do fish feel pain

[Dragon_Lord_Tia]

their is a big debate about fish feeling pain at the momet their is a gold fish in my oscar tank with half is body it must be felling pain
or something that is causeing then much discomforte:confused:

[wetmanNY]

Serious folks don't doubt this. Fish do not feel anxiety about what the future may hold, however. Nor do they take out car loans...

[Dragon_Lord_Tia]

you have to vote or whats the use?:mad:

[jiggerpolebill]

id vote but your choices need to be tweeked first.

[Dr.Guppy]

The choices seem very fair to me. You say either they do, or they dont, or they do with emotion, or they do but only physically. I dont see what could be added or taken away to improve this or make it so it an give a clearer picture. Seemed very well thought out to me, but maybe there is something I am missing.

Here to help,
Michael.

[Dr.Guppy]

Does anyone else get this message when they try to vote:

The action you have attempted could not be performed as your session appears to be invalid. Click the below link to attempt this action again with a new session. ?

I cant seem to be able to vote unfortunately...

[RENEGADE]

wetman is right. its just like if you put your hand on a hot stove it hurts and you move your hand real qiuck.

[slipknottin]

I think the debate is more a question of your definiton of pain.

If you consider pain any reaction you have to something that hurts then yes, fish feel pain.

If you consider pain only as a concious psychological sensation, then fish dont feel pain.

Fish do react to stimulus, but they do not have the psychological sensation of pain.

[audio77]

i KNOW they do. kinda grusome, but... have any of you gone fishing before? i can remember back when i was a kid goin fishing and comming home and cleaning them. when the knife went in, they might tense up, curl their tail, maybe wiggle a bit. it was very obvious they felt pain. fish arent the most simple animal, but i believe any animal/critter feels pain. ever split a worm? what does it do...squirm, rithe around... its feeling it.

just my $.02

[slipknottin]

audio- seeing a fish wiggle or tense up is not an indication of pain. Most likely it is a set reaction they have to escape danger.

[skeletalmachine]

It would seem to me that the psychological sensation of pain would be getting angry, upset, scared, turned on or whatever. Our emotional reaction to pain is totally dependant on the situation. There is one thing that all painful experiences have in common, however, and that is the hurt. A burn always feels like a burn, a cut like a cut. I can't see it being any different (or less painful) for the fish.

[audio77]

hmm.. i mean i dont know, obviously i've never asked a fish, but even if i did, i'm guessing it wouldnt know english. it just seems like the fish responded to the knife like i would. if i had novacaine(sp?) or something i wouldnt react that way cause i wouldnt be feeling the pain. but since i could feel the pain, i would try to move, or cringe or whatever. ya know?

[slipknottin]

the psychological sensation of pain is exactly what it sounds like. You being able to feel pain. Your reaction to it will be different than the reaction of fish, as humans are conciously aware and can modify their reactions based on their advanced celebral cortex. Fish are the simplest vertebrates and are not conciously aware. They have no feelings, no misery, no pain. They react to stimulus with either fight or flight, as most animals do. If your arm was numb, a cut wouldnt still be painful neither would a burn. You would still know it was there yes, but it wouldnt give you an unpleasent sensation we refer to as pain.


audio- people do react when they are unconcious or they dont feel pain. Like when you go to the dentist and they numb your teeth. Most likely you still feel the drill and cringe. However, if the novicane is working, you do not feel the pain associated with it.

[125gJoe]

http://gordon.sourcecod.com/images/flagicons/american_flag.gif
Ok - I voted.. (even though words used in the poll are not neutral, therefore not very fair)

Now - who wants to bring up banning all fishing! :mad:

[slipknottin]

yea, the poll is pretty biased.

Those of you that put down "they feel pain physically". Its an emotional response. You cant "physically" feel pain.

Considering that the definiton of physically is "Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit"

And pain as we know it is an unpleasent sensation that comes from your brain. Pain is 100% psychological.

[TomFromStLouis]

Originally posted by slipknottin
yea, the poll is pretty biased.

Those of you that put down "they feel pain physically". Its an emotional response. You cant "physically" feel pain.

Considering that the definiton of physically is "Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit"

And pain as we know it is an unpleasent sensation that comes from your brain. Pain is 100% psychological.

I cannot fully understand this view. It is almost like a distinction withut a difference to me. Nerves transmit messages from the area of concern to the brain; this is an electrical/physical reality. The brain converts that electrical message into more and different messages ("remove hand from flame!"); this part is clearly mental or 'psychological'. Any animal with nerve endings gets the signals. The conversion of those signals by the brain into feelings like "ouch, that hurts!" is what the fish-feel-no-pain folks hang on I think.

I think fish get the nerve signals but could agree that they don't have 'feelings'. Still, they 'understand' when something is wrong and bad for them and those signals tap into that section of the brain. So, in summary, they get nerve impulses that they know means 'get away from here' - that is close enough to feeling pain for me.

[slipknottin]

They are distinct things.

Take alot of pain killers. Go walk into a chair. You dont feel any pain but you still know you walked into the chair.

Fish dont have a developed cerebral cortex that is responsible for being aware and sensations such as pain. They are brainstem dominated. They see a threat and they choose to fight or flee.

[Heady]

Not true. I saw a Nova or Discovery Channel special on this. The knee-jerk reaction of quickly grabbing your hand away from a hot griddle is NOT something run by your brain. Pain such as this only makes it as far as your spinal cord before forcing you into action. The pain message cannot go all the way to your brain, wait for your brain to make a decision, and then send the message to your hand that it needs to move... That instantaneous reaction to grab your hand away has to be automatic or you might get a bad enough burn that you actually lose the use of your hand. Only after you're already removing your hand from the burning griddle does your brain get the message "****, that's hot".

IMO, fish MUST feel pain. Think about it. Say a larger fish comes along and takes a bite at his tail. Yeah, he'll flinch away, but then he will also avoid that size/type of fish in the future, because he associates the sensation of pain with that fish. Natural selection would weed out any fish that experienced pain but survived only to get right back into the same situation all over again because it didn't have any lasting memory of the pain.

Granted, fish don't have much of a thought process, but they feel pain sure as you and I do. And it has to be more than just a automatic flinch response, or all fish would have been wiped out long ago.

[slipknottin]

I dont think your arguing with me on your first part of that response, and I agree. All animals will react to threatening stimuli before any concious awarness of the situation. The spinal cord and brain stem respond to this stimuli. (Not pain, the spine and brain stem have nothing to do with sensations of pain)

All animals will react to irritating stimuli, but not all animals have the capacity to sense what the stimuli is in response to. Why must pain be experienced for a fish to flee from irritating or threatening stimuli?

[SBee]

"The knee-jerk reaction of quickly grabbing your hand away from a hot griddle is NOT something run by your brain. "


ALL actions , even reflexes, have their origins in the brain. It's which PART of the brain that is important.

Reflexes such as the one above are controlled by the brain STEM, which is indeed a part of the brain, not the spinal cord.

[slipknottin]

reaction to nociceptive stimuli in vertebrates are controlled both by the brain stem and spinal cord.

[skeletalmachine]

I think it's only fair that if you are going to use advanced biology terms that you post the link to the paper you are quoting.

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

Very informative. I recommend anyone interested on this subject read it through.

slipnottin: Quoted was a bad word, I meant that you are making the exact same case as the article and I assumed that you had read it. It is very clear that you understood the article and are not merely cut and pasting. I was suggesting that you define or post a link to the definition of nociceptive as it is a purely scientific term (and an important term for this thread).

[slipknottin]

I havent quoted that article at all. :D

[RENEGADE]

at lest we all agree that fish don't have emotional pain. can you imagine if your fish got depressed becuase you forgot to feed it!!!!

