On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:39:33 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Broadback
writes in answer to someone else

That's true - but the system they've evolved is an 'always on' one.
The presence of 'feelings' would surely give rise to a range of
defence/attack mechanisms that would be brought into play at
discretion, in reaction to certain conditions...in the same way that a
little terrier can be a cute, fluffy ball of fun one minute, and a
mass of sharp, pointy teeth the next ( or is that just my dog? ).

If I may steal an idea from an ancient philosopher, how do you know that
nettles do not sting unless something brushes against them?

You mean in the sense that they leap out and jump you?
Could be right there...I always seem to end up getting stung, even
when I know exactly where the nettles are.

What about Venus fly trap, which ignores a prod with a pencil, but
reacts to a live and buzzing fly?

That it can discriminate is perhaps down to a array of finely honed
sensors. I'd bet it wouldn't do so well with, say, an artist's
brush...unless it reacts to a range of frequencies that might be set
up by the beating of an insect's wing?

OK, you may say that is mechanical, but then so are all our senses when
you look at them closely enough.

True...in the sense that there's a reaction to a stimulus, but having
an emotional response is an entirely different kettle of fish ( and
thereby hangs yet another debate ).

Regards ( currently consoling a depressed courgette ),



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk