As in consciousness

The field of emotion is a mess. First, definition problem: are emotions sets of behavioral responses or particular inner, conscious feelings? I’m with the latter, because thats the way the word is commonly used. IMO cant address emotion without addressing the function of consciousness.

Important: a behavioral response, such as withdrawal, does not mean the subject feels pain.

... Caveats: 1. response to nociception, such as withdrawal, does not require conscious awareness. 2. The aversiveness of pain is variable. Reports that morphine can leave a subject pain-aware, but without much of a negative hedonic response. 3. Learning affects pain percepts.

Not sure of the thread, but I'll jump in. Important to distinguish 'pain' from 'nociception'. Nociceptors are the peripheral receptors that respond to tissue damage. Pain is in the brain; In general, nociceptor activation leads to pain, an aspect of conscious awareness. (continued).

the knee and the elbow, same joint, modified for different purposes. Also, compare the shoulder and the hip. All joints have big compromises; biggest is that angle of insertion of tendons, permitting action. If wanted strength and efficiency, angles would be much greater; but the design!

Not surprised. Her book about the brain full of serious errors, such as not understanding what a gene is. (different brain region have different/similar genes, when I assume she meant gene products)

Thermostats depend on feedback loops.

2/ for example, the right post-central gyrus represents the surface of the contralateral body. Who is the observer? The neuroscientist looking at the distribution. It "may be" regions of the brain that receive the output of the post-central gyrus — that's a guess. But there is no confusion.

IMO, this is an example where philosophy messes things up. The word 'representation' can be used many ways. 'The US flag represents core US principles of democracy'. Deconstructing the word helps. Re-presents. one distribution --> output to an observer. Re-presents. ... /1

Correction. Objects below the horizon are perceived as nearer and should project to a larger retinal image.

They are not crabs; they are 2d images that resemble the 2d image a real crab makes when reflected light reaches the retina.

I don't understand the mystery. retinas are 2d but we see the world as 3d. Lots of inborn and learned inference. Linear perspective. Objects above the horizontal are perceived as farther (thus should be smaller). Near objects obscure distant objects. Color differences. Sharpness.

As I interpret this, “meaning” is having a world model (“reality”) and interpreting stimuli in terms of the world model. Efficient behavior, conditioning, operant conditioning are not dependent on a world model.

What’s a chart? Similar qs.