🚀 go-pugleaf

Radium wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> I asked this question before but the way I asked obviously made readers
> misunderstand my question.
> 
> Lets say I was somehow invincible. Totally physically-invincible to all
> injuries excluding flame burns to the skin resulting from direct
> contact with flames. Lets say that the only molecules affected in my
> skin were proteins. Lets say that the denatured proteins in my
> thermally-injured skin did not coagulate [somehow the hydrophobic cores
> are protected]. Lets say that no inflammatory reaction occurred. Lets
> also say that no infection occurred. In addition, nerves, blood
> vessels, sweat glands, oil glands, lymph nodes, hair roots, dermal
> muscles [e.g. erector muscles under hairs], and hairs are somehow
> totally protected from the thermal injury. Lastly, lets also say that
> the organic molecules in my skin did not carbonize* [due to protection
> of the carbon-carbon bonds as well as the carbon-x bonds; x standing
> for the other element attached to carbon].
> 

   Let's say that Mr. Invincible fell into a black hole... Out he cannot
   get.

I have a mate who suffered a brachial plexus lesion after an accident,
and when the arm withered went for voluntary amputation.

the amputation saved the hassle of the awkward bit of "baggage"
attached to his right shoulder and always getting in the way.

the amputation made no difference whatsoever to the pain, which is
considerable.

his SO is a senior medical person here (UK) so he always had the best
treatments and cutting edge stuff, just last year or so "they" (meaning
doctors and consultants) accepted, as a result of completely new tests,
that the pain he was feeling was in fact "real" pain and not "phantom"
pain, as pretty much 99.999% of doctors prior to these tests
insisted... "it's all in your head"

I'm not a doctor or bio-chemist or chemist, but it seems to me that
there is something in the bio-chemical nature of the nervous system
that.

a/ once a nervous system matures, permamently remembers that neural
map, so that no matter what happens to it, it remembers what it should
be like.

b/ once a severe trauma occurs, it permanently remembers the last
signal sent, and nothing but a subsequent "all is well" signal from an
original subnet that matches the "remembered" neural map will turn it
off.

I can see the survival benefit, major injury, do not use limb until it
heals, healing = signals returning from limb return to normal state,
this makes a much simpler feedback system that one that monitors
progress incrementally.

so basically I wouldn't bet you tuppence that your dead cells would
stop hurting until you apply some miracle stem cell replacement skin
salve...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> I have a mate who suffered a brachial plexus lesion after an accident,
> and when the arm withered went for voluntary amputation.
>
> the amputation saved the hassle of the awkward bit of "baggage"
> attached to his right shoulder and always getting in the way.
>
> the amputation made no difference whatsoever to the pain, which is
> considerable.
>
> his SO is a senior medical person here (UK) so he always had the best
> treatments and cutting edge stuff, just last year or so "they" (meaning
> doctors and consultants) accepted, as a result of completely new tests,
> that the pain he was feeling was in fact "real" pain and not "phantom"
> pain, as pretty much 99.999% of doctors prior to these tests
> insisted... "it's all in your head"

I thought "phantom pain" was real -- actual signals being sent
along actual nerves which no longer end where they used to.
The signals just don't originate where the brain is interpreting
them as originating. But the signals are really there, nevertheless.
Sort of like injecting a packet into a network with a fake
originating IP address.

I never heard phantom pain called psychosomatic.

                 - Randy

Randy Poe wrote:
> Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
>>I have a mate who suffered a brachial plexus lesion after an accident,
>>and when the arm withered went for voluntary amputation.
>>
>>the amputation saved the hassle of the awkward bit of "baggage"
>>attached to his right shoulder and always getting in the way.
>>
>>the amputation made no difference whatsoever to the pain, which is
>>considerable.
>>
>>his SO is a senior medical person here (UK) so he always had the best
>>treatments and cutting edge stuff, just last year or so "they" (meaning
>>doctors and consultants) accepted, as a result of completely new tests,
>>that the pain he was feeling was in fact "real" pain and not "phantom"
>>pain, as pretty much 99.999% of doctors prior to these tests
>>insisted... "it's all in your head"

> I thought "phantom pain" was real -- actual signals being sent
> along actual nerves which no longer end where they used to.

   It's "real" in that it's perceived the same way "real" pain is, 
because the relevant signals make their way to the brain. They're 
"phantom" in that the usual beginning of the path (pain receptor end 
organs) aren't there to begin the sequence any more, but were there 
long enough to get things started.

   The plexi and ganglia between the end organs and the brain do a 
very complex summing of incoming signals, and one neuron somewhere 
along the way will so to speak enable or disable another neuron's 
activity depending on a lot of things, and if the "disable" signal 
doesn't come along (because the end organs are gone), the pain 
continues.

> The signals just don't originate where the brain is interpreting
> them as originating. But the signals are really there, nevertheless.

   Yep.

> Sort of like injecting a packet into a network with a fake
> originating IP address.

   Nope, more like a return ping isn't possible but the router(s) 
can't tell. Analogies are dangerous.

> I never heard phantom pain called psychosomatic.

   It was common before neurologists developed more realistic models 
(as opposed to the simplistic analogical models they had been using).


   Mark L. Fergerson

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:5Wgof.30878$Mi5.10450@dukeread07...
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > Guy Fawkes wrote:
> >
> >>I have a mate who suffered a brachial plexus lesion after an accident,
> >>and when the arm withered went for voluntary amputation.
> >>
> >>the amputation saved the hassle of the awkward bit of "baggage"
> >>attached to his right shoulder and always getting in the way.
> >>
> >>the amputation made no difference whatsoever to the pain, which is
> >>considerable.
> >>
> >>his SO is a senior medical person here (UK) so he always had the best
> >>treatments and cutting edge stuff, just last year or so "they" (meaning
> >>doctors and consultants) accepted, as a result of completely new tests,
> >>that the pain he was feeling was in fact "real" pain and not "phantom"
> >>pain, as pretty much 99.999% of doctors prior to these tests
> >>insisted... "it's all in your head"
>
> > I thought "phantom pain" was real -- actual signals being sent
> > along actual nerves which no longer end where they used to.
>
>    It's "real" in that it's perceived the same way "real" pain is,
> because the relevant signals make their way to the brain. They're
> "phantom" in that the usual beginning of the path (pain receptor end
> organs) aren't there to begin the sequence any more, but were there
> long enough to get things started.
>
>    The plexi and ganglia between the end organs and the brain do a
> very complex summing of incoming signals, and one neuron somewhere
> along the way will so to speak enable or disable another neuron's
> activity depending on a lot of things, and if the "disable" signal
> doesn't come along (because the end organs are gone), the pain
> continues.
>
> > The signals just don't originate where the brain is interpreting
> > them as originating. But the signals are really there, nevertheless.
>
>    Yep.
>
> > Sort of like injecting a packet into a network with a fake
> > originating IP address.
>
>    Nope, more like a return ping isn't possible but the router(s)
> can't tell. Analogies are dangerous.
>
> > I never heard phantom pain called psychosomatic.
>
>    It was common before neurologists developed more realistic models
> (as opposed to the simplistic analogical models they had been using).
>
>
>    Mark L. Fergerson
>

There can be remapping of nerve cells as they can make new connections. A
lost arm can remap to the face for example. Stroking the face would have the
same effect as stroking the arm that is no longer there.
There is a way to trick the body and mind in some pain relief of phantom
organs. Psychiatrists have used mirrors in tricking your mind into thinking
one arm is the other and contracting and releasing tension pain.

