrong they need to also be found wrong.

Edited July 16, 2014 by barfbag

[Strange]

"Hypothesis ... might ... perhaps" does not equal "fact" (fun or otherwise).

 

Although it is an interesting hypothesis.

[barfbag]

"Hypothesis ... might ... perhaps" does not equal "fact"

 

True enough. But they still taught it in Universities.

Edited July 28, 2014 by barfbag

[barfbag]

Even though my point is proven or was the accepted stance in 1984 according to Hanover College paper

 

the cold stimulus alone generates a cold experience and the warm stimulus feels pleasantly warm. However, together the person feels heat - Hanover University, Indiana. (from above quote)

 

Perhaps, hot is experienced when both the cold and warm receptors fire at the same time. - Hanover University, Indiana (from above quote)

 

Zotterman (1959) found that cold fibers respond strongly to both cold stimuli and at hot stimuli - Hanover University, Indiana (from above quote).

 

This topic has not been moved back to biology, nor has apologies or conceding statements from those who were wrong here been heard.

 

Inow? Hypervalent_Iodine?

 

Notice how they used the term heat in exactly the same form I was admonished for?

 

Notice how this is what was taught bt colleges in 1984.

 

If. If.. If.... a newer understanding has occurred since 1984 I WILL BE HAPPY knowing I was simply passing along taught subject matter from my school days.

 

The sensation of hot is felt by thermoreceptors that can only detect cold and warm activating together and compiled in the brain as a sensation of hot.

 

End of Story...

 

Yet it is fun to re-read this thread and see how much ardent opposition this "fun fact" received. It was even broken off into a

 

PSEUDOSCIENCE THREAD by someone lacking in correct knowledge.

 

This should be put back in BIOLOGY and apologies lined up.

 

 

My statement was:

Fun Fact: The body has no nerves designed to feel heat. The nerves can detect cold and they can detect warm, but not heat.

 

The heat sensation comes when something is so hot it can stimulate both the warm and cold receptors at the same time.

 

College material states:

the cold stimulus alone generates a cold experience and the warm stimulus feels pleasantly warm. However, together the person feels heat - Hanover University, Indiana. (from above quote)

 

Perhaps, hot is experienced when both the cold and warm receptors fire at the same time. - Hanover University, Indiana (from above quote)

 

 

Are not both statements clearly saying the exact same thing. It even uses Heat in the same context Inow and Hypervalent_Iodine tried saying was wrong.

 

So... Will anybody admit to being wrong?

Edited August 5, 2014 by barfbag

[hypervalent_iodine]

My advice to you would be to try not to conflate people giving up on pointless and repetitive conversation for evidence that those people think that you are at all correct. CharonY has given you some excellent information that you might wish to revisit.

[barfbag]

@ Hypervalent_Iodine,

 

Repetitive. This was the first University text I could find on the matter. I said in post 2 that "Hot" was abad search term and I got more bikinis than science papers.

 

You have not addressed this proof that this is what was taught at least as far back as 1984.

 

about Charony

Charony has stated that opinion has changed since 1984 but that it would be

 

I feel there is too much I would need to convey to demonstrate all the points

 

(however I will be satisfied knowing my stance was common knowledge among university students and science center attendees in 1984)

 

 

So we are only left with the 1984 standard hypothesis that 100% supported my views.

 

Why not admit you are wrong and move this to biology so others may learn from your mistakes.

 

I mean.. How can you argue against this?

 

the cold stimulus alone generates a cold experience and the warm stimulus feels pleasantly warm. However, together the person feels heat - Hanover University, Indiana. (from above quote in post 28)

 

This thread is being well read apparently. Does that not give more reasons to either move the thread or argue against a University textbook.

Edited August 5, 2014 by barfbag

[Bignose]

 

Look back at the first post. You didn't start it with "historical fun fact. We once thought that..." You started with a fact that is now known to be wrong.

 

Why does it matter that we once thought it was right? Threads about other things that we once thought were right but now know are wrong are in Speculations, too. Like phlogiston, flat earth, hallow earth, etc.

 

As near as I can tell, you aren't even arguing the point anymore.

 

What exactly do you want?

 

Someone to say that yes indeed there was a text 30+ years ago that agrees with you? Ok, there, done. Congratulations.

 

But if we now know that is wrong, unless you want to discuss more about what we know today, why don't we just let this thread fade away?