[Dragon_Lord_Tia]

i would have to say fish feel pain emotionaly for example
i had 6 discus in a tank down at the shop and miss grant my former teacher came in and braught 2 dragon discus and a blue discus which left 3 ,2 blue and 1 dragon and for about 2 weeks that dragon discus sat on the bottom for the tank only coming up to eat once a day instead of 3.till miss grant came back in and got that last dragon discus and she invited me and a few of my old class mates over for a reunion sort of thing and what did i see
THE 3rd DRAGON DISCUS WITH THE OTHER 2 SWIMING AROUND HAPPY AS COULD BE now you can say hile that fish was on his own with the 2 other discus he wasnt feeling the "emotional" side of pain.

plus your saying slipnottin if a molly was half eaten by a oscar or a piranha it wouldnt feel pain thats just stupid

the molly was just selected of the top of my head

[Heady]

The spinal cord is responsible for the body's quick withdrawal of a limb that's being seriously injured. The message that the limb is being injured is also being sent to the brain, but the spinal cord is what sends the instantaneous message that you must immediately withdraw your hand from that flame.

"Messages about severe pain, however, especially pain that’s linked to an immediate danger, get passed by the “switch” directly to the brain by the fastest possible route. Meanwhile, other nerve cells in the spinal cord also react to this emergency message by triggering other parts of the nervous systems into action, such as the motor nerves. For example: if a person accidentally sticks their finger into a flame, the pain signal would be sent through the switch directly to that person’s brain--plus their motor nerves would also signal their muscles to snatch your finger away from the harmful fire."

http://www.pain-research.org/mechanics.html

"You might be sewing on a button when suddenly you're aware that you've been stabbed by the needle. You quickly pull your hand away. The body reacts to situations like that by reflex.

Normally a nerve impulse first goes to the brain, f.ex. if you have to go to the bathroom. The brain analyzes the impulse and decides what should be done. Reflexes react differently. They don't activate the thinking part of the brain. The nerve impulse, in this case pain from the needle, goes straight to the spinal cord. The spinal cord transfers the impulse directly to the nerve that gives the arm muscle a message to pull the hand away from the needle."

http://www.experimentarium.dk/uk/naturvidenskab_og_teknik/artikler/artikel.176.html

"A pain in the foot sends messages to the spinal cord which are relayed to stimulate the flexor muscles which pull the limb toward the body and to inhibit the extensor muscles which take the limb away. Result: a reflex action to pull away from the cause of pain. "

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/fitzgerald/

"If an able-bodied person touches a hot stove, the pain causes the muscles to jerk the hand away. This action is caused by a spinal cord reflex. "

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/sciweb/anat/anat4.htm

Anyway, that's besides the point. The question asked was, do fish feel pain? I believe they do.

As far as euthenasia is concerned, I will try my best to treat whatever the problem is, but if I can't, I try to make sure my pets have as painless a death as I can manage.

This helps me sleep better at night, regardless of whether they feel pain or not.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by Heady

"You might be sewing on a button when suddenly you're aware that you've been stabbed by the needle. You quickly pull your hand away. The body reacts to situations like that by reflex.



If fish arent aware, how do they recognize this as pain?


For example: if a person accidentally sticks their finger into a flame, the pain signal would be sent through the switch directly to that person’s brain--plus their motor nerves would also signal their muscles to snatch your finger away from the harmful fire."

Be careful what you refer to these stimuli as. They are not "pain signals." Injurious stimuli that usually lead to pain experience are called nociceptive stimuli.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by Dragon_Lord_Tia
i would have to say fish feel pain emotionaly for example
i had 6 discus in a tank down at the shop and miss grant my former teacher came in and braught 2 dragon discus and a blue discus which left 3 ,2 blue and 1 dragon and for about 2 weeks that dragon discus sat on the bottom for the tank only coming up to eat once a day instead of 3.till miss grant came back in and got that last dragon discus and she invited me and a few of my old class mates over for a reunion sort of thing and what did i see
THE 3rd DRAGON DISCUS WITH THE OTHER 2 SWIMING AROUND HAPPY AS COULD BE now you can say hile that fish was on his own with the 2 other discus he wasnt feeling the "emotional" side of pain.
What exactly are you indicating? That the fish was emotionally attached to the other fish and wouldnt eat otherwise? What proof of this do you have other than a fish eating when it has tankmates? Seems very possible the fish felt more secure in its envoriment, I dont see why you couldnt believe that this is a simple behavioral reaction it had to what it observed or felt with its senses.


plus your saying slipnottin if a molly was half eaten by a oscar or a piranha it wouldnt feel pain thats just stupid


Good to know you actually take a logical approach to this instead of just claming anything you dont like to be "stupid". I really wish schools throughout the world taught more logic classes...

