3 ms·

There is a distinction in biology between sensory perception of noxious stimuli (nociception) and the experience of suffering in response to noxious stimuli. Th

There is a distinction in biology between sensory perception of noxious stimuli (nociception) and the experience of suffering in response to noxious stimuli. The distinction is in higher order brain processing. An organism does not need to experience suffering to react to noxious stimuli: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_reflex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_reflex

Retric 7y ago
Withdraw reflex does not mean learning. You can see this in cases where the withdrawal reflex is repeatedly triggered without learning.
- hackinthebochs 7y ago
  Withdraw reflex also doesn't preclude learning. We see learning in all sorts of reflex arcs that get over-triggered and thus become downregulated. So the fact that the fly "learned" to be more sensitive to noxious stimuli does not rule out a reflex mechanism at play in its behavior.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Down regulated withdrawal reflex is the opposite of avoidance behavior. It’s effectively increasing an organism’s tolerance for putting it’s limb in fire. So, no what you’re describing does not mean learning to avoid stimulus. Learned avoidance behavior really requires a negative perception not just a neutral reflexive one.
    - hackinthebochs 7y ago
      I'm not sure why you're giving my comments such an obtuse reading. My example was to show how learning can happen in a reflex network, thus undermining your claim that learning indicates conscious experience. The issue here is regarding the capabilities of a reflex network. I have established that learning can happen in such networks, as shown by common examples. You have not established that learning avoidance behaviors requires conscious networks.
      - Retric 7y ago
        Because you don’t seem to understand the difference between learning avoidance and reducing sensitivity. (If you notice my first comment I specifically referred to learned avoidance not simply any kind of learning.) Reflexive behavior is a predefined response to a stimulus over some predefined limit and thus on it’s own it’s reactive not predictive. In a purely neutral context there is no reason to increase the response based on the external stimulus. Avoidance requires the ability to predict before a negative response occurs. Without the negative association there is no impetus to increase avoidance. Aka, don’t put your hand in fire is inherently different than how quickly you remove your hand from fire. PS: Reducing sensitivity with exposure is a rather different thing as it helps deal with edge cases. At a meta level, strong constant uncontrollable spasms is extremely unlikely to be an ideal response to a given stimulus.
        hackinthebochs 7y ago
        I see the distinction you're going for, but ultimately it doesn't work. >Avoidance requires the ability to predict before a negative response occurs The article discusses the mechanism by which the "avoidance behavior" they describe is learned. It mentions that the downregulation of inhibitory neurons causes heightened sensitivity to stimuli. But downregulation of inhibitory neurons is the same species of process involved in desensitizaion of reflex arcs, i.e. make a certain set of neurons require a higher threshold for activation. Your assumption that "avoidance behavior" requires something beyond reflex activation doesn't follow. And lets be clear, all learning is predictive. A reflex being upregulated or downregulated is a mechanism of prediction by which an organism's response is modified to more closely correlate with the environment. What you seem to be going for when you use prediction is an organism's mental model of the environment that is detailed enough to associate certain states with negative valence, and behavior planning to avoid entering into such states. In organisms with that level of processing, I agree that an experience of pain is required. But it doesn't follow that any behavior that can be described as predictive requires such mental models.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

Retric 7y ago

Withdraw reflex does not mean learning. You can see this in cases where the withdrawal reflex is repeatedly triggered without learning.

hackinthebochs 7y ago
Withdraw reflex also doesn't preclude learning. We see learning in all sorts of reflex arcs that get over-triggered and thus become downregulated. So the fact that the fly "learned" to be more sensitive to noxious stimuli does not rule out a reflex mechanism at play in its behavior.
- Retric 7y ago
  Down regulated withdrawal reflex is the opposite of avoidance behavior. It’s effectively increasing an organism’s tolerance for putting it’s limb in fire. So, no what you’re describing does not mean learning to avoid stimulus. Learned avoidance behavior really requires a negative perception not just a neutral reflexive one.
  - hackinthebochs 7y ago
    I'm not sure why you're giving my comments such an obtuse reading. My example was to show how learning can happen in a reflex network, thus undermining your claim that learning indicates conscious experience. The issue here is regarding the capabilities of a reflex network. I have established that learning can happen in such networks, as shown by common examples. You have not established that learning avoidance behaviors requires conscious networks.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Because you don’t seem to understand the difference between learning avoidance and reducing sensitivity. (If you notice my first comment I specifically referred to learned avoidance not simply any kind of learning.) Reflexive behavior is a predefined response to a stimulus over some predefined limit and thus on it’s own it’s reactive not predictive. In a purely neutral context there is no reason to increase the response based on the external stimulus. Avoidance requires the ability to predict before a negative response occurs. Without the negative association there is no impetus to increase avoidance. Aka, don’t put your hand in fire is inherently different than how quickly you remove your hand from fire. PS: Reducing sensitivity with exposure is a rather different thing as it helps deal with edge cases. At a meta level, strong constant uncontrollable spasms is extremely unlikely to be an ideal response to a given stimulus.
      - hackinthebochs 7y ago
        I see the distinction you're going for, but ultimately it doesn't work. >Avoidance requires the ability to predict before a negative response occurs The article discusses the mechanism by which the "avoidance behavior" they describe is learned. It mentions that the downregulation of inhibitory neurons causes heightened sensitivity to stimuli. But downregulation of inhibitory neurons is the same species of process involved in desensitizaion of reflex arcs, i.e. make a certain set of neurons require a higher threshold for activation. Your assumption that "avoidance behavior" requires something beyond reflex activation doesn't follow. And lets be clear, all learning is predictive. A reflex being upregulated or downregulated is a mechanism of prediction by which an organism's response is modified to more closely correlate with the environment. What you seem to be going for when you use prediction is an organism's mental model of the environment that is detailed enough to associate certain states with negative valence, and behavior planning to avoid entering into such states. In organisms with that level of processing, I agree that an experience of pain is required. But it doesn't follow that any behavior that can be described as predictive requires such mental models.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]