[CharonY]

Even 30+ years ago they did not state it as strongly as OP did 2014 (i.e. they hypothesized that this may be the case, among other possibilities, but lacking evidence and knowledge they did not present it as fact within the community).

[barfbag]

You started with a fact that is now known to be wrong.

 

 

Citations please. Who says it is wrong. I'm open to the idea of it being wrong, but not just on somebody's say so.

 

 

unless you want to discuss more about what we know today

 

 

I'd like to know how it is wrong today (if it is).

 

I concede maybe some new understandings have arisen, but not a single person has yet tried to explain how it is viewed today.

 

Arguing does not tell us how it is today, and so the only evidence we have put forth in this thread (which I never started btw) is what I could find in an older textbook. As far as I know that still stands as truth today. It certainly is true that the Thunberg's thermal grill illusion uses both cold and warm thermoreceptors to achieve the sensation of hot.

 

It's the same as the burning your hands feel while warming after a bare hands snowball fight.

 

 

 

In Thunberg's thermal grill illusion, first demonstrated in 1896, a sensation of strong, often painful heat is elicited by touching interlaced warm and cool bars to the skin. Neurophysiological recordings from two classes of ascending spinothalamic tract neurons that are sensitive to innocuous or noxious cold showed differential responses to the grill. On the basis of these results, a simple model of central disinhibition, or unmasking, predicted a quantitative correspondence between grill-evoked pain and cold-evoked pain, which was verified psychophysically. This integration of pain and temperature can explain the thermal grill illusion and the burning sensation of cold pain and may also provide a basis for the cold-evoked, burning pain of the classic thalamic pain syndrome. [ color changed by me/bolded/underlined for emphasis of topic]

 

 

 

HOW COULD "Thunberg's thermal grill illusion" work if this is not true today?

 

 

So YOU CLAIM this is still 30 year old hypothesis, but yet nobody is saying what it is.

 

Heaven forbid I should search some more and find out it is truer today than 30 years ago.

 

as far as being right.

 

 

Someone to say that yes indeed there was a text 30+ years ago that agrees with you? Ok, there, done. Congratulations.

 

 

This topic was delegated to pseudoscience, and furthermore was made fun of by members and moderators from post 2 on.

 

Yet it turns out I was quoting commonly known things from my own School days.

 

It SHOULD BE IN BIOLOGY .. whoever moved it here was in error.

 

 

Imagine any other topic by any other member.

 

If they stated something as a "fun fact" and then it turned out scientific breakthroughs had nulled that hypothesis would they simply correct you with updated information or make fun of the idea and ridicule it, and put it in its very own thread (this was a split thread (i did not start this thread or i would have been better prepared)). IN PSEUDOSCIENCE.

 

Quote from post 2,

This seems fairly nonsensical

 

 

So show me now why this is nonsensical..

 

I'm open to learning.

 

How about somebody actually use facts or citations instead of "SWEET BABY JESUS" videos. Somebody said this is a science forum.. Maybe demonstrate that.

Edited August 5, 2014 by barfbag

[CharonY]

 

HOW COULD "Thunberg's thermal grill illusion" work if this is not true today?

 

It is funny since the quote you have just restates what I wrote earlier in a more compact form (you bolded the less relevant part):

 

 

This forms the basis of the Thurnberg illusion, which, just to make clear, is physiologically distinct from how we typically sense harmful temperature. One important and somewhat confusing element is the grill activates thermoceptors, but not nociceptors. What actually happens is the following. The activity of polymodal C-nociceptors (that invoke the pain) are typically masked by the activity of thermoceptors that react to cooling. On the grill however, their activity is inhibited by the application of warmth. Thus the information from the thermosensors no longer blocks the activity of the the nociceptors letting the brain interpret the resulting signal as pain. Note that physiologically this is closer to what happens when the body actually experiences noxious cold (not heat).

 

Your misunderstanding is based on the fact that you seem to confuse the Thurnberg phenomenon with how normal (heat) pain sensing works. If you re-read your quote you will see that the illusion is based on a disinhibitation in that particular setup.

Just trying to make it clear: your claim is that pain is due to activation of heat and cold sensing at the same time. This is a slightly misunderstanding of how the Thurnberg illusion works, but the illusion is, in turn, not the way the pain perception normally works.

The latter is based on direct activation of nociceptors.

 

You see, the issue is not that you lack the knowledge to understand complex processes like these. The problem is that you half-guess your way through and present these as established facts.

