= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Don't Build Fallout Shelters - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (124)
Here is a relevant paper which lets one estimate the number of bits sufficient to encode pain, by dividing the top firing rate by the baseline firing rate variability of a nociceptor and taking base 2 logarithm (the paper does not do it, but the data is there). My quick guess is that it's at most a few bits (4 to 6), not 20, which is much less sensitive than hearing.
I didn't suggest 20 bits; I suggested 20 distinguishable degrees of discomfort. Medical diagnosis sometimes uses ten, or is that six? which I thought was wrong at the low end — a dust speck is much less discomfort than anyone goes to the doctor for. 4 to 6 bits could encode 16 to 64 degrees of discomfort. I did presume that discomfort is logarithmic (since other senses are), and I conflated pain with irritation, which are not really subjectively the same.
I suppose humans have more than one nociceptor each? ;-)
If your point is that perceived pain is aggregated, you are right, of course. The above analysis is misguided, one should really look at the brain structures that make us perceive torture pain as a long-lasting unpleasant experience. A quick search suggests that the region of the brain primarily responsible for the unpleasantness of pain (as opposed to its perception) is the nociceptive area (area 24) of the Anterior cingulate cortex. I could not find, however, a reasonable way to calculate the dynamic range of the pain affect beyond the usual 10-level scale self-assessment.