[slipknottin]

I really find it quite odd that so many have voted in the poll yet very few have posted in the thread to prove their case.

Im assuming this is because they have a prejudice of animals feeling pain based on their own experiences of pain. It seems logical that none of them want to prove their case simply because they believe there is no case for them to prove!

[Heady]

Just because we can't speak to animals to discuss whether they have pain or not, does not mean they are just empty bags of water with nothing more than programmed knee-jerk reactions to stimuli.

Both human beings and fish are (different) types of animals. We (the human animals) know how we react to pain stimuli. Since animals cannot speak to us, we must observe them when they are in situations that would cause us pain and see whether (and how) they react. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that if they have similar reactions and/or feelings to extremely strong stimuli such as losing a limb or being eaten alive by a larger animal, that it is quite likely they are feeling pain.

I think what Dragon_Lord_Tia was trying to say is that if a fish has been half-eaten, but is still alive, that it would be a little silly to say the fish feels nothing at all. (I would have to agree on that point.)

We cannot discuss with infants whether they feel pain or not. Does this mean they cannot feel pain? What about a person who does not speak your language? You cannot communicate with them, so do they not feel pain? What about mentally challenged people such as those with autism? Does this also mean that dolphins and apes, which are generally considered intelligent animals, cannot feel pain since they can't communicate freely with us?

It is my contention that just because an animal cannot say "****, that hurts, could you stop that?" Does not mean they do not feel pain. IMO it is better to be on the safe side and treat them as if they feel pain rather than to treat them as if they don't, only to find out later that all those creatures have been tortured needlessly because of my callousness.

It seems many (though not all) biologists have the viewpoint that animals cannot feel pain. This is probably what allieves their conscience when they do horribly gruesome surgical experiments on living creatures, which seems to be the custom when getting advanced degrees in biology. Although I loved animals and desperately wanted to learn more about them, these kinds of experiments are the main reason I chose Chemistry instead of Biology as my focus when getting my Bachelor's degree.

Anyway, it seems slipknottin and I will never agree, so I think I'm going to end my part of this discussion, after I've put in my $0.02 but before it turns into a flame war between people who feel strongly on each side.

Heady out.

[slipknottin]

I had already asked you not to refer to it as "pain stimuli" as it doesnt cause pain. Its the chemicals emitted in the brain that your aware of when you feel pain.

Your attempting to change the argument with a poor appeal to peoples morals or values. This is not a debate of morals or values, this is actually not even a debate. Technically to be a debate both sides need to have proficient evidence and understanding of their case. That isnt whats going on here.

There is an obvious prejudice where people will refuse to accept that some animals are not conciously aware or cant feel pain. There is no indication that fish do feel pain. Attempting to change the emphasis of the debate by explaning how you, personally, dont know if infants feel pain does not support your argument. Your attempt to argue that we can not communicate with them means we dont know is certainly not true. We do indeed know if the cerebral hemispheres of a human are destroyed, a comatose, vegetative state results. Your attempt at arguing that we dont know what dolphins feel is neither contributory nor meaningful to either side in this debate.

So, your only actual argument is that we should assume something feels something. Thats a fairly poor argument at best, and I believe history has taught us not to assume. This is quite similar to everyone believing the world is flat, or that T-Rex was a hunter. Both prejudice's people have based on nothing more than individual reactions or ideas, not based on scientific or other factual evidence.

[tricksterpup]

Originally posted by wetmanNY
Serious folks don't doubt this. Fish do not feel anxiety about what the future may hold, however. Nor do they take out car loans...
Gosh, My betta was able to co-sign for me.. hmm..
Not sure if fish feel pain or not, I am not even sure if those reading this feel pain. But i do know this, fish will not feel pain from humilation. So you can mock your goldfish, he won't care.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by tricksterpup

But all creatures with an advanced nervous system has pain sensors. Fish feel pain..

No, not all animals with an advanced nervous system have pain sensors. Just evidence of another prejudice many people hold, and a lack of teaching neuroscience in school. Fish have the simplest nervous system of any vertebrate.

