Yes Stathis, you are right, 'noxious stimulus' and
'experience' are indeed separable - but - if you want to
do an analysis of comparing, its important to identify
global parameters and potential analogs.
My last post's example tried to address those components.
I've seen stress diagrams of different architectural
structures that show high vs low 'load' loci. And
what always struck my thoughts was that they analog
'pressure -sensing-' of living systems images.
The 'whole' of a building is 'sensitive' to all
distribution of structure pressures throughout.
Any cybernetic (sensory "interpretation") comes
afterward. (per your last remarks).
In both living and non-living systems, electromagnetic
bonds - stretched away from balance; or, broken ;
or, hyperstimulated - ARE the 'sources' of
are the 'noxious stimuli'.
Which brings us back to my original point. That
current 'computing systems' do NOT include sensitivity
or monitoring of the hardware IN-which the software
runs; living systems are so hyperintegrated that
'signals' ARE environment-sensitive (structure sensitive).
The design philosophies are different and in the end
not compatible/matchable, in my view.
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Jamie Rose writes:
> > Stathis,
> > As I was reading your comments this morning, an example
> > crossed my mind that might fit your description of in-place
> > code lines that monitor 'disfunction' and exist in-situ as
> > a 'pain' alert .. that would be error evaluating 'check-sum'
> > computations.
> > In a functional way, parallel check-summing, emulates at least
> > the first part of an 'experience pain' rete .. the initial
> > establishment of a signal message 'something is wrong'.
> > What I'm getting at is that the question could be
> > approached best by not retrofitting to 'experiential
> > qualia' .. where we don't have a reasonable way to
> > specify the different systems' 'experiencing', but we
> > do have a way to identify analogs of process.
> > For example - its possible to identify in architecture
> > and materiales where 'points of highest stress' occur.
> > The physicality of structures may indeed internally be
> > "experiencing" higher-pressure nodes as 'pain' - where
> > the only lack in the chain of our interaction with
> > 'inanimate' structures, is OUR lack-of -wisdom in
> > recognizing that those stress point are in fact
> > 'pain-points' for those kinds of systems.
> > For living systems, the nature of the neural connections is
> > that the communication lines are still raw and open - back
> > to the locus of the problem (pain site). In non-living
> > structures, any break or disruption totally shuts down
> > the back-reporting -- 'pain' disappears when all communication
> > 'about' the pain-source is taken away or simply breaks down.
> Except that the relationship between the pain perception and the
> noxious stimulus is not a necessary one. Various neurological conditions
> can leave the noxious stimulus but remove the pain, leave the pain but
> remove the noxious stimulus, even switch sensory modalities so that
> normally painful stimuli are perceived as pleasurable and vice-versa.
> It seems that just certain groups of cortical neurons firing is enough to
> cause pain, and it seems that this quality is intrinsic to those neurons,
> ready for the first painful experience. So the noxious stimulus does not
> seem essential for the pain experience, and there is no reason to think
> that a non-living structure undergoing stress experiences pain since it
> lacks any evolved or designed pain-sensing apparatus.
> Stathis Papaioannou
> Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at