I was not clear, but I meant the image suggests âorganismâs resolution from welfare intensity A to Bâ = ânumber of different welfare intensities the organism can experience between A and Bâ/â(BâA), which depends on the organism, A, and B. Is this what you have in mind?
In our upcoming post, we introduce human-anchored reference categories (Annoying(h), Hurtful(h), Disabling(h), Excruciating(h)) to provide a pragmatic shared coordinate system for cross-species discussion. So if one wants to talk about âacuity/âresolution between A and B,â itâs reasonable to treat A and B as positions (or intervals) on that human-anchored scale.
But no â weâre not defining acuity as #levels/â(BâA), because that requires meaningful distances between A and B. At this stage the (h) scale is best treated as ordinal: it supports âhigher/âlower ceilingâ comparisons, not subtraction or ratios.
I worry just 4 human-anchored pain intensities are not enough for reliable comparisons, even for an early stage. For shrimp-anchored annoying pain 10^-6 times as intense as human-anchored annoying pain (the ratio between the individual number of neurons of shrimps and humans), and this 10^-6 times as intense as human-anchored excruciating pain, shrimp-anchored annoying pain would be 10^-12 (= (10^-6)^2) times as intense as human-anchored excruciating pain. It seems super hard to cover such a wide range of pain intensities with any significant reliability using just 4 values?
Thanks Vasco â thatâs a reasonable concern, but I think it assumes a stronger claim than the framework is actually making.
We are not attempting to define a finely resolved ratio scale covering the entire possible range of pain intensities across taxa. The four intensities are intended as coarse phenomenological anchors, chosen as a practical balance between resolution and scientific tractability.
âwe focus on (i) the importance of the pain signal to promote adaptive behaviors and (ii) the disruptive character of the pain experience to classify pain into four discrete categories of intensity [46]. The number of categories was devised to represent a good balance between scientific tractability and resolution, though there is no impediment to the creation of categories intermediate to those presented. Categorizing pain instead of measuring it on a numerical scale of intensity also prevents us from forcing ratings that may not necessarily be linear onto a linear scale.â
So the goal is not to cover the entire theoretical intensity range with fine granularity, but to provide a small number of biologically interpretable categories that can be applied with reasonable consistency. Adding many more levels would only be an improvement if they could be assigned reliably; otherwise it would risk creating false precision.
And importantly, the framework is not committed to four categories as a final solution. If future work supports a better-validated scale with additional intermediate levels, those could be incorporated without difficulty. For now, four levels seem to provide a workable and defensible balance between usability and epistemic caution.
I was not clear, but I meant the image suggests âorganismâs resolution from welfare intensity A to Bâ = ânumber of different welfare intensities the organism can experience between A and Bâ/â(BâA), which depends on the organism, A, and B. Is this what you have in mind?
In our upcoming post, we introduce human-anchored reference categories (Annoying(h), Hurtful(h), Disabling(h), Excruciating(h)) to provide a pragmatic shared coordinate system for cross-species discussion. So if one wants to talk about âacuity/âresolution between A and B,â itâs reasonable to treat A and B as positions (or intervals) on that human-anchored scale.
But no â weâre not defining acuity as #levels/â(BâA), because that requires meaningful distances between A and B. At this stage the (h) scale is best treated as ordinal: it supports âhigher/âlower ceilingâ comparisons, not subtraction or ratios.
I worry just 4 human-anchored pain intensities are not enough for reliable comparisons, even for an early stage. For shrimp-anchored annoying pain 10^-6 times as intense as human-anchored annoying pain (the ratio between the individual number of neurons of shrimps and humans), and this 10^-6 times as intense as human-anchored excruciating pain, shrimp-anchored annoying pain would be 10^-12 (= (10^-6)^2) times as intense as human-anchored excruciating pain. It seems super hard to cover such a wide range of pain intensities with any significant reliability using just 4 values?
Thanks Vasco â thatâs a reasonable concern, but I think it assumes a stronger claim than the framework is actually making.
We are not attempting to define a finely resolved ratio scale covering the entire possible range of pain intensities across taxa. The four intensities are intended as coarse phenomenological anchors, chosen as a practical balance between resolution and scientific tractability.
As we explain in a earlier paper:
So the goal is not to cover the entire theoretical intensity range with fine granularity, but to provide a small number of biologically interpretable categories that can be applied with reasonable consistency. Adding many more levels would only be an improvement if they could be assigned reliably; otherwise it would risk creating false precision.
And importantly, the framework is not committed to four categories as a final solution. If future work supports a better-validated scale with additional intermediate levels, those could be incorporated without difficulty. For now, four levels seem to provide a workable and defensible balance between usability and epistemic caution.