Pain "sensors" (there are really no such things)would need to be located in specilized region in the cerebral hemispheres. Such regions are only evident in mammals.

http://www.cotrout.org/images/do_fis2.gif

[BettaFish]

I had already asked you not to refer to it as "pain stimuli" as it doesnt cause pain. Its the chemicals emitted in the brain that your aware of when you feel pain.

It does not matter what you want to call it -- there is no reason why a debate should not occur in laymen's terms that make it easy for all parties (participants and observers) to understand.

I'd also like to point out that people were asked by the author to express an opinion, not to engage in a debate with you.

I wish parents the world over would teach their children some manners.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by BettaFish


It does not matter what you want to call it -- there is no reason why a debate should not occur in laymen's terms that make it easy for all parties (participants and observers) to understand.

I'd also like to point out that people were asked by the author to express an opinion, not to engage in a debate with you.

I wish parents the world over would teach their children some manners.

Oh, insulting :rolleyes:

Thats not a layman term for it, its a wrong term. Its like calling an oscar a betta just because its easier to understand. The author asked if fish feel pain, I am explaning that they dont, no?

There is no such thing as "pain stimuli" If you want a word thats easier that refers to what your talking about, call it "injurious stimuli". "Because the experience of pain is separate from the behavioral response to injury, the term nociception is used to refer to detection of injury by the nervous system (which may or may not lead to pain). "

I find it quite humourous that you want to debate with a neuroscientist while only using "layman's terms"

[TheDuBdoNe]

ok Mr. NeuroScientist... if fish dont feel pain then why do we have fish psychologists and fish doctors... oh wait that doesnt work:D

i guess we have to see what the Pet Psychic says on the matter :p

[tricksterpup]

Originally posted by slipknottin


No, not all animals with an advanced nervous system have pain sensors. Just evidence of another prejudice many people hold, and a lack of teaching neuroscience in school. Fish have the simplest nervous system of any vertebrate.

Pain "sensors" (there are really no such things)would need to be located in specilized region in the cerebral hemispheres. Such regions are only evident in mammals.

http://www.cotrout.org/images/do_fis2.gif

I realized what I said here and caught myself. it was an oops in thought. Plus I read the article found it to be very interesting, not in the mood to go into depth with it here or today. :)

[fishlips]

I say fish feel pain. I've heard trees feel pain.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by TheDuBdoNe
ok Mr. NeuroScientist... if fish dont feel pain then why do we have fish psychologists and fish doctors... oh wait that doesnt work:D

i guess we have to see what the Pet Psychic says on the matter :p


Im not, I was referring to the article posted above thats written by Dr. Rose.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by fishlips
I say fish feel pain. I've heard trees feel pain.

So does your shirt. No really. It has a nervous system and feelings.

Seriously, even if trees did feel pain it does not imply that fish do. Your attempting to make connections bewteen entirely different things. Apples and Oranges.

[skeletalmachine]

I believe the paper by Dr. Rose does in fact put forth a strong case that fish do not feel feel pain, as humans do. However, it does not seem to prove that fish feel nothing at all. In fact, it does point out several large differences in the operation of the fish brain as opposed to human brain, notably how vision is handled. I find it strange that despite the absense of the developed part of the brain human use in vision that the fish can still see. Why then is it assumed that without the highly developed part of the brain that humans use when feeling pain that fish can not also experience pain? It would seem to me that fish may too process injurous stimuli in a different manor just as they do with vision. Fish may therefor not experience pain in the same way that we do but it may be no less unpleasant.

I have become very intereted in this subject now and may even try reading some of the "reader friendly" references outlined at the bottom of the paper. heh :)

[slipknottin]

It might be argued that fish have the capacity to generate the psychological experience of pain by a different process than that occurring in the frontal lobes of the human brain, but such an argument is insupportable. The capacity to experience pain, as we know it, has required the massive expansion of our cerebral hemispheres, thus allocating large numbers of brain cells to the task of conscious experience, including the emotional reaction of pain. The small, relatively simple fish brain is fully devoted to regulating just the functions of which a fish is capable. A fish brain is simple and efficient, and capable of only a limited number of operations

[Slappy*McFish]

Pain is relative. The real question is "Do fish Suffer?"..and I don't think they are capable of suffering. Without suffering, pain is just a sensation.

[skeletalmachine]

"The capacity to experience pain, as we know it , has required the massive expansion of our cerebral hemispheres..."

That does not preclude fish from experiencing pain in a different form. I would hesitate using Dr. Roses paper as definitive proof that fish do not feel any form of pain at all.

[slipknottin]

I believe hes saying "as we know it" in reference to how humans feel pain. Not that fish might experience it differently.

[slipknottin]

Oh, and even if you assume there is another way that fish can experience pain, you still need to argue The Dr.'s other key point, that fish are not conciously aware. No animal can experience the sensation of pain without being aware of it.

[skeletalmachine]

Isn't that what I was saying to you? His paper provides strong evidence against fish feeling pain as humans do but does not fully address the possibility that fish feel some other form of pain. I would fully agree that fish do not feel pain as we know it. Could it not be however, considering the circumstances in which the stimuli is recieved, that another form of pain is in no way less traumatic to the animal?

I do not disagree with Dr. Rose's paper at all (who am I to disagree with him! :) ), in fact I found it very interesting. I should thank you for bringing it to my attention, only you didn't.

[CharlyBaltimore]

http://www.peta-online.org/news/1200/1200wyoming.html

[slipknottin]

Well we know that pain, emotions, and awareness are from localized regions in the brain mostly the neocortex. If pain is experienced some other way, such as the nerves directly releasing the pain causing chemicals, then the fish still needs to be conciously aware of this to experience it.

This means that not only will different parts of the brain or spine be used to trigger and release the chemicals that cause pain, but they must also make the fish conciously aware.

If this is indeed the case, then all animals that have more complex would never have developed larger brains, but instead would already have been conciously aware from parts of the brainstem and spinal cord.

If this is the case, what explains the lost sense of awareness humans experience when the cerebral hemispheres are destroyed?

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore
http://www.peta-online.org/news/1200/1200wyoming.html

PETA is not a valid source for anything. They have lied, exagerated, or anything else they can do to get their points across.

None of their quoting shows sources, nor do they elaborate on how these people came to this conclusion.

PETA cant be used in anything other than coffee table talk. They have a habit of just insulting things they dont like, instead of using factual evidence.

If you look at their evidence they use in their anti-fishing crusade, the only thing they say is "fish need to feel pain like all other animals otherwise they wouldnt survive" I suppose this means that my starfish with no brain feels pain. :rolleyes:

[CharlyBaltimore]

Really, slip. Did you actually read the link? No. They did quote specific sources. Try again.

BTW you have been able to provide a single source. That's impressive.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore
Really, slip. Did you actually read the link? No. They did quote specific sources. Try again.


Where did they get the quotes? This isnt some news source that has interviews with people or has posted significant factual evidence. You cant take anything from the PETA website as valid material without referencing it to another site.


BTW you have been able to provide a single source. That's impressive.

Instead of insulting first and checking facts later, I suggest you look at the article in question and where the information came from. There is a list of at least 15 sources.

[CharlyBaltimore]

Originally posted by slipknottin


PETA is not a valid source for anything. They have lied, exagerated, or anything else they can do to get their points across.

Wow. That sure is a convincing, logical argument. :rolleyes:

I see you want me to do the work for you. This is interesting, considering you expect everyone to read the link you provided.

"according to Dr. Donald Broom, animal welfare advisor to the British government, 'The scientific literature is quite clear. Anatomically, physiologically and biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals. In animal welfare terms you have to put fishing into the same category as hunting.'"

"Michael K. Stoskopf, department head at the College of Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State University, has found that fish exhibit the same basic responses to painful stimuli-including rapid startle reactions and simple nonspecific flight-that mammals do; they also produce biochemical compounds related to those produced by mammals when subjected to pain. Says Dr. Stoskopf, anglers are 'inflicting pain in a variety of ways to individuals.'"

"Dr. Austin Williams, a U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service zoologist, sums it up best. Fish 'are sentient organisms,' he says, 'so of course they feel pain.'"

[slipknottin]

It is a logical argument. Unless you can provide multiple sources for those quotes and where they came from they arent valid reliable sources.


If you want me to break it down for you I will easily negate any of those quotes from these so called "experts" (notice that none have degrees in neuroscience)

First, we have the quote from Dr. Donald Broom, who claims that "Anatomically, physiologically and biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals" But we know this isnt true. Just look at any picture of a comparison bewteen the size and structure of a mammal brain in comparison to a fish brain. What evidence does he use to support his reasoning?

As for Michael K. Stoskopf, he claims that fish respond to nociceptive stimulus, does this indicate pain? Certainly not. Pain and reaction to nociceptive stimuli are seperate things.

And finally we have Dr. Austin Williams, you says since fish are sentient organisms they feel pain. Of course, he too offers no proof or no support for his belief that fish are aware of their enviroment.

[ChilDawg]

Austin Williams died about four years ago. Slip's studies are more recent than that.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore

I see you want me to do the work for you. This is interesting, considering you expect everyone to read the link you provided.


Oh and BTW, I didnt provide any links. Maybe your confused.

[skeletalmachine]

I would have to agree with slipnottin here. I can not take anything that PETA says at face value. I believe the entire organization to be driven purely by emotion with almost no reason at all. I could only trust thier quotes if I could see them from the original source. May I direct you here : http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headline_detail.cfm?HEADLINE_ID=1793
Also, CharlyBaltimore, I provided the link although slipnottin had surely read it as well.

[CharlyBaltimore]

Sure you did: http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6251&perpage=20&highlight=pain&pagenumber=4

Since fish have no feelings and cannot feel any pain whatsoever, it must be your viewpoint that filtration and feeding are akin to changing the oil on your car and filling it up with gas. It's nice to look at, so as long as the car runs, everything's fine. When it throws a rod, so what? You can always get another one. It must be really hard (...on your pocketbook) when you lose a fish.

There would be a lot less suffering in the world if more people would ask themselves, "What if that was me?"

[slipknottin]

Yes, PETA is such a valid resource. Check this out

http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsc18.html


Wouldnt you want to rely on them for everything? :rolleyes:

Oh man, this stuff is hilarious, look at their resons for not eating fish http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fswild4.html

Haha, it might have fat, and in polluted areas it might be toxic.

[CharlyBaltimore]

From your link: "On several occasions, I caught fish who had hooks actually embedded in their lips. What had happened was, earlier in that fish's life, a hook had been lost by a fisherman and had embedded itself in the fish's lip. As the fish had grown, the lip had actually grown over the hook. [In some cases,] the hook had actually been swallowed by the fish and become embedded in the fish's stomach. The fish was actually pulled out by the gut. The fisherman would normally become frustrated and would pull the hook out, actually pulling the fish's guts out through the mouth." I'm sure that doesn't hurt. :rolleyes:

I agree with them: "Get hooked on compassion".

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore

Since fish have no feelings and cannot feel any pain whatsoever, it must be your viewpoint that filtration and feeding are akin to changing the oil on your car and filling it up with gas. It's nice to look at, so as long as the car runs, everything's fine. When it throws a rod, so what? You can always get another one. It must be really hard (...on your pocketbook) when you lose a fish.


Here is my feeling on that, it is not that your working to keep them happy or any other emotional aspect. Your job is to keep them from becoming stressed. As the article had said near the bottom, unhealthy conditions for the fish will trigger the release of stress hormones into its body. The stress hormones will lead to a weaker immune system, and if allowed to persist for long periods of time death.

Skeletalmachine- I must congratulate you, your the first person who would argue with me on the articles points instead of a preconcieved notion you had. The amount of replies I usually get in this debate saying "i believe they do" or things to that effect are quite suprising. You would think on an issue thats a pretty important with fish would be met with more people interested to learn more, not just a signing off on the issue.

[CharlyBaltimore]

PETA gives some good tips in your first link, including: "The more space that fish have, the happier and healthier they will be. Allow a minimum of 12 square inches of water surface per inch of fish."

