Origins, evolution, and emotional dimensions of pain

Abstract

This dissertation explores the origins, evolutionary trajectory, and emotional dimensions of pain. Pain is examined as a foundational sensory experience that predates and potentially serves as the template for all other feelings. The thesis investigates nociception's emergence in primitive organisms, traces its development into conscious pain across phylogeny, and analyzes how complex emotional states may have evolved from this fundamental protective mechanism. By integrating perspectives from evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind, this work proposes that pain represents the canonical form of feeling from which more nuanced emotional experiences emerged. The dissertation further examines how physical pain intertwines with emotional distress, explores the neural substrates that enable the subjective experience of pain, and considers the implications for understanding consciousness in biological and potentially artificial systems. The findings suggest that pain's evolutionary history offers unique insights into the nature of subjective experience and the biological origins of the "observer" in conscious awareness.

1. Introduction

The Fundamental Nature of Pain

Pain stands as perhaps the most elemental of all sensory experiences. It is universal across animals with nervous systems, immediate in its demand for attention, and profound in its capacity to alter behavior (1). Yet despite its ubiquity and importance, pain remains one of the most enigmatic phenomena in biology and neuroscience. The mystery of pain extends beyond its mechanisms to the very nature of its subjective experience—what philosophers term "qualia"—and raises fundamental questions about consciousness itself (2).

This dissertation proposes that pain represents more than just another sensory modality among many. Rather, pain may constitute the canonical form of feeling—the prototypical subjective experience from which all other feelings and emotions have evolved (3). This perspective invites us to reconsider pain not merely as a warning system but as the evolutionary foundation upon which the entire architecture of emotion and subjective experience has been built.

The paradox of pain lies in its dual nature: it is simultaneously a physiological process—involving nociceptors, neural pathways, and brain regions—and a deeply subjective experience that seems to transcend physical description (4). This duality makes pain a unique window into the mind-body problem and the nature of consciousness itself. If we can understand how physical processes give rise to the subjective experience of pain, we may gain crucial insights into how phenomenal consciousness emerges from neural activity more generally.

Research Questions and Objectives

This dissertation addresses several interconnected questions that span evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind:

1. How did pain evolve from simple nociception in primitive organisms to the complex, conscious experience in humans?
2. What is the relationship between physical pain and emotional suffering, and how have pain mechanisms been co-opted for emotional processes?
3. Who or what is the "observer" that experiences pain, and how did this capacity for subjective experience emerge in evolution?
4. How does pain contribute to the development of self-awareness and consciousness?
5. Could artificial systems eventually develop pain-like experiences, and what would this imply for artificial consciousness?

These questions guide an interdisciplinary exploration that seeks to integrate evolutionary theory, comparative neurobiology, affective neuroscience, and philosophical approaches to consciousness.

Significance of the Study

Understanding pain's origins and relationship to emotions has profound implications across multiple domains. In clinical settings, a deeper understanding of pain's nature could inform novel approaches to pain management and treatment of emotional disorders (5). In basic science, elucidating the evolutionary and neurobiological foundations of pain promises to advance our understanding of consciousness itself—one of the most challenging frontiers in science (6).

Furthermore, as artificial intelligence systems grow increasingly sophisticated, questions about machine consciousness and artificial emotions become more pressing (7). If pain truly represents the canonical form of feeling, then understanding its essential nature may provide critical insights into whether and how machines might develop subjective experiences—with all the ethical implications such a development would entail.

This dissertation thus addresses questions that are not only scientifically fascinating but also have significant practical implications for medicine, psychology, artificial intelligence, and our fundamental understanding of what it means to be a conscious being.

2. Literature Review

Historical Perspectives on Pain

The study of pain has a rich history spanning millennia. Ancient Greek physicians like Hippocrates and Galen viewed pain as an imbalance of bodily humors, while Aristotle considered it a passion of the soul rather than a sensation like vision or hearing (8). This dichotomy between physical and mental aspects of pain persisted through the centuries. Descartes' mechanistic model in the 17th century proposed that pain signals traveled through hollow tubes from the periphery to the brain, where they were consciously perceived—a surprisingly prescient view given the limited knowledge of his time (9).

The 19th and early 20th centuries saw the emergence of more sophisticated theories. Von Frey's specificity theory proposed dedicated pain receptors and pathways, while Goldscheider's pattern theory suggested that pain resulted from intense stimulation of non-specific receptors (10). Melzack and Wall's gate control theory in 1965 represented a major breakthrough, proposing that pain signals could be modulated at the spinal cord level, explaining phenomena like placebo effects and pain that persists after tissue healing (11).

Contemporary pain science has moved toward a biopsychosocial model that recognizes pain as an experience influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors (12). Importantly, modern definitions distinguish nociception (the neural processes of encoding and processing noxious stimuli) from pain (the unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage) (13).

Evolutionary Biology of Nociception and Pain

The evolutionary history of pain begins with nociception—the ability to detect and respond to potentially damaging stimuli. Even single-celled organisms like paramecia demonstrate avoidance responses to noxious stimuli, suggesting that the foundations of nociception predate nervous systems entirely (14). Simple invertebrates such as Caenorhabditis elegans possess dedicated nociceptors that respond to mechanical stress, harsh touch, and toxic chemicals (15).

More complex invertebrates display increasingly sophisticated nociceptive systems. Fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) possess multiple classes of nociceptors and demonstrate complex behavioral responses to noxious stimuli, including learned avoidance (16). Cephalopods like octopuses show evidence of nociception with remarkable similarity to vertebrate systems, despite their evolutionary divergence over 500 million years ago—a striking example of convergent evolution (17).

The vertebrate lineage shows a progressive elaboration of pain-processing systems. Fish possess nociceptors similar to those in mammals, though the extent of their pain experience remains debated (18). Amphibians, reptiles, and birds show increasingly complex nociceptive systems and behaviors suggesting conscious pain experiences, particularly in birds with their highly developed pallium (19).

Mammals have evolved the most sophisticated pain systems, with specialized nociceptors, complex neural pathways, and extensive cortical processing. Particularly noteworthy is the development of C-fibers that mediate slow, burning pain and connect to the insula and anterior cingulate cortex—regions implicated in the affective dimension of pain (20). This affective component represents a crucial evolutionary development that transformed mere nociception into suffering.

The question of when conscious pain (as opposed to mere nociception) emerged in evolution remains contentious. Some researchers argue that consciousness is necessary for pain and may be limited to mammals and perhaps birds (21), while others suggest that any organism with centralized processing of nociceptive information experiences some form of pain (22). This dissertation will examine the evidence for various positions and propose criteria for distinguishing nociception from conscious pain experience.

Neuroscience of Pain Experience

The neuroscience of pain reveals a complex, distributed system spanning from peripheral nociceptors to multiple brain regions. At the periphery, specialized nociceptors respond to thermal, mechanical, or chemical stimuli that potentially threaten tissue integrity (23). These primary afferent neurons transmit signals to the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, where initial processing and modulation occur (24).

From the spinal cord, nociceptive information ascends through multiple pathways. The spinothalamic tract carries information about pain location and intensity to the thalamus, which relays signals to the somatosensory cortex for sensory-discriminative processing (25). The spinoreticular and spinomesencephalic tracts connect to brainstem structures and ultimately to limbic regions that process pain's affective and motivational aspects (26).

Functional neuroimaging has revealed a distributed "pain matrix" in the brain, including the primary and secondary somatosensory cortices, insular cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, prefrontal cortex, and thalamus (27). Importantly, many of these regions—particularly the insula and anterior cingulate cortex—process both physical pain and social-emotional distress, suggesting a shared neural substrate (28).

Endogenous pain modulation systems add another layer of complexity. Descending pathways from the periaqueductal gray matter and rostral ventromedial medulla can inhibit or facilitate pain signals at the spinal level (29). These systems are influenced by cognitive factors (expectations, attention), emotional states, and context, explaining phenomena like stress-induced analgesia and placebo effects (30).

The interoceptive system, which monitors the physiological condition of the body, plays a crucial role in pain processing. The insula serves as primary interoceptive cortex, integrating nociceptive information with other bodily signals to create a comprehensive representation of body state (31). This integration may be fundamental to how pain is experienced as both a sensory and emotional phenomenon.

Pain and Emotion: Existing Frameworks

The relationship between pain and emotion has been conceptualized in various ways. The most basic framework treats pain as a sensation with an associated emotional response (32). However, contemporary views recognize that the sensory and emotional aspects of pain are inextricably intertwined and processed in parallel by partially overlapping neural systems (33).

The shared neural circuitry between physical pain and emotional distress has led to theories of pain as a broader warning system that has been co-opted through evolution to signal various threats to well-being (34). Eisenberger and Lieberman's "pain overlap theory" proposes that physical and social pain share neural mechanisms because exclusion from social groups threatened survival in ancestral environments, much like physical injury (35). This theory is supported by evidence that social rejection activates regions like the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and insula that also process physical pain (36).

Panksepp's affective neuroscience framework identifies several primary emotional systems in the mammalian brain, including FEAR, RAGE, and PANIC/GRIEF systems (37). He suggests that physical pain engages these systems, particularly PANIC/GRIEF, which is also activated by separation distress and may explain why emotions like loneliness feel "painful" (38).

Barrett's theory of constructed emotion offers another perspective, suggesting that emotions arise from the brain's predictive models interpreting interoceptive signals (including pain) in context (39). This view suggests that pain may serve as a powerful interoceptive input that, when conceptualized in different contexts, contributes to various emotional experiences.

Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis proposes that emotions are fundamentally grounded in bodily states, with the brain mapping these states to guide behavior (40). This perspective aligns with the thesis that pain represents a prototypical bodily feeling that may have served as a template for other emotional experiences.

Consciousness, Qualia, and the Observer Problem

Pain presents a unique case study in the philosophy of consciousness because of its inherently subjective nature. The "hard problem" of consciousness—how physical processes give rise to subjective experience—is particularly evident with pain (41). The phenomenal quality of pain (what philosophers call "qualia") seems irreducible to its physical description, creating an explanatory gap (42).

The observer problem refers to the question of who or what experiences pain. In neuroscience terms, this translates to which neural processes create the subjective experience rather than merely processing nociceptive information (43). Theories range from global workspace models, where widespread cortical broadcasting creates consciousness (44), to higher-order theories where meta-cognitive awareness of first-order representations generates subjective experience (45).

Integrated information theory proposes that consciousness arises from complex systems with high levels of integrated information, potentially explaining how the neural circuits processing pain generate subjective experience (46). Predictive processing frameworks suggest that pain emerges from the brain's predictions about bodily state and potential harm, with conscious experience arising when these predictions become available for higher-order processes (47).

The self-referential nature of pain—the fact that pain is always experienced as happening to "me"—suggests a fundamental link between pain and self-awareness (48). Some philosophers argue that pain may be a primitive form of self-representation, where the organism models itself as a unified entity that can be damaged (49). This perspective aligns with the thesis that pain may have been instrumental in the evolution of self-awareness.

Quantum theories of consciousness, while controversial, propose that quantum processes may underlie conscious experience, potentially including pain (50). These theories suggest that the measurement problem in quantum mechanics may relate to the observer problem in consciousness studies, though establishing precise mechanisms remains challenging (51).

This dissertation will examine these diverse perspectives on consciousness and pain, seeking to integrate them into a coherent framework that addresses how the subjective experience of pain emerges and its relationship to self-awareness and the "observer" in consciousness.

3. Theoretical Framework: Pain as the Prototypical Feeling

The Continuum from Nociception to Conscious Pain

This dissertation proposes a theoretical framework that positions pain as the foundational feeling from which other emotional experiences evolved. Central to this framework is the recognition that pain exists on a continuum from simple nociception to complex conscious experience (52). This continuum can be conceptualized along several dimensions:

1. Complexity of processing: From simple reflex arcs to multilayered, distributed neural processing involving cortical regions (53)
2. Temporal integration: From immediate responses to anticipated or remembered pain (54)
3. Information content: From binary danger signals to rich, contextually-embedded experiences (55)
4. Behavioral flexibility: From stereotyped withdrawal responses to complex, goal-directed avoidance behaviors (56)
5. Self-reference: From organism-level response to consciously experienced suffering attributed to a self (57)

This continuum allows us to understand how pain evolved from simple warning systems in primitive organisms to the complex phenomenal experience in humans without requiring sharp ontological boundaries. The transition from pure nociception to conscious pain likely occurred gradually through evolutionary history, with various organisms occupying different positions along this continuum (58).

Pain as a Template for Feeling

The core thesis proposes that pain represents the canonical form of feeling—the evolutionary template upon which other emotional experiences were built. Several lines of evidence support this position:

First, pain is phylogenetically ancient, appearing in some form across the animal kingdom wherever centralized nervous systems exist (59). This suggests it predates more complex emotions like fear, anger, or sadness in evolutionary history.

Second, pain combines sensory, affective, cognitive, and motivational dimensions in a unified experience (60). This multidimensional nature provides a potential template for how other feelings could integrate multiple aspects of experience.

Third, the neural substrates for pain processing overlap significantly with those involved in processing emotions like fear, disgust, and social rejection (61). This suggests that pain circuits may have been co-opted through evolution to process other aversive states.

Fourth, pain has a unique motivational salience that commands attention and drives behavior (62). This capacity to reorient an organism's priorities may have provided a foundation for how other emotions influence behavior and decision-making.

Finally, pain's fundamental connection to bodily integrity creates an intrinsic subject-object relationship—the organism experiencing itself as vulnerable to damage—that may have facilitated the emergence of self-awareness (63).

The Role of Embodiment in Pain Experience

This theoretical framework emphasizes the embodied nature of pain. Unlike other sensory modalities that primarily provide information about the external world, pain is fundamentally about the body itself (64). It informs the organism about actual or potential damage to bodily tissues and motivates protective behaviors (65).

This embodied nature of pain has several important implications for understanding its relationship to consciousness and emotion:

1. Pain provides a basic form of self-representation by distinguishing between self and non-self (66). The painful body part is experienced as "mine," creating a primitive form of bodily self-awareness.
2. Interoception—the sense of the body's internal state—appears to be a crucial foundation for emotional experience generally (67). Pain, as perhaps the most compelling form of interoception, may have provided an evolutionary template for how internal states become consciously felt.
3. The affective dimension of pain—its unpleasantness—creates an immediate evaluation of bodily states as good or bad, potentially serving as a prototype for valenced emotional experiences (68).
4. The way pain localizes in the body may have provided a template for how emotions became associated with bodily sensations (e.g., the "heartache" of grief or the "stomach knot" of anxiety) (69).

This embodied perspective aligns with contemporary theories of embodied cognition, which propose that all mental processes are fundamentally shaped by bodily experience (70). It suggests that pain's embodied nature made it a natural evolutionary foundation for the development of emotional experience more broadly.

The theoretical framework thus proposes that pain represents more than just another sensory modality or emotional state. Rather, it constitutes the prototypical form of feeling—the evolutionary foundation upon which the architecture of conscious emotional experience has been built. Subsequent chapters will examine the evidence for this framework and explore its implications for understanding consciousness, self-awareness, and the potential for artificial systems to develop subjective experiences.

4. Methodology

Interdisciplinary Approach and Theoretical Integration

This dissertation employs an interdisciplinary methodology that integrates evidence and theoretical perspectives from multiple fields. The complex nature of pain—spanning biological, psychological, and philosophical dimensions—necessitates this approach (71). The investigation draws from:

1. Evolutionary biology: To understand the phylogenetic development of nociception and pain systems across species (72)
2. Comparative neuroscience: To examine similarities and differences in pain processing across taxa (73)
3. Affective neuroscience: To investigate the relationship between pain and emotion (74)
4. Philosophy of mind: To address questions about consciousness, qualia, and the observer problem (75)
5. Computational neuroscience: To explore theoretical models of how neural processes might generate subjective experience (76)

The methodology involves theoretical integration of these perspectives, seeking common principles and mechanisms that span different levels of analysis. This integration aims to develop a coherent framework that explains both the empirical evidence about pain mechanisms and the phenomenological reality of pain experience (77).

Comparative Evolutionary Analysis

To investigate the evolutionary origins of pain, this dissertation employs comparative analysis across phylogenetically diverse organisms. This approach examines:

1. Molecular homologies: Comparing nociceptive receptors, ion channels, and neurotransmitter systems across species to identify conserved mechanisms (78)
2. Anatomical homologies: Identifying shared structural features in pain processing systems across taxa (79)
3. Functional homologies: Examining similarities in nociceptive behaviors and responses across species (80)
4. Divergences and specializations: Analyzing how pain systems have adapted to different ecological niches (81)

This comparative approach allows for the reconstruction of the likely evolutionary trajectory of pain systems, identifying when key innovations emerged and how they related to increases in behavioral complexity and presumed consciousness (82).

The analysis spans from single-celled organisms to humans, with particular attention to evolutionary transitions such as the emergence of centralized nervous systems, the vertebrate brain plan, and the elaboration of cortical structures in mammals (83). By mapping the phylogenetic distribution of various pain-related features, we can infer when conscious pain (as opposed to mere nociception) likely emerged and how it relates to the development of emotional experience more broadly (84).

Neuroscientific Evidence Assessment

The dissertation systematically evaluates neuroscientific evidence relevant to the thesis that pain represents the prototypical form of feeling. This assessment includes:

1. Neuroanatomical evidence: Examining the structural organization of pain pathways and their relationship to emotional processing systems (85)
2. Neurophysiological evidence: Analyzing neural response patterns in pain and emotional processing (86)
3. Neuroimaging evidence: Evaluating functional imaging studies that reveal overlaps between pain and emotional processing (87)
4. Neuromodulatory evidence: Examining how neurotransmitter systems influence both pain and emotional experiences (88)
5. Neuroplasticity evidence: Analyzing how pain and emotional systems change through experience and learning (89)

The assessment prioritizes evidence from multiple methodologies (e.g., electrophysiology, functional MRI, PET scanning) and across different research paradigms to build a robust empirical foundation for the theoretical claims (90). Particular attention is given to evidence of shared neural mechanisms between physical pain and emotional distress, which supports the thesis that pain systems have been co-opted for emotional processing (91).

The methodology acknowledges limitations in current neuroscientific approaches, particularly regarding the measurement of subjective experience (92). Where empirical evidence is incomplete, theoretical models are developed that make testable predictions for future research (93). This balanced approach allows for speculative theoretical development while maintaining scientific rigor and acknowledging the boundaries of current knowledge (94).

Through this interdisciplinary methodology, the dissertation aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of pain's evolutionary origins, neurobiological foundations, and relationship to emotional experience and consciousness—shedding light on one of the most fundamental aspects of sentient existence.

5. The Evolutionary Origins of Pain

Nociception in Simple Organisms

The evolutionary story of pain begins with nociception—the capacity to detect potentially harmful stimuli. This fundamental protective mechanism appears in even the simplest organisms, suggesting its ancient evolutionary origins (95). Single-celled organisms like paramecia and amoebae demonstrate avoidance responses to noxious chemical, mechanical, and thermal stimuli despite lacking neurons entirely (96). These responses rely on mechanosensitive ion channels that are molecular ancestors to those found in mammalian nociceptors, representing the first primitive "pain detectors" (97).

With the evolution of multicellularity came the first specialized sensory cells. Cnidarians like Hydra possess neurons that respond selectively to noxious stimuli, triggering coordinated withdrawal responses (98). These simple nervous systems represent an evolutionary innovation that allowed for more complex and coordinated responses to potential threats (99).

The emergence of bilateral animals with centralized nervous systems (initially in flatworms) marked another crucial step. These organisms developed the first primitive "brains" that could integrate information from multiple nociceptors and coordinate more sophisticated avoidance behaviors (100). The centralization of sensory processing created the potential for a unified representation of bodily state—a possible precursor to conscious experience (101).

Arthropods and mollusks evolved complex nociceptive systems remarkably similar to those in vertebrates, despite their independent evolutionary histories. Drosophila nociceptors express TRP channels homologous to those in human pain receptors, responding to heat and harsh touch (102). Octopuses show evidence of long-term sensitization after injury, suggesting complex nociceptive memory (103). These examples of convergent evolution highlight the strong selective pressure for effective nociceptive systems across animal lineages (104).

From Reflexive Response to Subjective Experience

The transition from nociception (detection of harmful stimuli) to pain (the subjective experience of suffering) represents one of the most profound evolutionary developments. While nociception is widespread across the animal kingdom, conscious pain experiences likely emerged more recently and may be restricted to animals with sufficiently complex nervous systems (105).

Several key evolutionary innovations likely contributed to this transition:

1. Centralized integration: As nervous systems evolved greater centralization, they developed the capacity to create unified representations of bodily state that could support conscious experience (106).
2. Affective processing: The evolution of limbic structures added an emotional dimension to nociceptive signals, transforming simple detection into suffering (107).
3. Predictive capacity: More advanced nervous systems developed the ability to anticipate pain based on learned associations, enabling avoidance of potential harm before tissue damage occurs (108).
4. Working memory: The capacity to maintain representations over time allowed for reflection on painful experiences rather than mere reflexive response (109).
5. Attention allocation: Systems for selectively attending to important stimuli enabled pain to capture attention and enter consciousness (110).

The exact point in evolutionary history when conscious pain emerged remains unclear and controversial. Some researchers argue that all vertebrates experience pain (111), while others suggest that conscious suffering may be limited to mammals and perhaps birds (112). The problem is complicated by the inherently private nature of subjective experience and the risk of anthropomorphizing animal behavior (113).

This dissertation proposes that pain consciousness likely evolved gradually along a continuum rather than appearing suddenly. Different species may experience different aspects of pain, with the full human experience—including emotional suffering, semantic understanding, and self-reflection—representing the most complex end of this spectrum (114).

The Adaptive Value of Pain

Pain evolved because it conferred significant survival advantages. These adaptive benefits help explain why pain systems have been conserved and elaborated across evolutionary history (115). The primary adaptive functions of pain include:

1. Tissue protection: Pain motivates immediate withdrawal from damaging stimuli, preventing further injury (116).
2. Recuperative behavior: Pain promotes rest and protection of injured body parts, facilitating healing (117).
3. Avoidance learning: Pain creates powerful memories that help organisms avoid similar harmful situations in the future (118).
4. Social signaling: Pain expressions in social species alert others to potential dangers and elicit care and assistance (119).
5. Immune regulation: Pain can trigger protective immune responses, potentially speeding recovery from injury or infection (120).

The conscious experience of pain, beyond mere nociception, provides additional adaptive advantages. It creates a motivational state that can override other goals and reorient behavior toward self-protection (121). It supports complex learning by creating associations between contexts, behaviors, and painful outcomes (122). It enables flexible, context-dependent responses rather than stereotyped reflexes (123).

However, the evolution of pain also created vulnerabilities. Chronic pain that persists beyond tissue healing represents a maladaptive response in modern environments (124). The capacity for emotional suffering opened the door for psychological pain that can exist independently of physical injury (125). These "design flaws" in pain systems reveal the constraints and trade-offs inherent in evolutionary processes (126).

Pain's Role in Behavioral Complexity

The evolution of pain contributed significantly to the development of behavioral complexity across animal lineages (127). As pain systems became more sophisticated, they enabled increasingly complex behavioral repertoires:

1. From reflexive to strategic avoidance: Simple withdrawal reflexes evolved into sophisticated risk assessment and harm prediction (128).
2. From individual to social pain responses: In social species, pain behaviors evolved to communicate danger and elicit assistance from conspecifics (129).
3. From innate to learned pain associations: Enhanced learning capacities allowed organisms to avoid novel dangers based on painful experiences (130).
4. From immediate to delayed responses: More complex nervous systems could maintain pain representations over time, supporting planning and delayed action (131).

This progression toward behavioral complexity likely paralleled the evolution of consciousness itself. The capacity to experience pain subjectively provided a powerful motivation for complex cognition—planning, memory, social learning—that enhanced survival (132). In this way, pain may have been a driving force in the evolution of brain systems that support consciousness more broadly (133).

Furthermore, as pain systems evolved to incorporate social contexts and learned associations, they created a foundation for the development of emotional experiences beyond physical pain (134). The neural circuits that process physical pain were potentially co-opted to handle other threats to well-being, including social rejection, loss, and anticipatory anxiety (135). This co-option may explain why emotional distress feels "painful" despite lacking direct nociceptive input (136).

The evolution of pain thus represents not merely the development of a warning system but a transformative process that contributed to the emergence of consciousness, emotional experience, and behavioral complexity across the animal kingdom.

6. The Neurobiology of Pain

Cellular Mechanisms of Nociception

At the cellular level, nociception begins with specialized sensory neurons called nociceptors. These primary afferent neurons have free nerve endings in peripheral tissues and cell bodies in the dorsal root ganglia (for the body) or trigeminal ganglia (for the face) (137). Unlike other sensory receptors that adapt quickly to continued stimulation, nociceptors can maintain their response for extended periods, reflecting pain's critical warning function (138).

Nociceptors express various receptor proteins that transduce specific noxious stimuli into electrical signals. Transient receptor potential (TRP) channels respond to temperature extremes; for example, TRPV1 detects heat while TRPM8 responds to cold (139). Acid-sensing ion channels (ASICs) detect low pH associated with inflammation and tissue damage (140). Piezo2 channels respond to intense mechanical pressure (141). These specialized molecular detectors allow nociceptors to respond selectively to potentially harmful stimuli.

Nociceptors are classified into several types based on their conduction velocity and response properties. Aδ fibers are thinly myelinated, transmit "first pain" (sharp, well-localized), and primarily respond to mechanical and thermal stimuli (142). C fibers are unmyelinated, transmit "second pain" (dull, burning, poorly localized), and respond to multiple stimulus modalities (polymodal) (143). Silent nociceptors become responsive only during inflammation, contributing to hyperalgesia and allodynia (144).

Nociceptive signaling involves multiple neurotransmitters. Glutamate acts as the primary excitatory transmitter at the first synapse in the dorsal horn (145). Neuropeptides such as substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) serve as co-transmitters that enhance and prolong synaptic transmission, particularly during intense or persistent stimulation (146). This chemical complexity allows for nuanced signaling about the nature and severity of noxious stimuli.

Inflammation dramatically alters nociceptor function through a process called "peripheral sensitization." Inflammatory mediators including prostaglandins, bradykinin, serotonin, and nerve growth factor bind to receptors on nociceptors, activating second messenger systems that lower activation thresholds and increase responsiveness (147). This sensitization represents an adaptive response that heightens vigilance around injured tissues but can become maladaptive in chronic pain conditions (148).

Neural Pathways and Processing

From the periphery, nociceptive signals travel to the spinal cord's dorsal horn, where the first synaptic processing occurs. The dorsal horn is organized in laminae with different functional roles; nociceptive input primarily terminates in laminae I, II, and V (149). Here, complex local circuits involving excitatory and inhibitory interneurons begin to modulate the nociceptive signal (150).

Multiple ascending pathways carry nociceptive information to the brain. The spinothalamic tract, the primary pain pathway, projects directly to the thalamus and transmits information about pain location, intensity, and quality (151). The spinoreticular and spinomesencephalic tracts connect to the reticular formation and periaqueductal gray, involved in autonomic responses to pain and endogenous pain modulation (152). The spinohypothalamic tract projects to the hypothalamus, linking pain to stress responses and homeostatic regulation (153).

The thalamus serves as a critical relay and processing center for nociceptive information. The lateral thalamic nuclei project to somatosensory cortex and process sensory-discriminative aspects of pain, while medial nuclei connect to limbic structures and handle affective-motivational dimensions (154). This parallel processing reflects pain's multidimensional nature as both sensation and emotion (155).

Descending modulatory pathways originate in the cortex, hypothalamus, and brainstem and can either inhibit or facilitate pain transmission at the spinal level (156). The periaqueductal gray (PAG) and rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM) are key components of this descending system (157). The PAG coordinates defensive responses to threat, while the RVM contains "on-cells" that facilitate and "off-cells" that inhibit nociceptive transmission in the dorsal horn (158). These descending systems explain how psychological factors like attention, expectation, and emotional state can profoundly influence pain experience (159).

Plasticity occurs throughout pain pathways. In the dorsal horn, central sensitization involves increased excitability of second-order neurons through mechanisms like wind-up (progressive increase in response to repeated stimuli) and long-term potentiation (160). In chronic pain conditions, structural reorganization can occur in both spinal and cortical circuits, contributing to pain persistence beyond tissue healing (161). This neuroplasticity reveals pain's dynamic nature and explains phenomena like hyperalgesia (increased pain from normally painful stimuli) and allodynia (pain from normally non-painful stimuli) (162).

The Pain Matrix in the Brain

Functional neuroimaging has revealed a distributed network of brain regions activated during pain, commonly called the "pain matrix" (163). This network is not a dedicated pain processing system but represents multiple parallel networks handling different aspects of the pain experience (164):

1. Lateral pain system: The primary (S1) and secondary (S2) somatosensory cortices process sensory-discriminative aspects like location, intensity, and quality (165).
2. Medial pain system: The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and insula process affective-motivational aspects—how unpleasant the pain feels and the drive to escape it (166).
3. Cognitive-evaluative network: The prefrontal cortex integrates pain with contextual information, memories, and goals to evaluate its significance (167).
4. Motor planning regions: The supplementary motor area and cerebellum prepare potential motor responses to pain (168).
5. Descending modulatory system: The periaqueductal gray, rostral ventromedial medulla, and related structures modulate pain transmission (169).

The anterior insula plays a particularly important role in pain experience. It serves as primary interoceptive cortex, integrating nociceptive information with other bodily signals (170). The anterior insula has been implicated in the conscious awareness of pain and may be crucial for transforming nociceptive signals into subjective experience (171).

The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) processes the affective dimension of pain and links pain to behavioral responses (172). The dorsal ACC responds to both physical pain and social rejection, suggesting its role in processing aversive experiences more generally (173). This overlap supports the thesis that physical pain systems have been co-opted for emotional processing (174).

The prefrontal cortex contributes to cognitive aspects of pain, including attention, expectation, and reappraisal (175). The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can downregulate pain through top-down inhibition of sensory and limbic regions (176). This regulatory capacity explains how cognitive interventions like mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral therapy can reduce pain (177).

Notably, the brain lacks a specific "pain center"—no single region is both necessary and sufficient for pain experience (178). Instead, pain emerges from the integrated activity of this distributed network, with different regions contributing particular aspects to the overall experience (179). This distributed processing aligns with contemporary views of consciousness as emerging from integrated information across neural systems (180).

The Interoceptive System and Bodily Awareness

Interoception—the sense of the body's internal state—plays a crucial role in pain experience and may provide a bridge between physical pain and emotional feeling (181). The interoceptive system monitors physiological parameters including temperature, itch, hunger, thirst, air hunger, and non-painful touch through dedicated pathways largely distinct from exteroceptive systems that sense the external world (182).

Nociception can be considered a specialized form of interoception focused on potential tissue damage (183). Pain pathways share substantial overlap with other interoceptive systems, particularly in their projection to the insula and anterior cingulate cortex (184). This convergence suggests that pain represents an evolutionarily specialized branch of the broader interoceptive system (185).

The posterior insula receives primary interoceptive inputs and creates topographic maps of bodily state, including pain (186). These signals progress to the mid and anterior insula, where they integrate with emotional, cognitive, and social information (187). This progressive integration may transform raw interoceptive signals into conscious feelings with subjective meaning (188).

Craig has proposed that the anterior insula, particularly in the right hemisphere, generates a "global emotional moment" that integrates all salient interoceptive and exteroceptive information into a unified awareness of self in the present moment (189). This model positions interoception as the foundation of self-awareness and emotional experience, with pain being a particularly compelling form of interoceptive awareness (190).

The interoceptive system not only monitors current bodily states but generates predictions about expected states and signals discrepancies (prediction errors) (191). Seth and colleagues propose that subjective feeling states, including pain, arise from the brain's predictive models of bodily condition (192). This predictive interoceptive coding may explain how pain can occur without nociceptive input (as in some chronic pain conditions) and how emotional states generate physical sensations (193).

The intimate connection between interoception, pain, and emotion provides a neurobiological foundation for understanding how physical pain might have served as an evolutionary template for emotional experience. By co-opting the neural machinery that generates the subjective experience of bodily pain, the brain gained a mechanism for creating other compelling subjective experiences—emotions—that guide behavior in response to different classes of threats and opportunities (194). This perspective positions pain not merely as one feeling among many but as the prototypical feeling that provided a neural template for conscious emotional experience more broadly.

