There is certainly a difference between physical and psychological pain, but when it comes to what you're describing, I don't see why it isn't fair to just refer to it as pain. Yes, it's not precipitated by any real physical damage to your body, but you feel it just the same. Referring to it as an unpleasant feeling from the mind is actually more vague than referring to it as pain. There are many unpleasant feelings the mind can produce, and it's easier to know that you are specifically referring to pain. Anyway, pain is strictly a mental phenomenon, this article may give you some insight into what pain is and how it happens.
To quote a few parts of it:
 Originally Posted by Pain Article
Pain is not just a message from injured tissues to be accepted at face value, but a complex experience that is thoroughly tuned by your brain. The results are often strange and counter-intuitive, like quantum physics, but the science is clear: every painful sensation is 100% Brain Made®, and there is no pain without brain.
...
Mostly we need to stop thinking of pain in terms of single causes or cures: “It’s all coming from the ____, I know it!” It almost never is.4 Pain is not reliable sign of what’s really going on. Chronic pain is a witch’s brew of different factors, complex by nature (not just coincidence or bad luck). At the very least, pain always has a layer of brain-generated complexity. At the worst, the pain system can malfunction in several colorful ways, causing pain that is much more intense and interesting than just a symptom — sometimes the pain is the problem.
...
Pain is an opinion on the organism’s state of health rather than a mere reflective response to an injury. There is no direct hotline from pain receptors to ‘pain centers’ in the brain. There is so much interaction between different brain centers, like those concerned with vision and touch, that even the mere visual appearance of an opening fist can actually feed all the way back into the patient’s motor and touch pathways, allowing him to feel the fist opening, thereby killing an illusory pain in a nonexistent hand. (This is a quote from a neurologist in reference to phantom limb pain, where an amputee still feels the limb that is missing and it is in pain, and with a clever set up using mirrors, people with cut off hands or arms specifically cn overcome this issue by clenching their fist while looking into the mirror, and relaxing again; this is an entirely mental pain, because it is occurring in the place where an amputated limb should be, but it can't be classified as a simple unpleasant feeling from the mind, it's indistinguishable from physical pain)
...
Based on this model, almost everyone still — today, in 2016 — still assumes that any message sent to the brain by a certain kind of nerve will always cause pain. Health care professionals everywhere still believe that the nerve is “sending pain,” that the signal is pain — and therefore these nerves are habitually called “pain fibers” and their messages are called “pain messages,” an equivalence between signalling and pain baked right into the language. This is wrong! And it’s worse than an oversimplification. For several decades now, it’s been clear to pain scientists and neurologists that this simplistic, pain-fiber model is hopelessly inaccurate. In fact, they call it “the naïve view”! [T]he way pain really works is much more complicated, interesting, and in some ways useful. A nerve should never be call a “pain” nerve. It doesn’t detect “pain.” It only detects some kind of stimulus in the tissue … and the brain decides what to make of it, how to feel about it, and what to do about it, if anything.
...
The brain can boss the nerves around, tell them how sensitive to be. When anxious, the brain might request “more information” from the peripheral nerves, ordering them to produce more signals in response to smaller stimuli. Or it might do exactly the opposite. There is extensive recent evidence that the peripheral nerves can even physically, chemically change, perhaps in response to brain requests, tissue conditions, or both. To extend the analogy, this isn’t just twiddling the volume knob, but changing the equipment, changing the signal before it even gets to the “amplifier.”
In short, messages about pain don’t just go up to the brain, they go down. This two-way functionality in the pain system is the main difference between modern pain science and old-school pain science.
But most of the modulation is probably central: we only feel what our brains allow us to feel. Even “loud” sensory messages can be filtered down to almost nothing by the central nervous system … or, conversely, “quiet” sensory messages can be amplified. The quality and intensity of the final experience is clearly the product of an elaborate set of neurological filters.
These are the points most relevant to our discussion. I know what you're trying to say by referring to dream pain as merely being an unpleasant feeling produced by the mind, but that's exactly my point about pain itself. It isn't something caused by physical damage to your body, it's how your mind chooses to perceive a certain set of stimuli in a given situation. It doesn't make a difference whether the stimulus in question comes from nociceptors (peripheral sensory neurons that activate if stimulated past a certain threshold, and typically the brains response to receiving this message is to cause you to feel pain), or from an entirely mental source, like pain from an amputated limb that isn't actually there (real, physical pain, even though it's caused entirely by the mind), or even from a dream.
|
|
Bookmarks