"V.S. RAMACHANDRAN: The reason we think it happens is that in the brain
there is a complete map of the surface of the body. The entire left side of
my body, the skin surface, is mapped on to the right side of my brain along
a vertical strip of cortex which we call the "somatosensory cortex."
Similarly the right side of my body is represented on the left side of my
brain. So every point on your body surface has a corresponding point on this
body map. Now, it turns out that the representation of the face on this map
is right next to the representation of the hand. Now, that's a bit
surprising, as you'd expect the map to be continuous and faithfully
represent the left side of my body. But it doesn't. Now imagine what would
happen if the left arm were amputated. The part of the brain corresponding
to the hand no longer gets any input, and it's hungry for new sensory input,
so to speak. The sensory signals from the face normally activate only the
face area that's right next to the hand area. But they now invade the
vacated territory corresponding to the missing hand and start activating the
hand region of the brain.

And so, whatever is reading those signals higher up misinterprets those
signals. It says those signals are coming from the missing hand. So you
experience the sensations as coming from the missing fingers even though I'm
touching your face. This is showing there's been a massive reorganization of
the sensory pathways in your brain after the amputation. And it's as though
there's been a cross-wiring in your brain."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2812mind.html

Interesting information on the brain and pain perception. I actually
saw V.S. Ramachandran on TV describing this tactile perception within
the brain.

However, I must ask that we do not stray too far from the original
topic -- my hypothetical burn injury.

So can we please cut short this topic on the brain [interesting as it
is] and return to the original subject?

I mean no offense and sure hope that I don't seem rude.


Thanks,

Radium

> So can we please cut short this topic on the brain [interesting as it
> is] and return to the original subject?

It's actually rather difficult for chemists to come up with a
reasonable
discussion of what would happen chemically to an invulnerable person
(along the lines of Superman, if I read your post correctly), since the

supposition of such invulnerability defies chemical logic.  Therefore,
chemical logic doesn't really apply in this situation.

If you set the rules (ie, decide what bits can be affected by high
temperature),
then you get to decide the results.  You're the author/cartoonist/game
master.

Cheers,

Note to self- check crossposts before hitting "reply".

tressure@gmail.com wrote:
> It's actually rather difficult for chemists to come up with a
> reasonable
> discussion of what would happen chemically to an invulnerable person
> (along the lines of Superman, if I read your post correctly), since the

Invulnerable only to anything other than the injury I describe.

> supposition of such invulnerability defies chemical logic.  Therefore,
> chemical logic doesn't really apply in this situation.

How doesn't the chemical logic apply?

> If you set the rules (ie, decide what bits can be affected by high
> temperature),
> then you get to decide the results.  You're the author/cartoonist/game
> master.

Not entirely. This is a hypothetical situation. I know the injury I
describe could not occur [unless we had some intense nanotechnology
going] but what if it could? What if we did have the technology to make
that injury occur? Then what?

What symptoms?

What change in skin color?

I think nanotechnology could be used to select only certain molecules
and affect those molecules. In addition, this technology could also be
used to regulate how far or how close molecules are to each other and
that it can also protect certain bonds [C-H bonds for example] from
injuries elements [such as heat] while allowing other bonds to be
affected.

On 14 Dec 2005 21:31:59 -0800, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

>Hi:
>
>I asked this question before but the way I asked obviously made readers
>misunderstand my question.
>
>Lets say I was somehow invincible. 

That explains why we misunderstood the question.


>Totally physically-invincible to all
>injuries excluding flame burns to the skin resulting from direct
>contact with flames. Lets say that the only molecules affected in my
>skin were proteins. Lets say that the denatured proteins in my
>thermally-injured skin did not coagulate [somehow the hydrophobic cores
>are protected]. Lets say that no inflammatory reaction occurred. Lets
>also say that no infection occurred. In addition, nerves, blood
>vessels, sweat glands, oil glands, lymph nodes, hair roots, dermal
>muscles [e.g. erector muscles under hairs], and hairs are somehow
>totally protected from the thermal injury. Lastly, lets also say that
>the organic molecules in my skin did not carbonize* [due to protection
>of the carbon-carbon bonds as well as the carbon-x bonds; x standing
>for the other element attached to carbon].
>
>
>*carbonize = when an organic substance is heated to a certain
>temperature or above in the absence of adequate oxygen [for
>oxidization] that substance turns smokes and turns black. It leaves
>smoke, char, and ash behind. If heated to a sufficient temperature or
>beyond in the PRESENCE of adequate oxygen, the organic substance will
>oxidize but not carbonize.
>
>
>Lets I suffered a flame burn [due to direct contact with open flame]
>which totally denatured all proteins molecules in my epidermis and
>dermis [excluding nerves, blood vessels, sweat glands, oil glands,
>lymph nodes, hair roots, dermal muscles [e.g. erector muscles under
>hairs], and hairs]. In addition, no the burn did not extend anywhere
>below the dermis [only epidermis and dermis are affected] what symptoms
>would I experience? What color would my skin change to?
>
>Here is what I think would happen. I am dark-skinned. I think that my
>skin would turn white due to denaturing of the pigment proteins. 


Ok, that is a fairly specific point. 

If by pigment, you mean melanin... Melanin is not really a protein. In
any case, it is not easily predicted what would happen to its color
under the conditions you suggest. Perhaps you can find some
information on how melanin responds to heat, but you will need to
specify temperature and time.

Of course, if we take the constraint that only proteins are affected,
then there would be no effect.

bob

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1134691052.797766.50790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting information on the brain and pain perception. I actually
> saw V.S. Ramachandran on TV describing this tactile perception within
> the brain.
>
> However, I must ask that we do not stray too far from the original
> topic -- my hypothetical burn injury.
>
> So can we please cut short this topic on the brain [interesting as it
> is] and return to the original subject?
>
> I mean no offense and sure hope that I don't seem rude.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
>

Ok back to you being superman and you burn but don't really burn because you
are superman.

"Robert" <Robertsononlin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PP6dnT9oTbM-9T_enZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@got.net...
>
> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1134691052.797766.50790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Interesting information on the brain and pain perception. I actually
> > saw V.S. Ramachandran on TV describing this tactile perception within
> > the brain.
> >
> > However, I must ask that we do not stray too far from the original
> > topic -- my hypothetical burn injury.
> >
> > So can we please cut short this topic on the brain [interesting as it
> > is] and return to the original subject?
> >
> > I mean no offense and sure hope that I don't seem rude.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Radium
> >
>
> Ok back to you being superman and you burn but don't really burn because
you
> are superman.
>
>

Ok, what if a person were not a superman but a vampire and if a vampire were
to get burned or damage a bone and they took an X ray, would the X ray show
anything or would it be black, keeping in mind that a vampire image can not
be captured on a mirror?

Robert wrote:
> "Robert" <Robertsononlin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:PP6dnT9oTbM-9T_enZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@got.net...
> >
> > "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:1134691052.797766.50790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > Interesting information on the brain and pain perception. I actually
> > > saw V.S. Ramachandran on TV describing this tactile perception within
> > > the brain.
> > >
> > > However, I must ask that we do not stray too far from the original
> > > topic -- my hypothetical burn injury.
> > >
> > > So can we please cut short this topic on the brain [interesting as it
> > > is] and return to the original subject?
> > >
> > > I mean no offense and sure hope that I don't seem rude.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Radium
> > >
> >
> > Ok back to you being superman and you burn but don't really burn because
> you
> > are superman.
> >
> >
>
> Ok, what if a person were not a superman but a vampire and if a vampire were
> to get burned or damage a bone and they took an X ray, would the X ray show
> anything or would it be black, keeping in mind that a vampire image can not
> be captured on a mirror?

Oohh... and if a vampire bit a werewolf, would the werewolf turn into a
vampire or would the vampire turn into a werewolf? And in either case,
what would happen if you stabbed it with a shard from a silvered
mirror? I *love* this game!

PD

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message 
news:1134624719.649989.163920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> I asked this question before but the way I asked obviously made readers
> misunderstand my question.

Like I said last time - green 

Why green

Bob wrote:

> Of course, if we take the constraint that only proteins are affected,
> then there would be no effect.

Okay but what other symptoms would occur? Would the skin texture
change? If so, how?