 

For example in the last post again:

 

It's the same as the burning your hands feel while warming after a bare hands snowball fight.

 

Yet another bold claim, in which you equate the mechanism of the Thurnberg illusion to yet a different situation. But note the following: if your claim was correct, the pain would be the result of hot and cold receptors being triggered (which, as has been established by now, is not how the Thurnberg illusion actually works, either). Yet here you have a sequential situation. The Thurnberg on the other hand, requires both stimuli at the same time (as that tricks the circuit to trigger the nociceptors). Here, the change of temperature is now the source of pain.

 

The snow ball situation is actually a far more complex problem and IIRC a quite a bit of the pain is actually based on vasoconstriction and relaxation thereof (though I am not familiar with precise pathways myself and I am pretty sure that quite a bit more is involved).

Again, the core of the matter is that lack of expertise made you believe that these rather complex mechanism are trivial and hence, justify your claims.

 

The truth of the matter is that the actual mechanisms are far more complex (and many parts also beyond my expertise) and even experts would be hesitant in declaring things with that certainty that you do (or maybe it is the Kruger Dunning effect in action?).

Edited August 6, 2014 by CharonY

[barfbag]

Just trying to make it clear: your claim is that pain is due to activation of heat and cold sensing at the same time

 

 

No. Not even close. You have made this claim before. I have repeated my contention many times and yet you are still getting it wrong unless this is a purposeful straw man.

 

My claim "JUST TO BE CLEAR"

 

is that the brain coupling the sensation of "HOT" (NOTHING TO DO WITH PAIN), is caused by activating both the warm and cold thermoreceptors simultaneously.

 

I am under the current understanding that the cold thermoreceptor might also be used when sensing pain, but pain has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD.

 

 

The truth of the matter is that the actual mechanisms are far more complex (and many parts also beyond my expertise) and even experts would be hesitant in declaring things with that certainty that you do

 

 

Yet any kid who has been to a science center likely knows this by wrote. MAYBE ITS ALL THE GIANT SIGNS BESIDE THE DEMONSTRATION THAT SAY OUR BRAIN INTERPRETS COLD AND WARM SIGNALS TOGETHER AS HOT. Those are often decent clues.

 

If this topic is beyond your expertise then at least support your claim with some citation. You make fun of my citations being old, but at least I found some.

 

I have REPEATEDLY said this is about the sensation of HOT. Pain is another thread/topic if you wish to take your lack of expertise there also.

 

I think I should find out for myself and come back here in a few weeks, because nobody else is citing any evidence. Just empty words.

Edited August 6, 2014 by barfbag

[hypervalent_iodine]

It has everything to do with pain. Perhaps if you'd read the replies people took the effort to write or some of the abundant information online (you know, beyond outdated snippets from the 80's that vaguely supports something you said), you would understand this. Please go back and actually read this thread without the Dunning-Kruger glasses on before you reply.

[imatfaal]

As far as I can tell from a quick check both on a biochemical level (this post) and a neuronal level (next post) the detection and transmission is separate

Thermosensation and nociception.
Multiple mammalian TRP channels are activated by temperature changes and account for a large proportion of the temperature range to which mammals respond. As described above, TRPV1 and TRPV2 are sensors for uncomfortably warm (>43 ◦ C) (56) and very hot (>52 ◦ C) (64) temperatures, respectively, whereas TRPV3 (>30–39 ◦ C) (181–183) and TRPV4 (∼25–34 ◦ C) (184, 185) contribute to the perception of moderate temperatures. TRPM8 appears to function in our perception of cool temperatures (115, 116), and TRPA1 may be a cold sensor (127, 128); however, this latter conclusion is controversial (124, 126).

Taken from TRP Channels (Kartik Venkatachalam and Craig Montell)

Venkatachalam, K., & Montell, C. (2007). TRP channels. Annu. Rev. Biochem., 76, 387-417. p404

[imatfaal]

Our data suggest a striking similarity between thermoreceptor physiology in Drosophila and mammals. In both organisms,

different types of neurons encode the response to cold and heat stimuli. First, we found that in Drosophila, the most common

type of terminal organ cold receptive neurons showed a characteristic response to cold and heat; they spontaneously discharged

at room temperature, cooling reduced the frequency of nerve impulses, and warming decreased activity. This type of cold

receptor neuron is also very common in mammals.

...

