I’m unsure that “extreme” would necessarily get a more robust response
I meant robust in the sense of decreasing the number of edge cases where the pain is insufficiently strong to motivate the particular individual as strongly as possible. (Since pain tolerance is variable, etc.) Evolution “wants” pain to be a robust feedback/control mechanism that reliably causes the desired amount of avoidance—in this case, the greatest possible amount.
there comes a point where the pain becomes disabling.
That’s an excellent point. Why would evolution allow (i.e. not select against) the existence of disabling pain (and fear, etc)?
Presumably, in the space of genotypes available for selection—in the long term view, and for animals besides humans—there are no cheap solutions that would have an upper cut-off to pain stimuli (below the point of causing unresponsiveness) without degrading the avoidance response to lower levels of pain.
There is also the cutoff argument: a (non-human) animal can’t normally survive e.g. the loss of a limb, so it doesn’t matter how much pain exactly it feels in that scenario. Some cases of disabling pain fall in this category.
Finally, evolution can’t counteract human ingenuity in torture, because humans act on much smaller timescales. It is to be expected that humans who are actively trying to cause pain (or to imagine how to do so) will succeed in causing amounts of pain beyond most anything found in nature.
Evolution “wants” pain to be a robust feedback/control mechanism that reliably causes the desired amount of avoidance—in this case, the greatest possible amount.
I feel that there’s going to be a level of pain for which a mind of nearly any level of pain tolerance would exert 100% of its energy to avoid. I don’t think I know enough to comment on how much further than this level the brain can go, but it’s unclear why the brain would develop the capacity to process pain drastically more intense than this; pain is just a tool to avoid certain things, and it ceases to become useful past a certain point.
There are no cheap solutions that would have an upper cut-off to pain stimuli (below the point of causing unresponsiveness) without degrading the avoidance response to lower levels of pain.
I’m imagining a level of pain above that which causes unresponsiveness, I think. Perhaps I’m imagining something more extreme than your “extreme”?
It is to be expected that humans who are actively trying to cause pain (or to imagine how to do so) will succeed in causing amounts of pain beyond most anything found in nature.
it’s unclear why the brain would develop the capacity to process pain drastically more intense than this
The brain doesn’t have the capacity to correctly process extreme pain. That’s why it becomes unresponsive or acts counterproductively.
The brain has the capacity to perceive extreme pain. This might be because:
The brain has many interacting subsystems; the one(s) that react to pain stop working before the ones that perceive it
The range of perceivable pain (that is, the range in which we can distinguish stronger from weaker pain) is determined by implementation details of the neural system. If there was an evolutionary benefit to increasing the range, we would expect that to happen. But if the range is greater than necessary, that doesn’t mean there’s an evolutionary benefit to decreasing it; the simplest/most stable solution stays in place.
I meant robust in the sense of decreasing the number of edge cases where the pain is insufficiently strong to motivate the particular individual as strongly as possible. (Since pain tolerance is variable, etc.) Evolution “wants” pain to be a robust feedback/control mechanism that reliably causes the desired amount of avoidance—in this case, the greatest possible amount.
That’s an excellent point. Why would evolution allow (i.e. not select against) the existence of disabling pain (and fear, etc)?
Presumably, in the space of genotypes available for selection—in the long term view, and for animals besides humans—there are no cheap solutions that would have an upper cut-off to pain stimuli (below the point of causing unresponsiveness) without degrading the avoidance response to lower levels of pain.
There is also the cutoff argument: a (non-human) animal can’t normally survive e.g. the loss of a limb, so it doesn’t matter how much pain exactly it feels in that scenario. Some cases of disabling pain fall in this category.
Finally, evolution can’t counteract human ingenuity in torture, because humans act on much smaller timescales. It is to be expected that humans who are actively trying to cause pain (or to imagine how to do so) will succeed in causing amounts of pain beyond most anything found in nature.
I feel that there’s going to be a level of pain for which a mind of nearly any level of pain tolerance would exert 100% of its energy to avoid. I don’t think I know enough to comment on how much further than this level the brain can go, but it’s unclear why the brain would develop the capacity to process pain drastically more intense than this; pain is just a tool to avoid certain things, and it ceases to become useful past a certain point.
I’m imagining a level of pain above that which causes unresponsiveness, I think. Perhaps I’m imagining something more extreme than your “extreme”?
Yeah, agreed.
The brain doesn’t have the capacity to correctly process extreme pain. That’s why it becomes unresponsive or acts counterproductively.
The brain has the capacity to perceive extreme pain. This might be because:
The brain has many interacting subsystems; the one(s) that react to pain stop working before the ones that perceive it
The range of perceivable pain (that is, the range in which we can distinguish stronger from weaker pain) is determined by implementation details of the neural system. If there was an evolutionary benefit to increasing the range, we would expect that to happen. But if the range is greater than necessary, that doesn’t mean there’s an evolutionary benefit to decreasing it; the simplest/most stable solution stays in place.