Lets add another rule. What if no scarring can occur?

How would the injured skin look in the time that the burn has just
occured [i.e. a fresh burn]?

How would the injured skin look like in about two hours after the burn?

In a day after the burn?

A week?

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message 
news:1134801114.531276.250570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Why green


Seriously - why not ? 

"Manky Badger" <spam@puritanDOTfreeserve.FULLSTOPcoSPOTuk> wrote in message
news:do0eqm$cmq$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1134801114.531276.250570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Why green
>
>
> Seriously - why not ?
>
>

Green is a secondary color. It is a composite of blue and yellow.
If Spiderman were to be burnt then his skin which is normally blue would
appear green. That meets the criteria for Superman and Batman also. I agree
with Manky on this.

On 16 Dec 2005 22:37:41 -0800, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

>Bob wrote:
>
>> Of course, if we take the constraint that only proteins are affected,
>> then there would be no effect.
>
>Okay but what other symptoms would occur? Would the skin texture
>change? If so, how?

By the rules you established, who knows.

I answered the melanin question because it is specific. One could
study this in the lab... heat melanin under conditions as desired and
see what happens. 

Skin is part of a complex biological system, and your groundrules
essentially say to ignore everything we know.

What is the point? Sometimes people actually have a purpose for the
question, then contrive a question that per se makes little sense, and
does not lead to what is wanted anyway.

bob

"Robert" <Robertsononlin@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ovSdnYohfKMDVD7enZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@got.net...
>
> "Manky Badger" <spam@puritanDOTfreeserve.FULLSTOPcoSPOTuk> wrote in 
> message
> news:do0eqm$cmq$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134801114.531276.250570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > Why green
>>
>>
>> Seriously - why not ?
>>
>>
>
> Green is a secondary color. It is a composite of blue and yellow.
> If Spiderman were to be burnt then his skin which is normally blue would
> appear green. That meets the criteria for Superman and Batman also. I 
> agree
> with Manky on this.

Thank you :o)

I actually came up with the idea by applying the principles of science
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/science/

MB 

Bob wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2005 22:37:41 -0800, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >Okay but what other symptoms would occur? Would the skin texture
> >change? If so, how?
>
> By the rules you established, who knows.

Why do you say that? Wouldn't denaturing the proteins cause a change in
skin texture? I assume [but DON'T *know*] that the skin would soften
and liquify [given that -- under my rule -- the proteins can't
coagulate].

> I answered the melanin question because it is specific. One could
> study this in the lab... heat melanin under conditions as desired and
> see what happens.

I've seen burn wound look 'scary' white. Sometimes it looks like white
foam. Once, I was burnt by a hot plate. The wound did look white and
foamy for a while. Why does this happen? [NOTE: this is NOT under my
rules!!!]

> Skin is part of a complex biological system,

True.

> and your groundrules
> essentially say to ignore everything we know.

How so? It is possible in injure only one organ system w/out injuring
other systems. Of course, burning the skin would effect the rest of the
body. The nerve endings would be stimulated they would carry info to
the brain. The subject would then feel the pain, obviously. So yes,
affecting the skin can INDIRECTLY affect other organs [like the brain
in the case of tactile perception]. I never said that it wouldn't. I
DID say that it won't *injure* other body systems.

> What is the point? Sometimes people actually have a purpose for the
> question, then contrive a question that per se makes little sense, and
> does not lead to what is wanted anyway.

Well, I am interested in the hypothetical. Its like Sci-Fi sometimes. I
know it sounds crazy I am interested in wierd things.

On 17 Dec 2005 11:15:00 -0800, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

>Bob wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2005 22:37:41 -0800, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Okay but what other symptoms would occur? Would the skin texture
>> >change? If so, how?
>>
>> By the rules you established, who knows.
>
>Why do you say that? Wouldn't denaturing the proteins cause a change in
>skin texture? I assume [but DON'T *know*] that the skin would soften
>and liquify [given that -- under my rule -- the proteins can't
>coagulate].