Finally, some Drosophila neurons (multidendriticneurons ddaB and clusters 2 and 3) increased their activity during heating and reduced activity during cooling. This pattern ofactivity also exists in many mammalian warm receptors .

 

Taken from Identification and function of thermosensory neurons in Drosophila larvae (Liu et al)

 

Liu, L., Yermolaieva, O., Johnson, W. A., Abboud, F. M., & Welsh, M. J. (2003). Identification and function of thermosensory neurons in Drosophila larvae. Nature neuroscience, 6(3), 267-273. p272

 

Further from Liu et al there is also an interesting concept raised - the paradoxical response which seems to be linked to an absolute change of temperature regardless of whether heating or cooling

 

We found that cluster 1 and Ich5 neurons in Drosophila increased activity on both warming and cooling. Mammals also contain these so-called ‘paradoxical’ temperature receptors

[CharonY]

I think I should find out for myself and come back here in a few weeks, because nobody else is citing any evidence. Just empty words.

 

on 16 Jul 2014 - 2:59 PM, said:

 

What you mention is a speculation that was formed quite a while back, but is not substantiated by current knowledge anymore. See for example Craig and Bushnell, Science 1994 265/5169 p.252.

Funny bit is that the last quote given from Barfbag was based on that reference and virtually stated what I posted (repeatedly) earlier. Reading and comprehending are two different things, it seems.

 

But I do applaud the willingness to learn about it (assuming that one really does read upon it rather than filtering websites through ones own bias). That would include informing oneself about the role of pain receptors in the Thurnberg illusion and getting a better idea what "hot" in this context actually means (and why the attempt at backpedalling does not make much physiological sense).

As far as I can tell from a quick check both on a biochemical level (this post) and a neuronal level (next post) the detection and transmission is separate

 

 

 

Taken from TRP Channels (Kartik Venkatachalam and Craig Montell)

 

Venkatachalam, K., & Montell, C. (2007). TRP channels. Annu. Rev. Biochem., 76, 387-417. p404

This is indeed part of the whole system. Sensors react to stimuli but then the actual transmission circuits which ultimately determine how and which part of the brains are reached cause the actual sensation. This is why mechanisms such as the Thurnberg illusion are quite interesting as it helps deciphering low to midlevel interactions within these pathways. Identifying the actual sensors and stimuli they react to (which is often curiously unspecfic)is typically the easy part. But how they interact can be quite tricky to figure out.

Edited August 6, 2014 by CharonY

[barfbag]

@ Charony,

 

Craig and Bushnell, Science 1994 265/5169 p.252.

 

 

Which one of us cited this first. Without checking I think it was me. It was further noted that this reference was too a paid subscription, and I was not about to subscribe to that site for one PDF.

 

So .. If I cited it first then it was not really your citation in my opinion.

 

However I do applaud recent activity on this thread and it is enabling my own look at the subject to a higher degree.

 

Edit: I have looked at post 6 and I did reference a 1994 paper by those authors in that post. I have not verified they are the same but will do so in the future.

 

@ Charony,

 

While I think some here react without thinking, you have at least cited something even if it is something I had already pointed at.and I do appreciate your efforts to update my education. I am wanting to understand this fully now, but my earlier stance is what we learned in my day.

Edited August 7, 2014 by barfbag

[imatfaal]

 

...This is indeed part of the whole system. Sensors react to stimuli but then the actual transmission circuits which ultimately determine how and which part of the brains are reached cause the actual sensation. This is why mechanisms such as the Thurnberg illusion are quite interesting as it helps deciphering low to midlevel interactions within these pathways. Identifying the actual sensors and stimuli they react to (which is often curiously unspecfic)is typically the easy part. But how they interact can be quite tricky to figure out.

 

Indeed the building of an internal sensorium from nerve signals is possibly one of science's toughest asks. The melding of bio-electrical signals to functional experience/cognition is very close to nailing down the deus in machina. I love the way researchers have been able to utilise anomalous/extraordinary situations - either "illusory" like this example in thermosensation or pathological like phantom limb - to sketch out the standard interpretation.

 

I thought it important to highlight that the sensing rather than experiencing or understanding side (ie the biological equivalent of the thermocouple and wiring) whilst not understood to even an outline level did allow for separate sensing and communication. The fact that even the lowest level we have made progress on is complex and confusing (same ion channel detector for heat, a chemical, and pressure) just adds to the fun.

[CharonY]

I fully agree with that.

[Strange]

....

 

For Christ's sake, man, chill. (Pun intentional)