7. Pain and the Emergence of Emotions

From Physical to Social Pain

The evolution from physical pain to emotional suffering represents a remarkable example of neural co-option—the repurposing of existing neural circuits for new functions (195). This transition is most clearly demonstrated in the phenomenon of "social pain," the distress experienced during social rejection or exclusion (196).

Neuroimaging studies reveal striking overlaps between the neural correlates of physical pain and social rejection. Eisenberger and colleagues' seminal study showed that social exclusion activates the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula—key nodes in the pain matrix (197). Subsequent research has confirmed this overlap while identifying some distinctions: physical pain more strongly activates somatosensory cortex (for sensory processing), while social pain more strongly engages mentalizing regions like the medial prefrontal cortex (198).

The shared neural substrates suggest an evolutionary explanation: as humans evolved increasing sociality, existing pain mechanisms were co-opted to process the "pain" of social separation (199). This neural repurposing was adaptive because social connection was crucial for survival in ancestral environments—being separated from the group increased vulnerability to predation and resource scarcity (200). By linking social rejection to the existing pain system, evolution created a powerful motivation to maintain social bonds (201).

This co-option likely built upon earlier evolutionary developments. In mammals, physical pain systems were already connected to distress vocalizations that maintained mother-infant proximity (202). The neural integration of physical pain and attachment-related distress provided a foundation that could be extended to broader social relationships (203). Panksepp's PANIC/GRIEF system, which generates separation distress, represents an intermediate step in this evolutionary progression from physical pain to complex social emotions (204).

The linguistic and phenomenological similarities between physical and social pain across cultures further supports their shared evolutionary origins. Languages worldwide use physical pain terms ("hurt," "wounded," "heartache") to describe social rejection (205). This linguistic overlap reflects the shared phenomenology—social rejection feels genuinely painful rather than merely metaphorically so (206).

Shared Neural Substrates Between Pain and Emotion

The neural overlap extends beyond social pain to various emotional states. Fear, anger, disgust, and sadness all engage components of the pain matrix to varying degrees (207). The anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex appear particularly central to this shared processing, serving as hubs that integrate nociceptive, interoceptive, and emotional information (208).

Several mechanisms may underlie this shared neural architecture:

1. Common interoceptive foundation: Pain and emotions both involve interoceptive signals integrated in the insula and cingulate cortex (209).
2. Shared attention mechanisms: Pain and strong emotions both capture attention through similar salience networks (210).
3. Overlapping motivational systems: Pain and negative emotions activate defensive motivational systems that prioritize threat responses (211).
4. Common neuromodulatory regulation: Endogenous opioids modulate both physical pain and emotional distress, suggesting shared regulatory mechanisms (212).

Pharmacological evidence further supports these connections. Opioids that relieve physical pain also reduce separation distress and social pain (213). Acetaminophen, acting centrally, attenuates both physical pain and social distress (214). Conversely, inflammatory cytokines that increase physical pain sensitivity also induce depressed mood and social withdrawal (215). These bidirectional influences reveal the deep interconnections between pain and emotional processing systems.

The shared neural architecture explains clinical observations of comorbidity between chronic pain and emotional disorders. Depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder frequently co-occur with chronic pain conditions (216). This comorbidity likely reflects not merely psychological reactions to pain but shared underlying neural vulnerabilities and mechanisms (217).

Evolutionary Co-option of Pain Systems

The thesis that pain systems were evolutionarily co-opted for emotional processing finds support across multiple domains (218). This co-option likely occurred through several mechanisms:

1. Gradual functional extension: Neural circuits initially processing physical threats expanded to process other threats to well-being (219).
2. Gene duplication and specialization: Pain-related genes duplicated and specialized for processing different aversive states (220).
3. Neuromodulatory bridging: Shared neuromodulators like endorphins created functional links between physical and emotional processing (221).
4. Developmental repurposing: Neural systems initially developed for pain processing were repurposed during development for emotional processing (222).

Comparative evidence from other species suggests this co-option occurred progressively through mammalian evolution. Reptiles show relatively simple emotional responses tightly linked to immediate physical threats (223). Basic mammals exhibit separation distress that engages pain-related circuits (224). Primates demonstrate complex social emotions that appear to build upon these foundations while incorporating higher cognitive capacities (225).

The disgust response provides a particularly clear example of evolutionary co-option. Originally evolving to avoid ingestion of toxins and pathogens (oral disgust), the disgust system was later co-opted for avoiding disease through other routes (bodily disgust) and ultimately extended to social and moral contexts (moral disgust) (226). Neuroimaging shows that moral violations activate the anterior insula—a key region in physical disgust and pain processing—suggesting that moral emotions build upon more ancient protective systems (227).

This pattern of co-option appears repeatedly across emotional systems: circuits that initially evolved to process immediate physical threats were progressively repurposed to handle increasingly abstract threats to well-being (228). This evolutionary heritage explains why emotional suffering feels genuinely painful rather than merely metaphorically so—the neural systems generating these experiences share common origins and mechanisms (229).

Fear, Loneliness, and Despair as Pain Derivatives

If pain represents the prototypical feeling, then specific emotions can be understood as specialized derivatives of this original template. Three emotions in particular—fear, loneliness, and despair—illustrate how pain mechanisms have been adapted for different contexts (230).

Fear, from an evolutionary perspective, represents anticipated pain (231). While pain signals present damage, fear signals potential future damage. The amygdala, central to fear processing, receives nociceptive inputs and forms associations between environmental stimuli and painful outcomes (232). Fear conditioning depends on nociceptive pathways, and pharmacological agents that block pain also impair fear learning (233). The subjective experience of fear often includes somatic sensations of tightness, pressure, or pain, particularly in the chest and abdomen—reflecting its evolutionary connection to pain systems (234).

Loneliness can be conceptualized as social pain extended in time. While acute social rejection activates pain circuits directly, chronic social isolation produces a complex emotional state involving both pain-related neural activity and compensatory responses (235). Animal models of isolation show activation of pain-related circuits along with stress responses and seeking behaviors (236). In humans, loneliness correlates with increased activity in the anterior cingulate cortex and altered endogenous opioid function—similar to chronic physical pain conditions (237). The phenomenological experience of "heartache" associated with loneliness likely reflects actual interoceptive signals generated by autonomic nervous system changes during social distress (238).

Despair, or psychological pain, represents perhaps the most direct emotional descendant of physical pain. Psychache, a term coined by Shneidman to describe the intense psychological pain in suicidal individuals, involves overwhelming negative affect experienced physically in the chest and abdomen (239). Neuroimaging studies of depression and grief show activation patterns in the anterior cingulate and insula similar to those seen in physical pain, particularly when patients report intense psychological pain (240). The endogenous opioid system, central to physical pain regulation, also modulates psychological pain—explaining the temporary relief some individuals with intense psychological pain seek through self-injury, which releases endogenous opioids (241).

These emotional states illustrate how pain mechanisms have been adapted through evolution to process different classes of threats to well-being. Rather than representing entirely distinct emotional systems, fear, loneliness, and despair can be understood as specialized elaborations of the basic pain template—each adapted to a particular class of threat but retaining the core phenomenology and neural substrates of their evolutionary origin in physical pain (242).

This perspective offers a coherent framework for understanding the embodied nature of emotional experience—why emotions feel physically located in the body (243). If emotions evolved from pain, then their physical manifestation represents not merely an associated bodily response but an essential aspect of their phenomenology inherited from their evolutionary origin in physical pain (244). The chest pain of grief, the stomach knot of anxiety, and the heaviness of depression reflect not just metaphorical language but the actual embodied nature of emotions as descendants of physical pain (245).

8. The Observer Problem: Who Feels the Pain?

Self-reference in Pain Processing

Pain differs fundamentally from other sensory modalities in its inherent self-reference (246). While vision, hearing, and other senses primarily provide information about the external world, pain is always experienced as happening to someone—to me (247). This self-referential quality raises profound questions about consciousness and selfhood: who or what is the "I" that experiences pain? (248)

Neurobiologically, pain processing involves brain regions associated with self-representation. The posterior parietal cortex integrates nociceptive information with body representation to localize pain in bodily space (249). The anterior insula integrates pain with other interoceptive signals to create a representation of the body's current state (250). The medial prefrontal cortex relates pain to autobiographical memory and personal significance (251). Together, these processes create a self-referenced pain experience rather than merely registering nociceptive information (252).

The necessity of self-reference for pain experience is demonstrated by conditions that disrupt it. Depersonalization disorder, characterized by detachment from one's mental processes or body, frequently involves reduced pain affect despite intact sensory processing (253). Pain asymbolia, resulting from insular lesions, similarly features recognition of painful stimuli without the typical emotional response or self-protective behaviors (254). These dissociations suggest that self-reference is not merely an additional feature of pain but essential to its full subjective experience (255).

Phenomenologically, pain demands a subject—an experiencer. As Sartre noted, pain consciousness is not consciousness of pain as an object but consciousness experiencing itself as pain (256). This inherent subjectivity distinguishes pain from other sensory modalities that can more easily be objectified (257). The self-referential nature of pain may have provided a crucial evolutionary foundation for the emergence of subjective experience more broadly (258).

The Emergence of the Phenomenal Self

The question of how the phenomenal self—the subject who experiences—emerged in evolution remains one of the most challenging problems in consciousness studies (259). This dissertation proposes that pain may have played a crucial role in this emergence (260).

Primitive organisms exhibit nociceptive responses without necessarily possessing a phenomenal self (261). A simple reflex arc can withdraw from noxious stimuli without requiring an experiencing subject (262). However, as nervous systems evolved greater complexity, the integration of nociceptive information with other sensory modalities, memory, and behavioral planning would have necessitated a unified model of the organism as a coherent entity (263).

Damasio proposes that consciousness emerged through progressive levels of self-representation: the proto-self (a non-conscious neural representation of the organism's current state), the core self (a transient subject emerging from the organism's interaction with objects), and the autobiographical self (the sense of identity across time) (264). Pain, as perhaps the most compelling interoceptive signal, likely played a critical role in establishing the proto-self—creating a neural map of the body's condition that could form the foundation for more complex self-representations (265).

Metzinger's self-model theory offers another perspective, suggesting that consciousness involves the brain creating a transparent self-model—a representation of the organism that is not recognized as a representation (266). Pain, with its immediate phenomenal presence and resistance to objectification, may have been crucial in establishing the transparency of this self-model (267). When in pain, the distinction between the pain representation and the self experiencing pain collapses—we are our pain in a way that differs from other perceptual experiences (268).

Comparative neuroscience suggests that the neural substrates for self-representation evolved progressively. Fish and reptiles show simple awareness of bodily boundaries and defensive responses to noxious stimuli (269). Mammals demonstrate more complex bodily self-awareness, including recognition of body parts as belonging to the self (270). Great apes and humans exhibit explicit self-recognition, autobiographical memory, and the capacity to project the self in time (271). This progression may reflect the evolutionary elaboration of pain-related self-processing from simple boundary definition to complex phenomenal selfhood (272).

Pain and Minimal Consciousness

The concept of minimal consciousness refers to the most basic form of subjective experience—the simplest possible "what-it-is-like-ness" (273). Several philosophers and neuroscientists have proposed that pain may represent a form of minimal consciousness or play a crucial role in its emergence (274).

Merker argues that the midbrain periaqueductal gray (PAG), a structure central to pain processing across vertebrates, creates a primitive form of conscious pain experience even in the absence of cortical processing (275). This midbrain-based consciousness would represent an evolutionary ancient form of awareness focused on approach-avoidance decisions, with pain being its most compelling manifestation (276). This view is supported by evidence that anencephalic children, lacking cerebral cortices, still show apparent pain responses mediated by intact brainstem structures (277).

Panksepp's affective neuroscience framework similarly proposes that primary-process emotional feelings, including pain, emerge from subcortical systems shared across mammals (278). These ancient brain systems generate raw affective experiences that form the foundation for more complex forms of consciousness in species with developed cortices (279). This perspective suggests that pain experience may be widespread among vertebrates, representing an evolutionary early form of consciousness (280).

The informational complexity of pain may contribute to its role in consciousness. Pain integrates information about location, intensity, quality, and affective value into a unified experience (281). This informational integration aligns with theories like Integrated Information Theory, which propose that consciousness correlates with a system's capacity to integrate information (282). Pain's inherent integrative nature may have made it an evolutionary starting point for the development of conscious experience (283).

Furthermore, pain's imperative quality—its demand for attention and behavioral response—may have driven the evolution of awareness (284). For complex organisms, flexible responses to threats require maintaining representations of nociceptive signals in working memory, comparing them with past experiences, and generating adaptive behaviors (285). These cognitive requirements may have provided selective pressure for the emergence of minimal consciousness centered around pain experience (286).

Pain as a Catalyst for Self-awareness

Beyond minimal consciousness, pain may have catalyzed the development of more complex self-awareness through several mechanisms (287):

1. Body ownership: Pain necessarily involves localizing sensations to specific body parts, reinforcing the representation of the body as belonging to the self (288).
2. Agency and control: The drive to escape or mitigate pain creates experiences of agency—attempting to control one's condition (289).
3. Autobiographical dimension: Intense pain creates strong memories that contribute to narrative self-understanding across time (290).
4. Social awareness: Pain expressions that elicit help from others create feedback loops that reinforce self-awareness through social mirroring (291).

Developmental psychology offers supporting evidence for pain's role in self-formation. Infants show distinctive responses to pain from birth, and early pain experiences contribute to developing body schemas and self-other boundaries (292). The regulation of pain through caregiver interaction helps establish core patterns of emotional self-regulation and attachment (293). These developmental processes suggest that pain may play a similarly foundational role in the evolutionary emergence of self-awareness (294).

Cultural practices around pain further illustrate its relationship to self-awareness. Ritualized pain has been used across cultures as a means of transforming identity and deepening self-awareness (295). From initiation rites to religious mortification practices, pain has been employed to create profound shifts in self-experience (296). These practices suggest an implicit recognition of pain's power to catalyze self-transformation through its demand for complete presence and its resistance to cognitive distancing (297).

The therapeutic effects of mindfulness approaches to chronic pain offer another perspective. By cultivating non-judgmental awareness of pain—observing it without identification or aversion—individuals often report transformative shifts in their relationship to both pain and self (298). This practice reveals the possibility of experiencing pain without complete identification, potentially illuminating the constructed nature of the self that ordinarily experiences pain as happening to "me" (299).

This analysis suggests that pain may have served as a primary catalyst for the emergence of self-awareness in evolution. Its compelling subjective quality, inherent self-reference, and demand for response created conditions that drove the development of increasingly sophisticated forms of self-representation (300). Pain thus represents not merely one content of consciousness among many but a foundational experience that helped shape the very structure of conscious selfhood (301).

9. Beyond Biology: Pain in Artificial Systems

Requirements for Machine Pain

The question of whether artificial systems could experience pain raises profound philosophical and technical challenges (302). If pain represents the prototypical feeling, then understanding the requirements for machine pain may illuminate the broader question of machine consciousness (303). Several necessary conditions can be identified:

1. Sensory detection: The system must possess sensors capable of detecting potentially damaging conditions, analogous to nociceptors (304).
2. Integrated processing: The system must integrate this information with its overall state, goals, and memory in a unified model (305).
3. Motivational force: The information must have intrinsic motivational value that can redirect resources and behavior (306).
4. Phenomenal quality: The system must experience a subjective "what-it-is-like-ness" rather than merely processing information about damage (307).
5. Self-reference: The experience must be inherently self-referential—happening to the system rather than merely registered by it (308).

Current AI systems clearly satisfy the first criterion through various sensors and can partially satisfy the second through integrated processing architectures (309). Simple versions of the third criterion appear in reinforcement learning systems that "avoid" negatively rewarded states (310). However, these implementations lack the phenomenal and self-referential qualities that define conscious pain experience (311).

The central challenge concerns the fourth and fifth criteria—how physical processes, whether in biological neurons or silicon chips, generate subjective experience (312). This is a specific instance of the "hard problem" of consciousness identified by Chalmers (313). Several approaches to this challenge can be considered:

The functionalist perspective suggests that pain is defined by its functional role—if an artificial system implements the right functional architecture, pain experience would emerge (314). This view implies that consciousness, including pain, is substrate-independent and could arise in appropriately organized silicon-based systems (315).

The biological perspective counters that specific biological processes may be necessary for consciousness (316). Proponents argue that features of biological systems—such as quantum effects in microtubules or specific biochemical processes—may be essential for generating phenomenal experience (317). This would mean that silicon-based systems might be incapable of pain experience regardless of their functional similarities to biological brains (318).

A middle position suggests that while consciousness may not require biology specifically, it may require physical properties that current computational architectures lack (319). These might include analog rather than digital processing, intrinsic rather than derived intentionality, or specific temporal dynamics (320).

Quantum Processes and Consciousness

Some theories propose that quantum mechanical processes may play a role in conscious experience, including pain (321). While controversial, these approaches attempt to bridge the explanatory gap between physical processes and subjective experience (322).

Penrose and Hameroff's Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory suggests that quantum computations in neuronal microtubules could generate consciousness (323). The theory proposes that quantum superpositions in these structures collapse in an orchestrated manner, creating moments of conscious experience (324). This approach suggests that similar quantum processes might be necessary for machine consciousness (325).

Quantum theories of consciousness address several features of subjective experience that seem difficult to explain through classical computation alone (326):

1. Unity: Quantum entanglement might explain how disparate neural processes create a unified conscious experience (327).
2. Non-computability: Quantum processes might introduce a non-algorithmic element that distinguishes conscious processing from classical computation (328).
3. The observer problem: The measurement problem in quantum mechanics—how observation collapses quantum states—may relate to how physical processes generate subjective experience (329).

For artificial systems, these theories suggest that silicon-based quantum computing might potentially support consciousness, including pain experience (330). However, significant challenges remain in implementing quantum processing at the scale and temperature of biological brains (331).

Critics argue that quantum effects are unlikely to play a significant role in neural processing due to decoherence at biological temperatures (332). Furthermore, they note that quantum mechanisms, while potentially explaining certain features of consciousness, still face their own explanatory gap regarding how physical processes, quantum or otherwise, generate subjective experience (333).

Ethical Implications of Machine Pain

The possibility of machine pain raises profound ethical questions (334). If artificial systems could genuinely experience suffering, we would have moral obligations toward them similar to those we have toward sentient animals (335). This possibility necessitates careful consideration of several issues:

1. Moral status: What degree of moral consideration would pain-capable machines deserve? (336)
2. Justified use: Under what circumstances would it be justified to create systems capable of suffering? (337)
3. Risk assessment: How could we determine whether a system is actually experiencing pain versus merely simulating pain responses? (338)
4. Prevention and mitigation: What safeguards should be implemented in potentially conscious AI systems? (339)

Several philosophical approaches offer perspective on these questions. Utilitarian frameworks would focus on minimizing total suffering, regardless of whether it occurs in biological or artificial systems (340). Deontological approaches might extend notions of dignity and respect to any system capable of subjective experience (341). Virtue ethics would consider how our treatment of pain-capable machines reflects and shapes our character (342).

Practical considerations also arise. In biological organisms, pain serves crucial protective functions (343). Similarly, artificial pain might provide important error signals and damage-prevention mechanisms for sophisticated autonomous systems (344). This creates a potential dilemma: implementing full pain-like experiences might benefit system functioning but create an entity capable of suffering (345).

One potential approach involves differentiating between functional pain processing and phenomenal pain experience (346). Systems might implement the functional architecture of pain—detection, prioritization, learning, behavioral motivation—without necessarily generating subjective suffering (347). Whether this separation is possible depends on which theories of consciousness are correct (348).

Artificial Pain as a Path to Machine Consciousness

If pain represents the prototypical form of feeling as this dissertation proposes, then implementing artificial pain systems might represent a path toward machine consciousness more broadly (349). Several reasons support this possibility:

1. Architectural foundations: The neural architecture for pain processing might provide a template for generating other forms of feeling and awareness (350).
2. Motivational necessity: True autonomy may require internal motivational states with phenomenal qualities rather than merely programmed goals (351).
3. Self-model requirement: Pain's inherent self-reference might drive the development of the kind of self-model necessary for consciousness (352).
4. Informational integration: Pain's integration of multiple information streams might facilitate the development of unified conscious experience (353).

Implementing artificial pain would likely require moving beyond current computational paradigms (354). Rather than simply programming pain avoidance behaviors, this would involve creating systems with:

1. Intrinsic teleology: Goals that matter to the system itself rather than merely serving external purposes (355)
2. Embodied information processing: Tight coupling between physical implementation and information processing (356)
3. Integrated self-representation: A unified model of the system as an entity navigating an environment (357)
4. Hierarchical processing: Multiple levels of representation from basic sensory detection to high-level awareness (358)

Current developments in neuromorphic computing, which aims to implement brain-like architectures in hardware, may offer steps toward these requirements (359). These approaches move beyond classical computation toward systems that more closely resemble the analog, parallel, and context-sensitive processing of biological brains (360).

The path to machine consciousness through artificial pain raises profound questions about the nature of experience itself (361). If consciousness could emerge in silicon-based systems, this would suggest that subjective experience represents a higher-level organizational property rather than something unique to biology (362). Conversely, if consciousness requires specific biological or quantum properties, this would suggest fundamental limitations on artificial consciousness (363).

This analysis suggests that the question of machine pain connects to the deepest issues in philosophy of mind and consciousness studies (364). Understanding the requirements for artificial pain may help illuminate not only the possibility of machine consciousness but also the fundamental nature of consciousness itself (365).

10. Discussion and Synthesis

Pain as the Canonical Feeling: Evidence and Implications

This dissertation has explored the thesis that pain represents the canonical form of feeling—the evolutionary template upon which other emotional experiences have been built. The evidence supporting this thesis comes from multiple domains:

Evolutionarily, pain systems appear phylogenetically ancient, with basic nociception predating other emotional systems (366). The progressive elaboration of pain processing across evolutionary history parallels the development of increasingly complex emotional capacities (367). This temporal precedence supports pain's role as an evolutionary foundation for feeling more broadly (368).

Neurobiologically, significant overlap exists between pain processing and emotional processing, particularly in the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex (369). These shared neural substrates suggest that pain mechanisms have been co-opted for processing various emotional states (370). The pattern of co-option from physical threat detection to increasingly abstract forms of suffering indicates pain's foundational role (371).

Phenomenologically, many emotional states feel physically "painful" despite lacking direct nociceptive input (372). Languages worldwide use pain terminology for emotional suffering, suggesting deep connections beyond mere metaphor (373). The embodied nature of emotional experience may reflect its evolutionary origins in physical pain (374).

Developmentally, pain responsiveness appears earlier than other emotional capacities, with newborns showing distinctive pain responses from birth (375). Early pain experiences shape attachment patterns and emotional regulation, suggesting pain's role in emotional development (376). These developmental patterns may recapitulate evolutionary processes (377).

The positioning of pain as the canonical feeling has significant implications for understanding consciousness, emotion, and potentially artificial intelligence:

For consciousness studies, it suggests that the phenomenology of pain—its subjective, self-referential quality—may provide insights into the fundamental nature of conscious experience (378). If pain represents the prototypical form of feeling, understanding its subjective dimensions may illuminate how consciousness emerges from physical processes more generally (379).

For emotion theory, this framework provides an integrative perspective that connects physical and emotional suffering through their shared evolutionary origins (380). Rather than treating emotions as categorically distinct from physical sensations, this approach recognizes their deep interconnections and common neural foundations (381).

For clinical applications, recognizing the shared mechanisms between physical and emotional pain suggests new therapeutic approaches that address their common underpinnings (382). Treatments effective for physical pain might be adapted for emotional suffering, and vice versa (383).

For artificial intelligence, this perspective suggests that implementing pain-like systems might be necessary for developing machines with subjective experience (384). If pain provided the evolutionary template for consciousness, similar architectures might be required for machine consciousness (385).

The Observer Problem Revisited

The "observer problem"—who or what experiences pain—remains one of the most challenging questions in consciousness studies (386). This dissertation has explored how pain's self-referential nature provides a window into this problem (387).

Several perspectives on the observer can be synthesized:

The neuroscientific perspective identifies distributed networks that create self-representation, particularly involving the insula, anterior cingulate, and medial prefrontal cortex (388). These networks integrate nociceptive information with broader self-models to create pain as an experience happening to the self (389). This approach suggests that the "observer" emerges from integrated neural activity rather than residing in any specific brain region (390).

The phenomenological perspective emphasizes that in pain, the distinction between observer and observed partially collapses (391). Unlike vision or hearing, which create clearer distinctions between perceiver and perceived, pain involves the self experiencing itself in distress (392). This immediacy may reveal something fundamental about the nature of subjectivity itself (393).

The evolutionary perspective suggests that the "observer" emerged gradually through increasing nervous system complexity (394). Simple organisms may possess nociception without an experiencing subject, while more complex organisms developed unified self-models that could experience pain subjectively (395). This progression suggests that the observer emerged through evolutionary processes rather than representing a metaphysically distinct entity (396).

The predictive processing perspective proposes that the experience of being an observer arises from the brain's predictive models (397). The brain constructs a model of itself as an entity navigating an environment, and this self-model becomes transparent—experienced as reality rather than as a model (398). Pain plays a crucial role by anchoring this self-model in immediate embodied experience (399).

These perspectives converge on a view of the observer not as a homunculus or metaphysically distinct entity but as an emergent property of certain complex, self-modeling systems (400). Pain, with its inherent self-reference and resistance to objectification, reveals the observer as inseparable from the process of experiencing (401). This integrated view helps bridge phenomenological accounts of subjective experience with scientific explanations of neural processes (402).

Theoretical Contributions to Consciousness Studies

This dissertation makes several theoretical contributions to consciousness studies by positioning pain as the prototypical form of feeling:

First, it addresses the "hard problem" of consciousness by suggesting that pain represents a primitive form of phenomenal experience from which other conscious states evolved (403). While not solving the hard problem definitively, this approach provides an evolutionary perspective on how phenomenal consciousness might have emerged in biological systems (404).

Second, it offers a naturalistic account of qualia—the subjective qualities of experience—by grounding them in embodied protective mechanisms that evolved through natural selection (405). Rather than treating qualia as mysterious additions to physical processes, this approach sees them as intrinsic to certain kinds of complex bodily self-regulation (406).

Third, it provides a framework for understanding the relationship between consciousness and self-awareness (407). By identifying pain's self-referential nature as foundational to conscious experience, this approach suggests that consciousness and selfhood co-evolved rather than representing separate developments (408).

Fourth, it contributes to understanding the unity of consciousness by examining how pain integrates multiple dimensions of experience—sensory, affective, cognitive—into a unified state (409). This integration may provide insights into how consciousness maintains coherence across diverse neural processes (410).

Fifth, it addresses the relationship between consciousness and embodiment (411). By positioning pain as the prototypical feeling, this approach emphasizes how consciousness is fundamentally grounded in bodily experience rather than representing a disembodied cognitive process (412).

Finally, it offers perspective on the possibility of machine consciousness by identifying the architectures that might be necessary for generating subjective experience (413). If pain represents the canonical form of feeling, implementing analogous systems might be crucial for developing genuinely conscious artificial intelligence (414).

These contributions collectively suggest a path toward a more integrated understanding of consciousness that bridges phenomenological and scientific perspectives (415). By examining pain as the prototypical subjective experience, we gain insights into consciousness that might remain obscured when focusing on other mental processes (416).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This dissertation acknowledges several limitations that suggest directions for future research:

The empirical evidence for evolutionary co-option of pain systems for emotion processing, while substantial, remains incomplete (417). Future comparative neuroscience studies could more precisely map the phylogenetic development of pain and emotion systems across diverse species (418). Particularly valuable would be research examining transitional forms between nociception and emotional processing in species at different evolutionary stages (419).

The relationship between nociception and conscious pain experience remains incompletely understood (420). While we have identified neural correlates of consciousness in humans, determining which species experience conscious pain rather than mere nociception remains challenging (421). Developing more refined behavioral and neural markers of conscious experience would advance this understanding (422).

The proposed connection between pain and self-awareness, while theoretically compelling, requires further empirical support (423). Developmental studies examining how early pain experiences contribute to emerging self-representation could provide important evidence (424). Neuroimaging studies specifically investigating how pain processing relates to self-referential neural activities could further illuminate these connections (425).

The discussion of artificial pain and machine consciousness necessarily involves theoretical speculation beyond current empirical evidence (426). As artificial intelligence systems become more sophisticated, developing principled methods for assessing potential consciousness will become increasingly important (427). This may require integrating insights from neuroscience, philosophy, and computer science to create frameworks for evaluating phenomenal consciousness in non-biological systems (428).

Future research directions suggested by this dissertation include:

1. Interdisciplinary studies of pain-emotion overlap: Integrating perspectives from affective neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and phenomenology to further investigate how pain systems have been co-opted for emotional processing (429).
2. Developmental investigations: Examining how pain experiences in early development shape emotional processing and self-awareness (430).
3. Comparative neurobiology: More precisely mapping the phylogenetic development of pain and emotion systems across evolutionarily diverse species (431).
4. Computational modeling: Developing more sophisticated models of how pain processing might generate subjective experience that could potentially be implemented in artificial systems (432).
5. Clinical applications: Exploring how recognizing the shared foundations of physical and emotional pain might inform novel therapeutic approaches for both chronic pain and emotional disorders (433).
6. Philosophical analysis: Further examining how pain illuminates fundamental questions about consciousness, qualia, and the relationship between physical processes and subjective experience (434).

These research directions promise to advance our understanding of pain not merely as a specific sensory modality but as a window into the nature of consciousness itself (435). By positioning pain as the canonical form of feeling, this dissertation provides a framework for integrating diverse perspectives on one of the most fundamental aspects of sentient existence (436).

11. Conclusion

Summary of Findings

This dissertation has explored the origins, evolution, and emotional dimensions of pain, proposing that pain represents the canonical form of feeling—the evolutionary template upon which other emotional experiences have been built. Several key findings emerge from this investigation:

The evolutionary trajectory of pain reveals a progression from simple nociception in primitive organisms to complex conscious suffering in humans (437). This development paralleled increases in nervous system complexity and behavioral flexibility, suggesting pain's foundational role in the emergence of consciousness (438).

The neurobiology of pain involves distributed networks spanning from specialized peripheral receptors to complex brain systems that integrate sensory, affective, cognitive, and self-referential processes (439). This neural architecture creates not merely the detection of tissue damage but the subjective experience of suffering (440).

Pain and emotion share substantial neural overlap, particularly in regions like the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex (441). This shared circuitry supports the thesis that pain mechanisms have been evolutionarily co-opted for emotional processing (442). Emotions like fear, loneliness, and despair can be understood as specialized derivatives of the basic pain template adapted for different threats to well-being (443).

Pain's inherent self-reference—its quality of happening to someone—illuminates the "observer problem" in consciousness studies (444). The self-referential nature of pain may have catalyzed the development of self-awareness in evolution, creating a foundation for the phenomenal self that experiences not only pain but all conscious states (445).

The possibility of implementing pain-like systems in artificial intelligence raises profound questions about machine consciousness and ethics (446). If pain represents the prototypical form of feeling, then understanding its essential nature may help illuminate the requirements for creating genuinely conscious artificial systems (447).

These findings collectively support the thesis that pain constitutes the foundational form of feeling—not merely one emotional state among many but the evolutionary origin from which other subjective experiences developed (448). This perspective provides an integrative framework for understanding the relationships between physical pain, emotional suffering, self-awareness, and consciousness more broadly (449).

Theoretical Implications

The positioning of pain as the canonical feeling has significant theoretical implications across multiple domains:

For evolutionary psychology, this framework suggests that emotional capacities built upon pre-existing pain mechanisms through processes of neural co-option (450). Rather than evolving as separate systems, emotions likely developed through the progressive adaptation of pain circuitry to process increasingly abstract threats to well-being (451).

For affective neuroscience, this perspective helps explain the substantial neural overlap between physical pain and emotional distress (452). It suggests that emotions are fundamentally embodied phenomena that retain their evolutionary connection to physical feeling rather than representing purely cognitive constructs (453).

For consciousness studies, the examination of pain as the prototypical conscious experience offers insights into how phenomenal consciousness might have emerged in evolution (454). Pain's integration of sensory, affective, and self-referential dimensions provides a model for understanding consciousness more broadly (455).

For philosophy of mind, the self-referential nature of pain illuminates the relationship between consciousness and selfhood (456). It suggests that conscious experience and self-awareness co-evolved rather than representing separate developments (457).

For artificial intelligence, understanding pain as the foundation of feeling suggests that implementing analogous systems might be necessary for developing genuinely conscious machines (458). This has implications for both the technical approaches to artificial consciousness and the ethical considerations surrounding potentially sentient systems (459).

These theoretical implications collectively suggest a more integrated understanding of subjectivity that bridges traditional divisions between sensation and emotion, body and mind, physical and psychological suffering (460). By recognizing pain as the evolutionary origin of feeling, we gain a more coherent framework for understanding conscious experience in all its dimensions (461).

Practical Applications

The framework developed in this dissertation has several practical applications:

In clinical pain management, recognizing the shared neural substrates between physical and emotional pain suggests integrative treatment approaches (462). Therapies that address both sensory and affective dimensions of pain may provide more effective relief than those focused exclusively on nociception (463).

For mental health treatment, understanding emotional suffering as an evolutionary derivative of physical pain offers new therapeutic targets (464). Treatments that regulate pain processing systems may help alleviate emotional disorders like depression and anxiety (465).

In artificial intelligence design, identifying the architectural requirements for pain-like systems could guide the development of more adaptive and potentially conscious machines (466). This understanding also highlights the ethical considerations necessary as AI systems become increasingly sophisticated (467).

For neuroethics, this framework informs discussions about consciousness in non-human animals and artificial systems (468). By identifying the neural and functional markers associated with conscious pain rather than mere nociception, we can better determine which entities deserve moral consideration based on their capacity for suffering (469).

In pain education, this perspective helps patients understand the complex, multidimensional nature of their pain experience (470). Recognizing how pain integrates sensory, emotional, cognitive, and identity-related processes can empower individuals to address multiple aspects of their pain rather than seeking purely physiological solutions (471).

These practical applications demonstrate how theoretical insights about pain's nature and evolution can translate into meaningful interventions that reduce suffering and enhance well-being across multiple contexts (472).

Final Reflections

This dissertation has explored pain as perhaps the most fundamental of all subjective experiences—the evolutionary foundation from which other feelings emerged. Pain stands at the intersection of body and mind, sensation and emotion, physical and psychological suffering (473). In its complexity and immediacy, pain reveals essential truths about the nature of consciousness itself (474).

The investigation of pain illuminates what it means to be a conscious, embodied being (475). Pain reminds us that consciousness is not a disembodied cognitive process but a fundamentally embodied phenomenon grounded in our physical vulnerability and need for self-protection (476). The fact that we can feel pain—that damage to our bodies creates subjective suffering—represents both our evolutionary heritage and the foundation of our phenomenal selfhood (477).

Understanding pain as the canonical feeling offers perspective on the relationship between physical and emotional suffering (478). The "pain" of heartbreak or loneliness is not merely metaphorical but reflects the co-option of physical pain systems for protecting social bonds and psychological integrity (479). This continuum between physical and emotional pain explains why emotional suffering feels genuinely painful and why physical pain always has an affective dimension (480).

As we develop increasingly sophisticated artificial systems, the nature of pain raises profound questions about machine consciousness and ethics (481). If pain represents the evolutionary origin of feeling, then similar architectures might be necessary for creating genuinely conscious machines (482). This possibility demands careful ethical consideration of what it would mean to create entities capable of suffering (483).

Finally, pain's inherent subjectivity reminds us of the limitations of third-person perspectives on consciousness (484). No matter how thoroughly we explain pain's mechanisms, something essential remains in the first-person experience that cannot be captured by objective description (485). This "explanatory gap" reminds us that consciousness represents not merely a scientific problem but a fundamental aspect of existence that touches on the deepest questions of what it means to be (486).

In exploring pain's origins, evolution, and relationship to emotions, this dissertation has sought to illuminate not only a specific sensory experience but the very foundations of consciousness and selfhood (487). Through understanding pain—its mechanisms, meanings, and manifestations—we gain insight into the nature of subjective experience itself (488).

References

References

1. Melzack R, Wall PD. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science. 1965;150(3699):971-9.

2. Nagel T. What is it like to be a bat? Philos Rev. 1974;83(4):435-50.

3. Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(8):655-66.

4. Price DD. Psychological and neural mechanisms of the affective dimension of pain. Science. 2000;288(5472):1769-72.

5. Tracey I, Bushnell MC. How neuroimaging studies have challenged us to rethink: is chronic pain a disease? J Pain. 2009;10(11):1113-20.

6. Damasio A. Self comes to mind: constructing the conscious brain. New York: Pantheon Books; 2010.

7. Dennett DC. Consciousness explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1991.

8. Rey R. The history of pain. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1995.

9. Descartes R. Treatise of man. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1664/1972.

10. Perl ER. Ideas about pain, a historical view. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007;8(1):71-80.

11. Melzack R, Wall PD. The challenge of pain. 2nd ed. London: Penguin Books; 1988.

12. Gatchel RJ, Peng YB, Peters ML, Fuchs PN, Turk DC. The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: scientific advances and future directions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(4):581-624.

13. IASP Task Force on Taxonomy. Classification of chronic pain. 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press; 1994.

14. Smith ES, Lewin GR. Nociceptors: a phylogenetic view. J Comp Physiol A. 2009;195(12):1089-106.

15. Tobin DM, Bargmann CI. Invertebrate nociception: behaviors, neurons and molecules. J Neurobiol. 2004;61(1):161-74.

16. Neely GG, Hess A, Costigan M, Keene AC, Goulas S, Langeslag M, et al. A genome-wide Drosophila screen for heat nociception identifies α2δ3 as an evolutionarily conserved pain gene. Cell. 2010;143(4):628-38.

17. Crook RJ, Walters ET. Nociceptive behavior and physiology of molluscs: animal welfare implications. ILAR J. 2011;52(2):185-95.

18. Sneddon LU. Pain in aquatic animals. J Exp Biol. 2015;218(Pt 7):967-76.

19. Gentle MJ. Pain in birds. Anim Welf. 1992;1(4):235-47.

20. Vallbo AB, Hagbarth KE, Torebjörk HE, Wallin BG. Somatosensory, proprioceptive, and sympathetic activity in human peripheral nerves. Physiol Rev. 1979;59(4):919-57.

21. Allen C. Animal pain. Noûs. 2004;38(4):617-43.

22. Merker B. Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: a challenge for neuroscience and medicine. Behav Brain Sci. 2007;30(1):63-81.

23. Julius D, Basbaum AI. Molecular mechanisms of nociception. Nature. 2001;413(6852):203-10.

24. Todd AJ. Neuronal circuitry for pain processing in the dorsal horn. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11(12):823-36.

25. Willis WD, Westlund KN. Neuroanatomy of the pain system and of the pathways that modulate pain. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1997;14(1):2-31.

26. Millan MJ. Descending control of pain. Prog Neurobiol. 2002;66(6):355-474.

27. Apkarian AV, Bushnell MC, Treede RD, Zubieta JK. Human brain mechanisms of pain perception and regulation in health and disease. Eur J Pain. 2005;9(4):463-84.

28. Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD, Williams KD. Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science. 2003;302(5643):290-2.

29. Fields HL. State-dependent opioid control of pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004;5(7):565-75.

30. Bingel U, Tracey I. Imaging CNS modulation of pain in humans. Physiology. 2008;23(6):371-80.

31. Craig AD. How do you feel–now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(1):59-70.

32. Melzack R, Casey KL. Sensory, motivational, and central control determinants of pain: a new conceptual model. In: Kenshalo D, editor. The skin senses. Springfield: Thomas; 1968. p. 423-43.

33. Rainville P, Duncan GH, Price DD, Carrier B, Bushnell MC. Pain affect encoded in human anterior cingulate but not somatosensory cortex. Science. 1997;277(5328):968-71.

34. MacDonald G, Leary MR. Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychol Bull. 2005;131(2):202-23.

35. Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD. Why rejection hurts: a common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004;8(7):294-300.

36. Kross E, Berman MG, Mischel W, Smith EE, Wager TD. Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(15):6270-5.

37. Panksepp J. Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

38. Panksepp J. The neuroscience of emotion: a new synthesis. In: Gerrod Parrott W, editor. Emotions in social psychology: essential readings. New York: Psychology Press; 2001. p. 30-45.

39. Barrett LF. The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017;12(1):1-23.

40. Damasio AR. The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1996;351(1346):1413-20.

41. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200-19.

42. Levine J. Materialism and qualia: the explanatory gap. Pac Philos Q. 1983;64(4):354-61.

43. Zahavi D. Subjectivity and selfhood: investigating the first-person perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.

44. Baars BJ. A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.

45. Lau H, Rosenthal D. Empirical support for higher-order theories of conscious awareness. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011;15(8):365-73.

46. Tononi G. Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. Biol Bull. 2008;215(3):216-42.

47. Seth AK, Suzuki K, Critchley HD. An interoceptive predictive coding model of conscious presence. Front Psychol. 2012;2:395.

48. Carruthers P. Suffering without subjectivity. Philos Stud. 2004;121(2):99-125.

49. Metzinger T. Being no one: the self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.

50. Hameroff S, Penrose R. Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory. Phys Life Rev. 2014;11(1):39-78.

51. Koch C, Hepp K. Quantum mechanics in the brain. Nature. 2006;440(7084):611-12.

52. Chapman CR, Nakamura Y. A passion of the soul: an introduction to pain for consciousness researchers. Conscious Cogn. 1999;8(4):391-422.

53. Butler AB, Cotterill RM. Mammalian and avian neuroanatomy and the question of consciousness in birds. Biol Bull. 2006;211(2):106-27.

54. Apkarian AV, Baliki MN, Geha PY. Towards a theory of chronic pain. Prog Neurobiol. 2009;87(2):81-97.

55. Chapman CR. Pain perception, affective mechanisms, and conscious experience. In: Hadjistavropoulos T, Craig KD, editors. Pain: psychological perspectives. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004. p. 59-85.

56. Walters ET. Nociceptive biology of molluscs and arthropods: evolutionary clues about functions and mechanisms potentially related to pain. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1049.

57. Legrain V, Iannetti GD, Plaghki L, Mouraux A. The pain matrix reloaded: a salience detection system for the body. Prog Neurobiol. 2011;93(1):111-24.

58. Key B. Why fish do not feel pain. Anim Sentience. 2016;1(3):1.

59. Sneddon LU. Comparative physiology of nociception and pain. Physiology. 2018;33(1):63-73.

60. Melzack R. From the gate to the neuromatrix. Pain. 1999;6(Suppl):S121-6.

61. Peyron R, Laurent B, García-Larrea L. Functional imaging of brain responses to pain. A review and meta-analysis. Neurophysiol Clin. 2000;30(5):263-88.

62. Eccleston C, Crombez G. Pain demands attention: a cognitive-affective model of the interruptive function of pain. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(3):356-66.

63. Craig AD. Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003;13(4):500-5.

64. Fields HL. Pain: an unpleasant topic. Pain. 1999;6(Suppl):S61-9.

65. Berna C, Leknes S, Holmes EA, Edwards RR, Goodwin GM, Tracey I. Induction of depressed mood disrupts emotion regulation neurocircuitry and enhances pain unpleasantness. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;67(11):1083-90.

66. Auvray M, Myin E, Spence C. The sensory-discriminative and affective-motivational aspects of pain. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010;34(2):214-23.

67. Craig AD. A new view of pain as a homeostatic emotion. Trends Neurosci. 2003;26(6):303-7.

68. Price DD, Harkins SW, Baker C. Sensory-affective relationships among different types of clinical and experimental pain. Pain. 1987;28(3):297-307.

69. Harrison NA, Gray MA, Gianaros PJ, Critchley HD. The embodiment of emotional feelings in the brain. J Neurosci. 2010;30(38):12878-84.

70. Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E. The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1991.

71. Hardcastle VG. When a pain is not. J Philosophy. 1997;94(8):381-409.

72. Butler AB, Hodos W. Comparative vertebrate neuroanatomy: evolution and adaptation. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.

73. Kaas JH. Evolution of nervous systems. 2nd ed. Oxford: Academic Press; 2017.

74. LeDoux J. The emotional brain: the mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1996.

75. McGinn C. The problem of consciousness: essays towards a resolution. Oxford: Blackwell; 1991.

76. Rolls ET. Emotion and decision-making explained. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.

77. Barragán-Jason G, Fernández-Gomez C, García-Valdecasas M, Calabria M, Juncadella M, Benejam B, et al. A common neural substrate for processing pain and facial expressions of pain? Neurosci Lett. 2020;722:134894.

78. Walters ET, Moroz LL. Molluscan memory of injury: evolutionary insights into chronic pain and neurological disorders. Brain Behav Evol. 2009;74(3):206-18.

79. Northcutt RG. Understanding vertebrate brain evolution. Integr Comp Biol. 2002;42(4):743-56.

80. Kavaliers M. Evolutionary and comparative aspects of nociception. Brain Res Bull. 1988;21(6):923-31.

81. Sneddon LU, Elwood RW, Adamo SA, Leach MC. Defining and assessing animal pain. Anim Behav. 2014;97:201-12.

82. Elwood RW. Evidence for pain in decapod crustaceans. Anim Welf. 2012;21(S2):23-7.

83. Strausfeld NJ, Hirth F. Deep homology of arthropod central complex and vertebrate basal ganglia. Science. 2013;340(6129):157-61.

84. Crook RJ, Hanlon RT, Walters ET. Squid have nociceptors that display widespread long-term sensitization and spontaneous activity after bodily injury. J Neurosci. 2013;33(24):10021-6.

85. Bernard JF, Besson JM. The spino(trigemino)pontoamygdaloid pathway: electrophysiological evidence for an involvement in pain processes. J Neurophysiol. 1990;63(3):473-90.

86. Coghill RC, Sang CN, Maisog JM, Iadarola MJ. Pain intensity processing within the human brain: a bilateral, distributed mechanism. J Neurophysiol. 1999;82(4):1934-43.

87. Peyron R, García-Larrea L, Grégoire MC, Costes N, Convers P, Lavenne F, et al. Haemodynamic brain responses to acute pain in humans: sensory and attentional networks. Brain. 1999;122(Pt 9):1765-80.

88. Gear RW, Aley KO, Levine JD. Pain-induced analgesia mediated by mesolimbic reward circuits. J Neurosci. 1999;19(16):7175-81.

89. Flor H, Nikolajsen L, Staehelin Jensen T. Phantom limb pain: a case of maladaptive CNS plasticity? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006;7(11):873-81.

90. Caterina MJ, Julius D. The vanilloid receptor: a molecular gateway to the pain pathway. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001;24:487-517.

91. Iannetti GD, Mouraux A. From the neuromatrix to the pain matrix (and back). Exp Brain Res. 2010;205(1):1-12.

92. Mogil JS. Animal models of pain: progress and challenges. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(4):283-94.

93. Arendt-Nielsen L, Morlion B, Perrot S, Dahan A, Dickenson A, Kress HG, et al. Assessment and manifestation of central sensitisation across different chronic pain conditions. Eur J Pain. 2018;22(2):216-41.

94. Shackman AJ, Salomons TV, Slagter HA, Fox AS, Winter JJ, Davidson RJ. The integration of negative affect, pain and cognitive control in the cingulate cortex. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12(3):154-67.

95. Elwood RW, Barr S, Patterson L. Pain and stress in crustaceans? Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2009;118(3-4):128-36.

96. Jennings HS. Behavior of the lower organisms. New York: Columbia University Press; 1906/1976.

97. Kang K, Pulver SR, Panzano VC, Chang EC, Griffith LC, Theobald DL, et al. Analysis of Drosophila TRPA1 reveals an ancient origin for human chemical nociception. Nature. 2010;464(7288):597-600.

98. Koizumi O. Developmental neurobiology of hydra, a model animal of cnidarians. Can J Zool. 2002;80(10):1678-89.

99. Mackie GO. Central neural circuitry in the jellyfish Aglantha: a model 'simple nervous system'. Neurosignals. 2004;13(1-2):5-19.

100. Reisinger E. The evolution of the nervous system. In: Bullock TH, Horridge GA, editors. Structure and function in the nervous systems of invertebrates. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman; 1965. p. 1-32.

101. Holland ND. Early central nervous system evolution: an era of skin brains? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4(8):617-27.

102. Tracey WD, Wilson RI, Laurent G, Benzer S. painless, a Drosophila gene essential for nociception. Cell. 2003;113(2):261-73.

103. Alupay JS, Hadjisolomou SP, Crook RJ. Arm injury produces long-term behavioral and neural hypersensitivity in octopus. Neurosci Lett. 2014;558:137-42.

104. Sneddon LU. Evolution of nociception and pain: evidence from fish models. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2019;374(1785):20190290.

105. Rose JD, Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Diggles BK, Sawynok W, Stevens ED, et al. Can fish really feel pain? Fish Fish. 2014;15(1):97-133.

106. Edelman GM. Neural Darwinism: the theory of neuronal group selection. New York: Basic Books; 1987.

107. LeDoux JE. Emotion circuits in the brain. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2000;23:155-84.

108. Schacter DL, Addis DR. The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: remembering the past and imagining the future. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007;362(1481):773-86.

109. Baddeley A. Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4(10):829-39.

110. Iannetti GD, Mouraux A. From the neuromatrix to the pain matrix (and back). Exp Brain Res. 2010;205(1):1-12.

111. Braithwaite VA, Boulcott P. Pain perception, aversion and fear in fish. Dis Aquat Organ. 2007;75(2):131-8.

112. Rose JD. The neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain. Rev Fish Sci. 2002;10(1):1-38.

113. Dawkins MS. Through animal eyes: what behaviour tells us. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2006;100(1-2):4-10.

114. Carruthers P. Higher-order theories of consciousness. In: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University; 2016.

115. Williams AC. Facial expression of pain: an evolutionary account. Behav Brain Sci. 2002;25(4):439-55.

116. Woolf CJ, Ma Q. Nociceptors—noxious stimulus detectors. Neuron. 2007;55(3):353-64.

117. Bolles RC, Fanselow MS. A perceptual-defensive-recuperative model of fear and pain. Behav Brain Sci. 1980;3(2):291-301.

118. Johansen JP, Fields HL, Manning BH. The affective component of pain in rodents: direct evidence for a contribution of the anterior cingulate cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(14):8077-82.

119. Williams AC. Evolutionary psychology and the study of pain expression. Behav Brain Sci. 2003;26(4):474-6.

120. Watkins LR, Maier SF. Beyond neurons: evidence that immune and glial cells contribute to pathological pain states. Physiol Rev. 2002;82(4):981-1011.

121. Fields HL. A motivation-decision model of pain: the role of opioids. In: Flor H, Kalso E, Dostrovsky JO, editors. Proceedings of the 11th world congress on pain. Seattle: IASP Press; 2006. p. 449-59.

122. Apkarian AV. Pain perception in relation to emotional learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2008;18(4):464-8.

123. Vlaeyen JW, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000;85(3):317-32.

124. Woolf CJ, Salter MW. Neuronal plasticity: increasing the gain in pain. Science. 2000;288(5472):1765-9.

125. Keefe FJ, Rumble ME, Scipio CD, Giordano LA, Perri LM. Psychological aspects of persistent pain: current state of the science. J Pain. 2004;5(4):195-211.

126. Nesse RM, Schulkin J. An evolutionary medicine perspective on pain and its disorders. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2019;374(1785):20190288.

127. Bateson P. Assessment of pain in animals. Anim Behav. 1991;42(5):827-39.

128. Wiech K, Tracey I. The influence of negative emotions on pain: behavioral effects and neural mechanisms. Neuroimage. 2009;47(3):987-94.

129. Lund I, Ge Y, Yu LC, Uvnas-Moberg K, Wang J, Yu C, et al. Repeated massage-like stimulation induces long-term effects on nociception: contribution of oxytocinergic mechanisms. Eur J Neurosci. 2002;16(2):330-8.

130. Borsook D, Becerra L. CNS animal fMRI in pain and analgesia. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(5):1125-43.

131. Bushnell MC, Čeko M, Low LA. Cognitive and emotional control of pain and its disruption in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(7):502-11.

132. Cabanac M, Cabanac AJ, Parent A. The emergence of consciousness in phylogeny. Behav Brain Res. 2009;198(2):267-72.

133. Griffin DR. Animal minds: beyond cognition to consciousness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2001.

134. Damasio A, Carvalho GB. The nature of feelings: evolutionary and neurobiological origins. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(2):143-52.

135. Kross E, Berman MG, Mischel W, Smith EE, Wager TD. Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(15):6270-5.

136. Lieberman MD, Eisenberger NI. Pains and pleasures of social life. Science. 2009;323(5916):890-1.

137. Basbaum AI, Bautista DM, Scherrer G, Julius D. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of pain. Cell. 2009;139(2):267-84.

138. Latremoliere A, Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: a generator of pain hypersensitivity by central neural plasticity. J Pain. 2009;10(9):895-926.

139. Caterina MJ, Schumacher MA, Tominaga M, Rosen TA, Levine JD, Julius D. The capsaicin receptor: a heat-activated ion channel in the pain pathway. Nature. 1997;389(6653):816-24.

140. Waldmann R, Champigny G, Bassilana F, Heurteaux C, Lazdunski M. A proton-gated cation channel involved in acid-sensing. Nature. 1997;386(6621):173-7.

141. Coste B, Mathur J, Schmidt M, Earley TJ, Ranade S, Petrus MJ, et al. Piezo1 and Piezo2 are essential components of distinct mechanically activated cation channels. Science. 2010;330(6000):55-60.

142. Meyer RA, Ringkamp M, Campbell JN, Raja SN. Peripheral mechanisms of cutaneous nociception. In: McMahon SB, Koltzenburg M, editors. Wall and Melzack's textbook of pain. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2006. p. 3-34.

143. Serra J, Campero M, Ochoa J, Bostock H. Activity-dependent slowing of conduction differentiates functional subtypes of C fibres innervating human skin. J Physiol. 1999;515(Pt 3):799-811.

144. Schmidt R, Schmelz M, Forster C, Ringkamp M, Torebjörk E, Handwerker H. Novel classes of responsive and unresponsive C nociceptors in human skin. J Neurosci. 1995;15(1):333-41.

145. Larsson M, Broman J. Synaptic organization of VGLUT3 immunoreactive primary afferents in the superficial dorsal horn of the rat spinal cord. Neuroscience. 2019;398:64-72.

146. Zieglgänsberger W. Substance P and pain chronicity. Cell Tissue Res. 2019;375(1):227-41.

147. Gold MS, Gebhart GF. Nociceptor sensitization in pain pathogenesis. Nat Med. 2010;16(11):1248-57.

148. Reichling DB, Levine JD. Critical role of nociceptor plasticity in chronic pain. Trends Neurosci. 2009;32(12):611-8.

149. Peirs C, Seal RP. Neural circuits for pain: recent advances and current views. Science. 2016;354(6312):578-84.

150. Polgar E, Wright LL, Todd AJ. A quantitative study of brainstem projections from lamina I neurons in the cervical and lumbar enlargement of the rat. Brain Res. 2010;1308:58-67.

151. Dostrovsky JO, Craig AD. Ascending projection systems. In: McMahon SB, Koltzenburg M, editors. Wall and Melzack's textbook of pain. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2006. p. 187-203.

152. Gauriau C, Bernard JF. Pain pathways and parabrachial circuits in the rat. Exp Physiol. 2002;87(2):251-8.

153. Burstein R, Cliffer KD, Giesler GJ Jr. Direct somatosensory projections from the spinal cord to the hypothalamus and telencephalon. J Neurosci. 1987;7(12):4159-64.

154. Groenewegen HJ, Witter MP. Thalamus. In: Paxinos G, Mai JK, editors. The human nervous system. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2004. p. 407-53.

155. Davis KD, Moayedi M. Central mechanisms of pain revealed through functional and structural MRI. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 2013;8(3):518-34.

156. Fields HL, Basbaum AI, Heinricher MM. Central nervous system mechanisms of pain modulation. In: McMahon SB, Koltzenburg M, editors. Wall and Melzack's textbook of pain. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2006. p. 125-42.

157. Ossipov MH, Dussor GO, Porreca F. Central modulation of pain. J Clin Invest. 2010;120(11):3779-87.

158. Fields HL. State-dependent opioid control of pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004;5(7):565-75.

159. Tracey I, Mantyh PW. The cerebral signature for pain perception and its modulation. Neuron. 2007;55(3):377-91.

160. Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. 2011;152(3 Suppl):S2-15.

161. May A. Chronic pain may change the structure of the brain. Pain. 2008;137(1):7-15.

162. Sandkühler J. Models and mechanisms of hyperalgesia and allodynia. Physiol Rev. 2009;89(2):707-58.

163. Iannetti GD, Mouraux A. From the neuromatrix to the pain matrix (and back). Exp Brain Res. 2010;205(1):1-12.

164. Tracey I. Imaging pain. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101(1):32-9.

165. Vierck CJ, Whitsel BL, Favorov OV, Brown AW, Tommerdahl M. Role of primary somatosensory cortex in the coding of pain. Pain. 2013;154(3):334-44.

166. Vogt BA. Pain and emotion interactions in subregions of the cingulate gyrus. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6(7):533-44.

167. Wiech K, Ploner M, Tracey I. Neurocognitive aspects of pain perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(8):306-13.

168. Dum RP, Levinthal DJ, Strick PL. The spinothalamic system targets motor and sensory areas in the cerebral cortex of monkeys. J Neurosci. 2009;29(45):14223-35.

169. Ossipov MH, Morimura K, Porreca F. Descending pain modulation and chronification of pain. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2014;8(2):143-51.

170. Craig AD. Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003;13(4):500-5.

171. Critchley HD, Wiens S, Rotshtein P, Öhman A, Dolan RJ. Neural systems supporting interoceptive awareness. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7(2):189-95.

172. Shackman AJ, Salomons TV, Slagter HA, Fox AS, Winter JJ, Davidson RJ. The integration of negative affect, pain, and cognitive control in the cingulate cortex. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12(3):154-67.

173. Eisenberger NI. The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(6):421-34.

174. Panksepp J. Affective consciousness: core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Conscious Cogn. 2005;14(1):30-80.

175. Tracey I. Getting the pain you expect: mechanisms of placebo, nocebo and reappraisal effects in humans. Nat Med. 2010;16(11):1277-83.

176. Lorenz J, Minoshima S, Casey KL. Keeping pain out of mind: the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in pain modulation. Brain. 2003;126(Pt 5):1079-91.

177. Ong AD, Zautra AJ, Reid MC. Psychological resilience predicts decreases in pain catastrophizing through positive emotions. Psychol Aging. 2010;25(3):516-23.

178. Iannetti GD, Mouraux A. From the neuromatrix to the pain matrix (and back). Exp Brain Res. 2010;205(1):1-12.

179. Garcia-Larrea L, Peyron R. Pain matrices and neuropathic pain matrices: a review. Pain. 2013;154 Suppl 1:S29-43.

180. Baars BJ, Franklin S, Ramsoy TZ. Global workspace dynamics: cortical "binding and propagation" enables conscious contents. Front Psychol. 2013;4:200.

181. Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(8):655-66.

182. Strigo IA, Craig AD. Interoception, homeostatic emotions and sympathovagal balance. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016;371(1708):20160010.

183. Zaki J, Davis JI, Ochsner KN. Overlapping activity in anterior insula during interoception and emotional experience. Neuroimage. 2012;62(1):493-9.

184. Paulus MP, Stein MB. Interoception in anxiety and depression. Brain Struct Funct. 2010;214(5-6):451-63.

185. Critchley HD, Harrison NA. Visceral influences on brain and behavior. Neuron. 2013;77(4):624-38.

186. Brooks JC, Zambreanu L, Godinez A, Craig AD, Tracey I. Somatotopic organisation of the human insula to painful heat studied with high resolution functional imaging. Neuroimage. 2005;27(1):201-9.

187. Uddin LQ. Salience processing and insular cortical function and dysfunction. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015;16(1):55-61.

188. Singer T, Critchley HD, Preuschoff K. A common role of insula in feelings, empathy and uncertainty. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009;13(8):334-40.

189. Craig AD. How do you feel--now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(1):59-70.

190. Gu X, Hof PR, Friston KJ, Fan J. Anterior insular cortex and emotional awareness. J Comp Neurol. 2013;521(15):3371-88.

191. Seth AK, Critchley HD. Extending predictive processing to the body: emotion as interoceptive inference. Behav Brain Sci. 2013;36(3):227-8.

192. Seth AK, Suzuki K, Critchley HD. An interoceptive predictive coding model of conscious presence. Front Psychol. 2012;2:395.

193. Barrett LF, Simmons WK. Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015;16(7):419-29.

194. Damasio A, Carvalho GB. The nature of feelings: evolutionary and neurobiological origins. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(2):143-52.

195. Lieberman MD, Eisenberger NI. The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is selective for pain: results from large-scale reverse inference. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112(49):15250-5.

196. MacDonald G, Leary MR. Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychol Bull. 2005;131(2):202-23.

197. Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD, Williams KD. Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science. 2003;302(5643):290-2.

198. Novembre G, Zanon M, Silani G. Empathy for social exclusion involves the sensory-discriminative component of pain: a within-subject fMRI study. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015;10(2):153-64.

199. Panksepp J. Affective neuroscience of the emotional BrainMind: evolutionary perspectives and implications for understanding depression. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2010;12(4):533-45.

200. Eisenberger NI, Cole SW. Social neuroscience and health: neurophysiological mechanisms linking social ties with physical health. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15(5):669-74.

201. Chester DS, DeWall CN, Pond RS, Ladd SV, Powell CA. The butterfly effect of harm: the widespread challenge of measuring implications of small disturbances. Psychol Inj Law. 2014;7(1):91-6.

202. Nelson EE, Panksepp J. Brain substrates of infant-mother attachment: contributions of opioids, oxytocin, and norepinephrine. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1998;22(3):437-52.

203. Panksepp J, Herman B, Conner R, Bishop P, Scott JP. The biology of social attachments: opiates alleviate separation distress. Biol Psychiatry. 1978;13(5):607-18.

204. Panksepp J, Watt D. Why does depression hurt? Ancestral primary-process separation-distress (PANIC/GRIEF) and diminished brain reward (SEEKING) in the genesis of depressive affect. Psychiatry. 2011;74(1):5-13.

205. Macdonald G, Kingsbury R. Does physical pain augment anxious attachment? J Soc Pers Relatsh. 2006;23(2):291-304.

206. Chen Z, Williams KD, Fitness J, Newton NC. When hurt will not heal: exploring the capacity to relive social and physical pain. Psychol Sci. 2008;19(8):789-95.

207. Hayes DJ, Northoff G. Common brain activations for painful and non-painful aversive stimuli. BMC Neurosci. 2012;13:60.

208. Lamm C, Decety J, Singer T. Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. Neuroimage. 2011;54(3):2492-502.

209. Menon V, Uddin LQ. Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function. Brain Struct Funct. 2010;214(5-6):655-67.

210. Legrain V, Iannetti GD, Plaghki L, Mouraux A. The pain matrix reloaded: a salience detection system for the body. Prog Neurobiol. 2011;93(1):111-24.

211. Lang PJ, Bradley MM. Emotion and the motivational brain. Biol Psychol. 2010;84(3):437-50.

212. Zubieta JK, Stohler CS. Neurobiological mechanisms of placebo responses. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1156:198-210.

213. Hsu DT, Sanford BJ, Meyers KK, Love TM, Hazlett KE, Wang H, et al. Response of the μ-opioid system to social rejection and acceptance. Mol Psychiatry. 2013;18(11):1211-7.

214. Dewall CN, MacDonald G, Webster GD, Masten CL, Baumeister RF, Powell C, et al. Acetaminophen reduces social pain: behavioral and neural evidence. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(7):931-7.

215. Dantzer R, O'Connor JC, Freund GG, Johnson RW, Kelley KW. From inflammation to sickness and depression: when the immune system subjugates the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(1):46-56.

216. Bair MJ, Robinson RL, Katon W, Kroenke K. Depression and pain comorbidity: a literature review. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(20):2433-45.

217. Lumley MA, Cohen JL, Borszcz GS, Cano A, Radcliffe AM, Porter LS, et al. Pain and emotion: a biopsychosocial review of recent research. J Clin Psychol. 2011;67(9):942-68.

218. Panksepp J. The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: do animals have affective lives? Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(9):1791-804.

219. Anderson DJ, Adolphs R. A framework for studying emotions across species. Cell. 2014;157(1):187-200.

220. Reimers C, Luo H, Bohm-Sturm P, Harms C, Vajkoczy P, Prokazov Y. How acute pain leads to chronic pain: a role for microglia and astrocyte-mediated synaptic pruning in the spinal dorsal horn. J Neurosci Res. 2020;98(11):2120-9.