See, that is the problem. There is no way to know, since you have
declared non-natural rules for protein denaturation. 



>
>> I answered the melanin question because it is specific. One could
>> study this in the lab... heat melanin under conditions as desired and
>> see what happens.
>
>I've seen burn wound look 'scary' white. Sometimes it looks like white
>foam. Once, I was burnt by a hot plate. The wound did look white and
>foamy for a while. Why does this happen? [NOTE: this is NOT under my
>rules!!!]
>
>> Skin is part of a complex biological system,
>
>True.
>
>> and your groundrules
>> essentially say to ignore everything we know.
>
>How so? It is possible in injure only one organ system w/out injuring
>other systems. 

But that is not what you asked for. You began to specify which
individual molecules would react, and you began to specify what they
would do. Testing what melanin would do if heated alone is
experimentally accessible, but that is not "skin". Testing what
something would look like if it behaves contrary to what we know is
also not accessible.


It is ok to simplify the system (look at one part of it), but then it
is not easy to infer how the whole would behave. Further, it is not
productive to postulate that a part will behave contrary to nature.

>
>> What is the point? Sometimes people actually have a purpose for the
>> question, then contrive a question that per se makes little sense, and
>> does not lead to what is wanted anyway.
>
>Well, I am interested in the hypothetical. Its like Sci-Fi sometimes. I
>know it sounds crazy I am interested in wierd things.

ok, fair enough. But don't be surprised if the answers seem odd, too.

bob

Radium wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > On 16 Dec 2005 22:37:41 -0800, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Okay but what other symptoms would occur? Would the skin texture
> > >change? If so, how?
> >
> > By the rules you established, who knows.
>
> Why do you say that? Wouldn't denaturing the proteins cause a change in
> skin texture? I assume [but DON'T *know*] that the skin would soften
> and liquify [given that -- under my rule -- the proteins can't
> coagulate].
>
> > I answered the melanin question because it is specific. One could
> > study this in the lab... heat melanin under conditions as desired and
> > see what happens.
>
> I've seen burn wound look 'scary' white. Sometimes it looks like white
> foam. Once, I was burnt by a hot plate. The wound did look white and
> foamy for a while. Why does this happen? [NOTE: this is NOT under my
> rules!!!]
>
> > Skin is part of a complex biological system,
>
> True.
>
> > and your groundrules
> > essentially say to ignore everything we know.
>
> How so? It is possible in injure only one organ system w/out injuring
> other systems.

But that's not what you're proposing. An "organ system" is a collection
of tissues. You are proposing damage to a specific *tissue* in an organ
system, not to the organ system.

If you scratch your arm, you will see two things happen. The area
around the scratch will first turn whitish, and then it will turn red
and inflamed. Both of these are stages in a highly complex immune
response involving the release of histamines in the area of the wound.
Neither of these changes is particular to the damaged tissue itself,
but illustrates the complexity of the *organ system* that is the skin.

In answer to your question about what would happen to your burnt
tissues in a week, it would turn black and begin to smell very bad as
bacterial decomposition sets in. See "gangrene" and "frostbite" for
what happens to dead tissue as a function of time.

PD

> Of course, burning the skin would effect the rest of the
> body. The nerve endings would be stimulated they would carry info to
> the brain. The subject would then feel the pain, obviously. So yes,
> affecting the skin can INDIRECTLY affect other organs [like the brain
> in the case of tactile perception]. I never said that it wouldn't. I
> DID say that it won't *injure* other body systems.
>
> > What is the point? Sometimes people actually have a purpose for the
> > question, then contrive a question that per se makes little sense, and
> > does not lead to what is wanted anyway.
>
> Well, I am interested in the hypothetical. Its like Sci-Fi sometimes. I
> know it sounds crazy I am interested in wierd things.

Robert wrote:
> "Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
> news:5Wgof.30878$Mi5.10450@dukeread07...
> 
>>Randy Poe wrote:
>>
>>>Guy Fawkes wrote:

>>>>I have a mate who suffered a brachial plexus lesion after an accident,
>>>>and when the arm withered went for voluntary amputation.
>>>>
>>>>the amputation saved the hassle of the awkward bit of "baggage"
>>>>attached to his right shoulder and always getting in the way.
>>>>
>>>>the amputation made no difference whatsoever to the pain, which is
>>>>considerable.
>>>>
>>>>his SO is a senior medical person here (UK) so he always had the best
>>>>treatments and cutting edge stuff, just last year or so "they" (meaning
>>>>doctors and consultants) accepted, as a result of completely new tests,
>>>>that the pain he was feeling was in fact "real" pain and not "phantom"
>>>>pain, as pretty much 99.999% of doctors prior to these tests
>>>>insisted... "it's all in your head"
>>
>>>I thought "phantom pain" was real -- actual signals being sent
>>>along actual nerves which no longer end where they used to.
>>
>>   It's "real" in that it's perceived the same way "real" pain is,
>>because the relevant signals make their way to the brain. They're
>>"phantom" in that the usual beginning of the path (pain receptor end
>>organs) aren't there to begin the sequence any more, but were there
>>long enough to get things started.
>>
>>   The plexi and ganglia between the end organs and the brain do a
>>very complex summing of incoming signals, and one neuron somewhere
>>along the way will so to speak enable or disable another neuron's
>>activity depending on a lot of things, and if the "disable" signal
>>doesn't come along (because the end organs are gone), the pain
>>continues.

>>>The signals just don't originate where the brain is interpreting
>>>them as originating. But the signals are really there, nevertheless.
>>
>>   Yep.

>>>Sort of like injecting a packet into a network with a fake
>>>originating IP address.
>>
>>   Nope, more like a return ping isn't possible but the router(s)
>>can't tell. Analogies are dangerous.

>>>I never heard phantom pain called psychosomatic.
>>
>>   It was common before neurologists developed more realistic models
>>(as opposed to the simplistic analogical models they had been using).

> There can be remapping of nerve cells as they can make new connections. A
> lost arm can remap to the face for example. Stroking the face would have the
> same effect as stroking the arm that is no longer there.
> There is a way to trick the body and mind in some pain relief of phantom
> organs. Psychiatrists have used mirrors in tricking your mind into thinking
> one arm is the other and contracting and releasing tension pain.
> 
> "V.S. RAMACHANDRAN: The reason we think it happens is that in the brain
> there is a complete map of the surface of the body. The entire left side of
> my body, the skin surface, is mapped on to the right side of my brain along
> a vertical strip of cortex which we call the "somatosensory cortex."
> Similarly the right side of my body is represented on the left side of my
> brain. So every point on your body surface has a corresponding point on this
> body map. Now, it turns out that the representation of the face on this map
> is right next to the representation of the hand. Now, that's a bit
> surprising, as you'd expect the map to be continuous and faithfully
> represent the left side of my body. But it doesn't. Now imagine what would
> happen if the left arm were amputated. The part of the brain corresponding
> to the hand no longer gets any input, and it's hungry for new sensory input,
> so to speak. The sensory signals from the face normally activate only the
> face area that's right next to the hand area. But they now invade the
> vacated territory corresponding to the missing hand and start activating the
> hand region of the brain.
> 
> And so, whatever is reading those signals higher up misinterprets those
> signals. It says those signals are coming from the missing hand. So you
> experience the sensations as coming from the missing fingers even though I'm
> touching your face. This is showing there's been a massive reorganization of
> the sensory pathways in your brain after the amputation. And it's as though
> there's been a cross-wiring in your brain."