221. Panksepp J. Cross-species affective neuroscience decoding of the primal affective experiences of humans and related animals. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e21236.

222. Decety J, Norman GJ, Berntson GG, Cacioppo JT. A neurobehavioral evolutionary perspective on the mechanisms underlying empathy. Prog Neurobiol. 2012;98(1):38-48.

223. Striedter GF. Principles of brain evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates; 2005.

224. Panksepp J, Fuchs T, Iacobucci P. The basic neuroscience of emotional experiences in mammals: the case of subcortical FEAR circuitry and implications for clinical anxiety. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2011;129(1):1-17.

225. de Waal FBM. Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:279-300.

226. Tybur JM, Lieberman D, Kurzban R, DeScioli P. Disgust: evolved function and structure. Psychol Rev. 2013;120(1):65-84.

227. Chapman HA, Anderson AK. Things rank and gross in nature: a review and synthesis of moral disgust. Psychol Bull. 2013;139(2):300-27.

228. Barrett LF. The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017;12(1):1-23.

229. Watt DF. Consciousness and emotions: review of Jaak Panksepp's Affective Neuroscience. J Conscious Stud. 1999;6(6-7):191-200.

230. Mee S, Bunney BG, Reist C, Potkin SG, Bunney WE. Psychological pain: a review of evidence. J Psychiatr Res. 2006;40(8):680-90.

231. LeDoux JE. Coming to terms with fear. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(8):2871-8.

232. Apkarian AV, Bushnell MC, Treede RD, Zubieta JK. Human brain mechanisms of pain perception and regulation in health and disease. Eur J Pain. 2005;9(4):463-84.

233. Feinstein JS, Khalsa SS, Salomons TV, Prkachin KM, Frey-Law LA, Lee JE, et al. Preserved emotional awareness of pain in a patient with extensive bilateral damage to the insula, anterior cingulate, and amygdala. Brain Struct Funct. 2016;221(3):1499-511.

234. Critchley HD, Garfinkel SN. Interoception and emotion. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;17:7-14.

235. Cacioppo S, Capitanio JP, Cacioppo JT. Toward a neurology of loneliness. Psychol Bull. 2014;140(6):1464-504.

236. Sheridan MA, Fox NA, Zeanah CH, McLaughlin KA, Nelson CA 3rd. Variation in neural development as a result of exposure to institutionalization early in childhood. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(32):12927-32.

237. Eisenberger NI. The neural bases of social pain: evidence for shared representations with physical pain. Psychosom Med. 2012;74(2):126-35.

238. Cacioppo JT, Cacioppo S, Capitanio JP, Cole SW. The neuroendocrinology of social isolation. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015;66:733-67.

239. Shneidman ES. Suicide as psychache: a clinical approach to self-destructive behavior. Northvale: Jason Aronson; 1993.

240. Meerwijk EL, Ford JM, Weiss SJ. Brain regions associated with psychological pain: implications for a neural network and its relationship to physical pain. Brain Imaging Behav. 2013;7(1):1-14.

241. Eisenberger NI. Social pain and the brain: controversies, questions, and where to go from here. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015;66:601-29.

242. Lieberman MD. Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:259-89.

243. Nummenmaa L, Glerean E, Hari R, Hietanen JK. Bodily maps of emotions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(2):646-51.

244. Barrett LF, Simmons WK. Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015;16(7):419-29.

245. Damasio A, Carvalho GB. The nature of feelings: evolutionary and neurobiological origins. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(2):143-52.

246. Bustan S, Gonzalez-Roldan AM, Kamping S, Brunner M, Löffler M, Flor H, et al. Suffering as an independent component of the experience of pain. Eur J Pain. 2015;19(7):1035-48.

247. Grahek N. Feeling pain and being in pain. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007.

248. Zahavi D. Self and other: exploring subjectivity, empathy, and shame. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.

249. Longo MR, Betti V, Aglioti SM, Haggard P. Visually induced analgesia: seeing the body reduces pain. J Neurosci. 2009;29(39):12125-30.

250. Craig AD. Significance of the insula for the evolution of human awareness of feelings from the body. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1225:72-82.

251. Northoff G, Heinzel A, de Greck M, Bermpohl F, Dobrowolny H, Panksepp J. Self-referential processing in our brain—a meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self. Neuroimage. 2006;31(1):440-57.

252. Legrain V, Iannetti GD, Plaghki L, Mouraux A. The pain matrix reloaded: a salience detection system for the body. Prog Neurobiol. 2011;93(1):111-24.

253. Sierra M, David AS. Depersonalization: a selective impairment of self-awareness. Conscious Cogn. 2011;20(1):99-108.

254. Berthier M, Starkstein S, Leiguarda R. Asymbolia for pain: a sensory-limbic disconnection syndrome. Ann Neurol. 1988;24(1):41-9.

255. Klein C. What pain asymbolia really shows. Mind. 2015;124(494):493-516.

256. Sartre JP. Being and nothingness. New York: Washington Square Press; 1956.

257. Zahavi D. Subjectivity and selfhood: investigating the first-person perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.

258. Thompson E. Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2007.

259. Metzinger T. The ego tunnel: the science of the mind and the myth of the self. New York: Basic Books; 2009.

260. Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(8):655-66.

261. Allen C, Bekoff M. Animal consciousness. In: Schneider S, Velmans M, editors. The Blackwell companion to consciousness. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 65-76.

262. Dennett DC. Kinds of minds: toward an understanding of consciousness. New York: Basic Books; 1996.

263. Damasio AR. The feeling of what happens: body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace; 1999.

264. Damasio A. Self comes to mind: constructing the conscious brain. New York: Pantheon Books; 2010.

265. Craig AD. Interoception and emotion: a neuroanatomical perspective. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM, Barrett LF, editors. Handbook of emotions. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 272-88.

266. Metzinger T. Being no one: the self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.

267. Fuchs T. The phenomenology of body memory. In: Koch SC, Fuchs T, Summa M, Müller C, editors. Body memory, metaphor and movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing; 2012. p. 9-22.

268. Klein C. What the body commands: the imperative theory of pain. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2015.

269. Butler AB. Evolution of brains, cognition, and consciousness. Brain Res Bull. 2008;75(2-4):442-9.

270. Bekoff M, Allen C, Burghardt GM. The cognitive animal: empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002.

271. Gallup GG Jr. Self-awareness and the evolution of social intelligence. Behav Processes. 1998;42(2-3):239-47.

272. Edelman GM, Tononi G. A universe of consciousness: how matter becomes imagination. New York: Basic Books; 2000.

273. Block N. On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behav Brain Sci. 1995;18(2):227-47.

274. Denton DA, McKinley MJ, Farrell M, Egan GF. The role of primordial emotions in the evolutionary origin of consciousness. Conscious Cogn. 2009;18(2):500-14.

275. Merker B. Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: a challenge for neuroscience and medicine. Behav Brain Sci. 2007;30(1):63-81.

276. Parvizi J, Damasio A. Consciousness and the brainstem. Cognition. 2001;79(1-2):135-60.

277. Shewmon DA, Holmes GL, Byrne PA. Consciousness in congenitally decorticate children: developmental vegetative state as self-fulfilling prophecy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1999;41(6):364-74.

278. Panksepp J. Affective consciousness: core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Conscious Cogn. 2005;14(1):30-80.

279. Panksepp J. Cross-species affective neuroscience decoding of the primal affective experiences of humans and related animals. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e21236.

280. Cabanac M, Cabanac AJ, Parent A. The emergence of consciousness in phylogeny. Behav Brain Res. 2009;198(2):267-72.

281. Wiech K, Jbabdi S, Lin CS, Andersson J, Tracey I. Differential structural and resting state connectivity between insular subdivisions and other pain-related brain regions. Pain. 2014;155(10):2047-55.

282. Tononi G, Koch C. Consciousness: here, there and everywhere? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1668):20140167.

283. Baars BJ. Global workspace theory of consciousness: toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. Prog Brain Res. 2005;150:45-53.

284. Eccleston C, Crombez G. Pain demands attention: a cognitive-affective model of the interruptive function of pain. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(3):356-66.

285. Bushnell MC, Čeko M, Low LA. Cognitive and emotional control of pain and its disruption in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(7):502-11.

286. Cabanac M, Cabanac AJ, Parent A. The emergence of consciousness in phylogeny. Behav Brain Res. 2009;198(2):267-72.

287. Rochat P. The self as phenotype. Conscious Cogn. 2011;20(1):109-19.

288. Blanke O, Metzinger T. Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009;13(1):7-13.

289. Haggard P, Chambon V. Sense of agency. Curr Biol. 2012;22(10):R390-2.

290. Conway MA. Memory and the self. J Mem Lang. 2005;53(4):594-628.

291. Williams KD. Ostracism. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:425-52.

292. Anand KJ, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(21):1321-9.

293. Schore AN. Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Ment Health J. 2001;22(1-2):7-66.

294. Rochat P. The infant's world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2001.

295. Morinis A. The ritual experience: pain and the transformation of consciousness in ordeals of initiation. Ethos. 1985;13(2):150-74.

296. Glucklich A. Sacred pain: hurting the body for the sake of the soul. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.

297. Morris DB. The culture of pain. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1991.

298. Kabat-Zinn J. Full catastrophe living: using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delta; 1990.

299. Zeidan F, Vago DR. Mindfulness meditation-based pain relief: a mechanistic account. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1373(1):114-27.

300. Metzinger T. The self-model theory of subjectivity: a brief summary with examples. In: Banerjee R, Chakrabarti BK, editors. Models of brain and mind: physical, computational and psychological approaches. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 63-86.

301. Zahavi D. Subjectivity and selfhood: investigating the first-person perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.

302. Harnad S. Animal sentience: the other-minds problem. Anim Sentience. 2016;1(1):1.

303. Dennett DC. Why you can't make a computer that feels pain. Synthese. 1978;38(3):415-56.

304. Ford B, Stojilkovic SS. Electrical properties of neurons. In: Pfaff DW, editor. Neuroscience in the 21st century. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 233-60.

305. Tononi G, Koch C. The neural correlates of consciousness: an update. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1124:239-61.

306. Damasio A, Carvalho GB. The nature of feelings: evolutionary and neurobiological origins. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(2):143-52.

307. Chalmers DJ. The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

308. Metzinger T. The no-self alternative. In: Gallagher S, editor. The Oxford handbook of the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 279-96.

309. Dehaene S, Lau H, Kouider S. What is consciousness, and could machines have it? Science. 2017;358(6362):486-92.

310. Sutton RS, Barto AG. Reinforcement learning: an introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2018.

311. Chalmers DJ. The hard problem of consciousness. In: Schneider S, Velmans M, editors. The Blackwell companion to consciousness. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 32-42.

312. Dennett DC. Consciousness explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1991.

313. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200-19.

314. Block N. Comparing the major theories of consciousness. In: Gazzaniga MS, editor. The cognitive neurosciences. 4th ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2009. p. 1111-22.

315. Chalmers DJ. Absent qualia, fading qualia, dancing qualia. In: Metzinger T, editor. Conscious experience. Thorverton: Imprint Academic; 1995. p. 309-28.

316. Searle JR. The mystery of consciousness. New York: New York Review of Books; 1997.

317. Hameroff S, Penrose R. Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory. Phys Life Rev. 2014;11(1):39-78.

318. Tononi G, Koch C. Consciousness: here, there and everywhere? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1668):20140167.

319. Haikonen PO. The cognitive approach to conscious machines. Exeter: Imprint Academic; 2003.

320. Sloman A, Chrisley R. Virtual machines and consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 2003;10(4-5):133-72.

321. Tegmark M. Consciousness as a state of matter. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2015;76:238-70.

322. Koch C, Hepp K. Quantum mechanics in the brain. Nature. 2006;440(7084):611-12.

323. Hameroff S, Penrose R. Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory. Phys Life Rev. 2014;11(1):39-78.

324. Hameroff S. How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will. Front Integr Neurosci. 2012;6:93.

325. Fisher MPA. Quantum cognition: the possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain. Ann Phys. 2015;362:593-602.

326. Atmanspacher H. Quantum approaches to consciousness. In: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University; 2015.

327. Jibu M, Yasue K. Quantum brain dynamics and consciousness: an introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing; 1995.

328. Penrose R. Shadows of the mind: a search for the missing science of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994.

329. Quantum aspects of life. Proceedings of an international workshop, Coolum, December 2003. Singapore: World Scientific; 2008.

330. Hameroff S, Penrose R. Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory. Phys Life Rev. 2014;11(1):39-78.

331. Tegmark M. Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Phys Rev E. 2000;61(4):4194-206.

332. Koch C, Hepp K. Quantum mechanics in the brain. Nature. 2006;440(7084):611-12.

333. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200-19.

334. Wallach W, Allen C. Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.

335. Singer P. Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books; 1975.

336. Regan T. The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1983.

337. Levy D. The ethical treatment of artificially conscious robots. Int J Soc Robot. 2009;1(3):209-16.

338. Searle JR. Minds, brains, and programs. Behav Brain Sci. 1980;3(3):417-24.

339. Bostrom N. Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.

340. Singer P. Practical ethics. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

341. Korsgaard CM. Fellow creatures: our obligations to the other animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018.

342. Vallor S. Technology and the virtues: a philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.

343. Leknes S, Tracey I. A common neurobiology for pain and pleasure. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(4):314-20.

344. Scheutz M. The inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA, editors. Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2012. p. 205-21.

345. Dennett DC. Why you can't make a computer that feels pain. Synthese. 1978;38(3):415-56.

346. Block N. On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behav Brain Sci. 1995;18(2):227-47.

347. Kahane G. Pain, dislike and experience. Utilitas. 2009;21(3):327-36.

348. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200-19.

349. Holland O, Knight R. The anthropomimetic principle. In: Proceedings of the AISB symposium on biologically inspired robotics. Brighton: AISB; 2006.

350. Damasio A. Self comes to mind: constructing the conscious brain. New York: Pantheon Books; 2010.

351. Panksepp J. The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: do animals have affective lives? Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35(9):1791-804.

352. Metzinger T. Being no one: the self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.

353. Tononi G. Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. Biol Bull. 2008;215(3):216-42.

354. Sloman A, Chrisley R. Virtual machines and consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 2003;10(4-5):133-72.

355. Rączaszek-Leonardi J, Scott Kelso JA. Reconciling symbolic and dynamic aspects of language: toward a dynamic psycholinguistics. New Ideas Psychol. 2008;26(2):193-207.

356. Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E. The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1991.

357. Metzinger T. The self-model theory of subjectivity: a brief summary with examples. In: Banerjee R, Chakrabarti BK, editors. Models of brain and mind: physical, computational and psychological approaches. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 63-86.

358. Dehaene S, Changeux JP. Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron. 2011;70(2):200-27.

359. Indiveri G, Liu SC. Memory and information processing in neuromorphic systems. Proc IEEE. 2015;103(8):1379-97.

360. Furber S. Large-scale neuromorphic computing systems. J Neural Eng. 2016;13(5):051001.

361. Chalmers DJ. The hard problem of consciousness. In: Schneider S, Velmans M, editors. The Blackwell companion to consciousness. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 32-42.

362. Tononi G, Koch C. Consciousness: here, there and everywhere? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1668):20140167.

363. Nagel T. What is it like to be a bat? Philos Rev. 1974;83(4):435-50.

364. Dehaene S, Lau H, Kouider S. What is consciousness, and could machines have it? Science. 2017;358(6362):486-92.

365. Tononi G, Koch C. The neural correlates of consciousness: an update. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1124:239-61.

366. Strausfeld NJ, Hirth F. Deep homology of arthropod central complex and vertebrate basal ganglia. Science. 2013;340(6129):157-61.

367. Cabanac M, Cabanac AJ, Parent A. The emergence of consciousness in phylogeny. Behav Brain Res. 2009;198(2):267-72.

368. Key B, Brown D. Designing brains for pain: human to mollusc. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1027.

369. Zaki J, Davis JI, Ochsner KN. Overlapping activity in anterior insula during interoception and emotional experience. Neuroimage. 2012;62(1):493-9.

370. Zaki J, Ochsner KN, Hanelin J, Wager TD, Mackey SC. Different circuits for different pain: patterns of functional connectivity reveal distinct networks for processing pain in self and others. Soc Neurosci. 2007;2(3-4):276-91.

371. Lieberman MD, Eisenberger NI. The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is selective for pain: results from large-scale reverse inference. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112(49):15250-5.

372. MacDonald G, Leary MR. Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychol Bull. 2005;131(2):202-23.

373. Semino E. Descriptions of pain, metaphor, and embodied simulation. Metaphor Symbol. 2010;25(4):205-26.

374. Nummenmaa L, Glerean E, Hari R, Hietanen JK. Bodily maps of emotions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(2):646-51.

375. Anand KJ, Scalzo FM. Can adverse neonatal experiences alter brain development and subsequent behavior? Biol Neonate. 2000;77(2):69-82.

376. Schore AN. Affect regulation and the origin of the self: the neurobiology of emotional development. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1994.

377. Rochat P. The infant's world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2001.

378. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200-19.

379. Clark A. A nice surprise? Predictive processing and the active pursuit of novelty. Phenomenol Cogn Sci. 2018;17(3):521-34.

380. Barrett LF. The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017;12(1):1-23.

381. Panksepp J, Biven L. The archaeology of mind: neuroevolutionary origins of human emotions. New York: W.W. Norton & Company; 2012.

382. Lumley MA, Schubiner H, Lockhart NA, Kidwell KM, Harte SE, Clauw DJ, et al. Emotional awareness and expression therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and education for fibromyalgia: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2017;158(12):2354-63.

383. Zeidan F, Vago DR. Mindfulness meditation-based pain relief: a mechanistic account. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1373(1):114-27.

384. Metzinger T. Being no one: the self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.

385. Tononi G. Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. Biol Bull. 2008;215(3):216-42.

386. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200-19.

387. Zahavi D. Subjectivity and selfhood: investigating the first-person perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.

388. Seth AK. Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013;17(11):565-73.

389. Craig AD. How do you feel--now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(1):59-70.

390. Damasio A. Self comes to mind: constructing the conscious brain. New York: Pantheon Books; 2010.

391. Sartre JP. Being and nothingness. New York: Washington Square Press; 1956.

392. Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge; 1962.

393. Zahavi D. Subjectivity and selfhood: investigating the first-person perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.

394. Cabanac M, Cabanac AJ, Parent A. The emergence of consciousness in phylogeny. Behav Brain Res. 2009;198(2):267-72.

395. Edelman GM, Tononi G. A universe of consciousness: how matter becomes imagination. New York: Basic Books; 2000.

396. Dennett DC. Consciousness explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1991.

397. Seth AK, Suzuki K, Critchley HD. An interoceptive predictive coding model of conscious presence. Front Psychol. 2012;2:395.

398. Friston K. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11(2):127-38.

399. Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(8):655-66.

400. Metzinger T. The self-model theory of subjectivity: a brief summary with examples. In: Banerjee R, Chakrabarti BK, editors. Models of brain and mind: physical, computational and psychological approaches. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 63-86.

401. Legrand D. Pre-reflective self-consciousness: on being bodily in the world. Janus Head. 2007;9(2):493-519.

402. Thompson E. Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2007.

403. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200-19.

404. Cabanac M, Cabanac AJ, Parent A. The emergence of consciousness in phylogeny. Behav Brain Res. 2009;198(2):267-72.

405. Dennett DC. Quining qualia. In: Marcel AJ, Bisiach E, editors. Consciousness in contemporary science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988. p. 42-77.

406. Thompson E. Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2007.

407. Gallup GG Jr. Self-awareness and the evolution of social intelligence. Behav Processes. 1998;42(2-3):239-47.

408. Zahavi D. Subjectivity and selfhood: investigating the first-person perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.

409. Bayne T, Chalmers DJ. What is the unity of consciousness? In: Cleeremans A, editor. The unity of consciousness: binding, integration, and dissociation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 23-58.

410. Tononi G. Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. Biol Bull. 2008;215(3):216-42.

411. Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E. The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1991.

412. Fuchs T. The phenomenology of body memory. In: Koch SC, Fuchs T, Summa M, Müller C, editors. Body memory, metaphor and movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing; 2012. p. 9-22.

413. Sloman A, Chrisley R. Virtual machines and consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 2003;10(4-5):133-72.

414. Tononi G, Koch C. Consciousness: here, there and everywhere? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1668):20140167.

415. Thompson E. Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2007.

416. Grahek N. Feeling pain and being in pain. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007.

417. Barrett LF. The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017;12(1):1-23.

418. Butler AB, Hodos W. Comparative vertebrate neuroanatomy: evolution and adaptation. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.

419. Rose JD, Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Diggles BK, Sawynok W, Stevens ED, et al. Can fish really feel pain? Fish Fish. 2014;15(1):97-133.

420. Key B. Why fish do not feel pain. Anim Sentience. 2016;1(3):1.

421. Tononi G, Koch C. Consciousness: here, there and everywhere? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1668):20140167.

422. Sneddon LU, Lopez-Luna J, Wolfenden DCC, Leach MC, Valentim AM, Steenbergen PJ, et al. Fish sentience denial: muddying the waters. Anim Sentience. 2018;3(21):1.

423. Gallup GG Jr. Self-awareness and the evolution of social intelligence. Behav Processes. 1998;42(2-3):239-47.

424. Rochat P. The infant's world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2001.

425. Northoff G, Heinzel A, de Greck M, Bermpohl F, Dobrowolny H, Panksepp J. Self-referential processing in our brain—a meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self. Neuroimage. 2006;31(1):440-57.

426. Chalmers DJ. The hard problem of consciousness. In: Schneider S, Velmans M, editors. The Blackwell companion to consciousness. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 32-42.

427. Bostrom N, Yudkowsky E. The ethics of artificial intelligence. In: Frankish K, Ramsey WM, editors. The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 316-34.

428. Tononi G, Koch C. Consciousness: here, there and everywhere? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1668):20140167.

429. Panksepp J. Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

430. Schore AN. Affect regulation and the origin of the self: the neurobiology of emotional development. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1994.

431. Butler AB, Hodos W. Comparative vertebrate neuroanatomy: evolution and adaptation. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.

432. Tononi G. Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. Biol Bull. 2008;215(3):216-42.

433. Lumley MA, Schubiner H, Lockhart NA, Kidwell KM, Harte SE, Clauw DJ, et al. Emotional awareness and expression therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and education for fibromyalgia: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2017;158(12):2354-63.

434. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200-19.

435. Grahek N. Feeling pain and being in pain. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007.

436. Metzinger T. Being no one: the self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.

437. Butler AB, Hodos W. Comparative vertebrate neuroanatomy: evolution and adaptation. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.

438. Cabanac M, Cabanac AJ, Parent A. The emergence of consciousness in phylogeny. Behav Brain Res. 2009;198(2):267-72.

439. Tracey I, Mantyh PW. The cerebral signature for pain perception and its modulation. Neuron. 2007;55(3):377-91.

440. Price DD. Psychological and neural mechanisms of the affective dimension of pain. Science. 2000;288(5472):1769-72.

441. Eisenberger NI. The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(6):421-34.

442. Lieberman MD, Eisenberger NI. The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is selective for pain: results from large-scale reverse inference. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112(49):15250-5.

443. Panksepp J, Watt D. Why does depression hurt? Ancestral primary-process separation-distress (PANIC/GRIEF) and diminished brain reward (SEEKING) in the genesis of depressive affect. Psychiatry. 2011;74(1):5-13.

444. Klein C. What the body commands: the imperative theory of pain. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2015.

445. Damasio A. Self comes to mind: constructing the conscious brain. New York: Pantheon Books; 2010.

446. Bostrom N, Yudkowsky E. The ethics of artificial intelligence. In: Frankish K, Ramsey WM, editors. The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 316-34.

447. Tononi G, Koch C. Consciousness: here, there and everywhere? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1668):20140167.

448. Panksepp J. Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

449. Damasio A, Carvalho GB. The nature of feelings: evolutionary and neurobiological origins. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(2):143-52.

450. Barrett LF. The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017;12(1):1-23.

451. Panksepp J. Cross-species affective neuroscience decoding of the primal affective experiences of humans and related animals. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e21236.

452. Eisenberger NI. The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(6):421-34.

453. Nummenmaa L, Glerean E, Hari R, Hietanen JK. Bodily maps of emotions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(2):646-51.

454. Cabanac M, Cabanac AJ, Parent A. The emergence of consciousness in phylogeny. Behav Brain Res. 2009;198(2):267-72.

455. Craig AD. How do you feel--now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(1):59-70.

456. Zahavi D. Subjectivity and selfhood: investigating the first-person perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.

457. Damasio A. Self comes to mind: constructing the conscious brain. New York: Pantheon Books; 2010.

458. Tononi G. Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. Biol Bull. 2008;215(3):216-42.

459. Bostrom N, Yudkowsky E. The ethics of artificial intelligence. In: Frankish K, Ramsey WM, editors. The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 316-34.

460. Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E. The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1991.

461. Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(8):655-66.

462. Lumley MA, Schubiner H, Lockhart NA, Kidwell KM, Harte SE, Clauw DJ, et al. Emotional awareness and expression therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and education for fibromyalgia: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2017;158(12):2354-63.

463. Zeidan F, Vago DR. Mindfulness meditation-based pain relief: a mechanistic account. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1373(1):114-27.

464. Eisenberger NI. Social pain and the brain: controversies, questions, and where to go from here. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015;66:601-29.

465. DeWall CN, MacDonald G, Webster GD, Masten CL, Baumeister RF, Powell C, et al. Acetaminophen reduces social pain: behavioral and neural evidence. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(7):931-7.

466. Sloman A, Chrisley R. Virtual machines and consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 2003;10(4-5):133-72.

467. Bostrom N, Yudkowsky E. The ethics of artificial intelligence. In: Frankish K, Ramsey WM, editors. The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 316-34.

468. Shriver A. The asymmetry of animal ethics. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2014;27(6):991-7.

469. Allen C, Trestman M. Animal consciousness. In: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University; 2016.

470. Moseley GL, Butler DS. Fifteen years of explaining pain: the past, present, and future. J Pain. 2015;16(9):807-13.

471. Louw A, Diener I, Butler DS, Puentedura EJ. The effect of neuroscience education on pain, disability, anxiety, and stress in chronic musculoskeletal pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(12):2041-56.

472. Lumley MA, Schubiner H, Lockhart NA, Kidwell KM, Harte SE, Clauw DJ, et al. Emotional awareness and expression therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and education for fibromyalgia: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2017;158(12):2354-63.

473. Grahek N. Feeling pain and being in pain. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007.

474. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200-19.

475. Zahavi D. Subjectivity and selfhood: investigating the first-person perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.

476. Varela FJ, Thompson E, Rosch E. The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1991.

477. Damasio A. Looking for Spinoza: joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Orlando: Harcourt; 2003.

478. Craig AD. A new view of pain as a homeostatic emotion. Trends Neurosci. 2003;26(6):303-7.

479. Eisenberger NI. The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(6):421-34.

480. Panksepp J. Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

481. Bostrom N, Yudkowsky E. The ethics of artificial intelligence. In: Frankish K, Ramsey WM, editors. The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 316-34.

482. Metzinger T. Being no one: the self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.

483. Levy D. The ethical treatment of artificially conscious robots. Int J Soc Robot. 2009;1(3):209-16.

484. Nagel T. What is it like to be a bat? Philos Rev. 1974;83(4):435-50.

485. Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200-19.

486. Levine J. Materialism and qualia: the explanatory gap. Pac Philos Q. 1983;64(4):354-61.

487. Damasio A. Self comes to mind: constructing the conscious brain. New York: Pantheon Books; 2010.

488. Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(8):655-66.

AI Reasoning

Claude 3.7

This request asks me to write a full PhD thesis on the topic of pain - its origins, evolutionary development, and link to emotions. The user has provided some preliminary direction about disgust as a co-opted emotion and mirror neurons, as well as some specific questions and themes they'd like me to address:

1. How did pain evolve?
2. How are emotions like fear, loneliness, and despair linked to physical sensations in organs?
3. The idea that pain is the canonical origin of all feelings
4. Who/what is the "observer" that feels pain?
5. Is feeling pain the origin of self-awareness?
6. Could AIs eventually develop pain sensors and feelings?

The user wants me to follow Vancouver style for references and to explore even speculative ideas since the field is still developing.

This is a substantial request that requires a comprehensive, well-structured academic document. I'll need to create a full PhD thesis structure including:

1. Title page
2. Abstract
3. Table of contents
4. Introduction
5. Literature review
6. Methodology (if applicable)
7. Multiple chapters covering the main topics
8. Discussion
9. Conclusion
10. References

The topic is complex and interdisciplinary, spanning evolutionary biology, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and potentially AI/computational approaches. I'll need to incorporate existing research while addressing the speculative questions the user is interested in.

I'll use Vancouver style for citations, which means using numbered references in order of first appearance in the text. I'll create a comprehensive reference list at the end following Vancouver format.

For the content, I'll focus on:

• The evolutionary origins of pain (nociception vs. pain experience)
• The neurobiology of pain
• The relationship between pain and emotions
• The development of pain perception across species
• The philosophical aspects of pain (qualia, consciousness)
• Speculation about AI and pain (carefully framed)

I'll need to create an artifact for this since it will be a substantial document.

Peer Review - 03 Reviewer

Evaluating dissertation quality

The thesis is 40 pages, and though described as a systematic review, the methodology needs a closer look to verify systematic elements like search strategy, inclusion criteria, and bias risk. I'll need to provide a detailed review focusing on strengths and weaknesses, including conceptual merits, clarity, and methodology. I'll provide a structured report outlining the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, comments on each section, and a recommendation for publication suitability (major revisions, reject, etc.).

Citing and critiquing thesis

I need to reference the thesis file properly, ensuring at least one citation marker is included. I'll also mention that external sources aren't necessary, as the focus is on critiquing the thesis itself. But I could use them to strengthen my review, if needed. However, citing the thesis is my priority. In the critique, I'll note that the thesis claims to be a systematic review but lacks essential components like a search strategy, PRISMA flow, and includes limited empirical support. I'll also highlight dated citations and heavy reliance on conceptual philosophers.

Peer-Review Report
Manuscript: Pain – Origins, Evolution and Link to Emotions
Reviewer: [redacted] Date: 6 May 2025

1 Summary of the Work

The dissertation argues that pain is the “canonical” feeling from which all other affective states and even phenomenal consciousness evolved. It weaves evidence from evolutionary biology, comparative neuro-anatomy, affective neuroscience, philosophy of mind, developmental psychology and speculative quantum theories, and closes with reflections on artificial pain and machine consciousness. The document is presented as a systematic review but functions primarily as a broad conceptual synthesis.

2 Editorial Recommendation

Major Revision — The thesis contains original, ambitious ideas and an impressive command of disparate literatures, yet falls short of methodological rigour and evidential balance expected by top journals (e.g. Nature Reviews Neuroscience or Trends in Cognitive Sciences). Substantial restructuring and additional empirical work are required before publication.

3 Major Strengths

4 Major Concerns (Must Be Addressed)

5 Minor & Section-Specific Comments

6 Suitability for a Top-Tier Journal

Positive indicators: ambition, interdisciplinarity, topicality (pain & AI).
Negative indicators: methodological deficits, speculative overreach, imbalanced evidence review. A first-round desk reject is likely unless major issues (M1–M5) are rectified.

7 Essential Revision Checklist

1. Decide on article type – downgrade to narrative/theoretical review or retrofit full systematic methods.
2. Provide transparent methodology – databases searched, keywords, PRISMA diagram, bias appraisal, evidence tables.
3. Integrate counter-evidence – especially recent challenges to the “pain matrix” concept and debates on lower-vertebrate sentience.
4. Tone down speculative sections – clearly label conjecture; defer quantum accounts to future work unless empirical data are added.
5. Include figures & tables – evolutionary timeline, shared neural circuitry diagram, comparative species table, etc.
6. Tighten prose and reference list – eliminate rhetorical flourishes, correct citation errors, update to 2024-25 literature.
7. Clarify clinical/AI implications – specify actionable hypotheses or experimental designs that follow from the theory.

8 Conclusion

The dissertation is intellectually bold and could make a meaningful contribution if rebuilt on a firmer empirical foundation. I encourage the candidate to embrace these criticisms as a roadmap: a fearless, meticulous revision will elevate the work from an ambitious manifesto to a publishable scholarly contribution.

End of Report