   Interesting stuff. This kind of remapping ought to be possible 
farther down the neurological chain, and here's a real-world example; a 
friend of mine was in a car accident that left him a quadriplegic as 
most of his spinal cord was severed, though some of his autonomic nerves 
were intact. He was told he'd spend the rest of his (short) life 
expectancy in a wheelchair. However this friend of mine does not have 
"quit", "can't" or "never" in his vocabulary, and a year later he was 
walking with canes, driving his car, and _flying a plane_ with hand 
controls. His neurologists were stumped because their tests showed that 
his voluntary nerves were not carrying signals to his arm and leg 
muscles. Their best guess was that somehow he'd managed to "piggyback" 
voluntary signals onto the autonomic nerves, though they can't do the 
kind of signal tracing needed to prove it. He has limited stereognosis 
and can feel pain and pressure but not heat or cold in his extremities 
(so far).

   He has no bladder control but can control his anal sphincter, and is 
looking forward to regaining erectile function despite his neurologists' 
saying "never".

   Only goes to show that sometimes, if you want a thing bad enough you 
_can_ have it.


   Mark L. Fergerson

PD wrote:
> Radium wrote:
> > Bob wrote:
> > > On 16 Dec 2005 22:37:41 -0800, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Okay but what other symptoms would occur? Would the skin texture
> > > >change? If so, how?
> > >
> > > By the rules you established, who knows.
> >
> > Why do you say that? Wouldn't denaturing the proteins cause a change in
> > skin texture? I assume [but DON'T *know*] that the skin would soften
> > and liquify [given that -- under my rule -- the proteins can't
> > coagulate].
> >
> > > I answered the melanin question because it is specific. One could
> > > study this in the lab... heat melanin under conditions as desired and
> > > see what happens.
> >
> > I've seen burn wound look 'scary' white. Sometimes it looks like white
> > foam. Once, I was burnt by a hot plate. The wound did look white and
> > foamy for a while. Why does this happen? [NOTE: this is NOT under my
> > rules!!!]
> >
> > > Skin is part of a complex biological system,
> >
> > True.
> >
> > > and your groundrules
> > > essentially say to ignore everything we know.
> >
> > How so? It is possible in injure only one organ system w/out injuring
> > other systems.


> But that's not what you're proposing. An "organ system" is a collection
> of tissues. You are proposing damage to a specific *tissue* in an organ
> system, not to the organ system.

Okay. Sorry I didn't use the correct terms.

> If you scratch your arm, you will see two things happen. The area
> around the scratch will first turn whitish, and then it will turn red
> and inflamed. Both of these are stages in a highly complex immune
> response involving the release of histamines in the area of the wound.
> Neither of these changes is particular to the damaged tissue itself,
> but illustrates the complexity of the *organ system* that is the skin.

The red is definitely due to the immune response. It is part of the
inflammatory reaction.

Is the 'whiteness' due to the immune response? I doubt it but I could
be wrong. As I said, my burn injury [from touching a hot plate] looked
white. I am not sure why the injured skin looked white. My thinking is
that the heat damaged the dermal pigments in that area. Once again, I
could be wrong.

> In answer to your question about what would happen to your burnt
> tissues in a week, it would turn black and begin to smell very bad as
> bacterial decomposition sets in.

I am aware of this. However, in my rules, infection or microbial
decomposition canNOT occur. So if there was no bacterial [or any
microbial] decay, how would the burn look like?

Under my -- too good to be true in today's technology -- rules,
inflammatory reactions also canNOT occur. So how would the burn look
like?

> See "gangrene" and "frostbite" for
> what happens to dead tissue as a function of time.

Already know about this. However in my rules, this would not occur.

> PD
>
> > Of course, burning the skin would effect the rest of the
> > body. The nerve endings would be stimulated they would carry info to
> > the brain. The subject would then feel the pain, obviously. So yes,
> > affecting the skin can INDIRECTLY affect other organs [like the brain
> > in the case of tactile perception]. I never said that it wouldn't. I
> > DID say that it won't *injure* other body systems.
> >
> > > What is the point? Sometimes people actually have a purpose for the
> > > question, then contrive a question that per se makes little sense, and
> > > does not lead to what is wanted anyway.
> >
> > Well, I am interested in the hypothetical. Its like Sci-Fi sometimes. I
> > know it sounds crazy I am interested in wierd things.