IMO, many people have no business owning fish, especially those who pack as many fish in a tank as they can before they start dying off, those who have minimal filtration (if any), and those who don't care enough to check out the requirements of fish before they buy them.

[slipknottin]

Yes, they give some helpful advice, but when they start coming up with reasons not to support the industry it is downright ridiculous. There little comments about it being entirely cruel to keep fish in tanks, or you shouldnt support the tropical fish trade because its nothing more than who can catch and breed fish the fastest are pure speculation and conjecture.

[CharlyBaltimore]

IMO, it is cruel to keep certain fish in tanks, especially those that get to 2 feet or longer.

[slipknottin]

What if this tank is 40,000+ gallons as there are rumors of someone with a few tanks that big floating around...

[CharlyBaltimore]

Originally posted by slipknottin


I must congratulate you, your the first person who would argue with me on the articles points instead of a preconcieved notion you had. The amount of replies I usually get in this debate saying "i believe they do" or things to that effect are quite suprising.

You might get more open-minded responses if you showed more of an open mind yourself. Just my opinion.

[skeletalmachine]

I fail to see how describing a fish being gutted by a hook proves fish feel pain.

[ChilDawg]

So keeping Doviis in tanks is cruel? I don't really think that that's true. I think that Doviis are so well-kept in their tanks that they actually have some affinity for their owners (as long as you argue that fish have emotions, you have to agree with this).

What about eels which have all the swimming space they want in a smaller tank (than what you would suggest...I'm not suggesting a really small tank, obviously)? You think that that's cruel?

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore


You might get more open-minded responses if you showed more of an open mind yourself. Just my opinion.

That was meant for skeletal machine. You havent proved to be open at all towards the subject. Very close minded.

Dont you think that at one point I believed fish experienced pain also?

[CharlyBaltimore]

What if? How many people who buy arowanas or pacu do you suppose have 40,000+ gallon tanks?

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore
What if? How many people who buy arowanas or pacu do you suppose have 40,000+ gallon tanks?

I dont know anyone who has bought an arrowana or pacu.

You still claimed that you dont like the keeping of some fish in tanks. Now your changing it to "i dont like the keeping of some fish in small tanks" Thats not even close to what PETA was saying. You and I both know it.

[CharlyBaltimore]

BTW you have proven yourself quite closed-minded yourself, only seriously considering the viewpoint of someone who shares the same opinion as you.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore
BTW you have proven yourself quite closed-minded yourself, only seriously considering the viewpoint of someone who shares the same opinion as you.

How so? My original viewpoint was that fish feel pain, after reading quite a few articles on it and becoming educated on the topic, I have changed my view.

[GEV83]

Dint read page 2-4 of posts but all I got to say is fish feel pain and thats that. Ok thats all I got to say have fun posting.

[CharlyBaltimore]

Originally posted by slipknottin


I dont know anyone who has bought an arrowana or pacu.

You still claimed that you dont like the keeping of some fish in tanks. Now your changing it to "i dont like the keeping of some fish in small tanks" Thats not even close to what PETA was saying. You and I both know it.

You must be confused. I never changed my viewpoint. What I said in a nutshell was, some people (especially those who don't properly care for their fish) have no business owning fish. And some fish (especially those 2 feet and longer) have no business being in the typical fish keeper's tank.

And I stand by this.

[CharlyBaltimore]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore
IMO, many people have no business owning fish, especially those who pack as many fish in a tank as they can before they start dying off, those who have minimal filtration (if any), and those who don't care enough to check out the requirements of fish before they buy them.

[CharlyBaltimore]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore
IMO, it is cruel to keep certain fish in tanks, especially those that get to 2 feet or longer.

[slipknottin]

Yea, you just changed your argument from "fish bigger than 2 feet shouldnt be kept in tanks" to "fish bigger than 2 feet should only be kept in big tanks"


its this point in this debate that most people tend to tune out... Now were off topic and arguing about things that dont matter.

[GEV83]

FISH FEAL PAIN MY JAG SAID OUCH ONCE.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by GER1023
FISH FEAL PAIN MY JAG SAID OUCH ONCE.

Well technically, I could argue that vocal reactions dont indicate pain, but I think ill let this slide. :D

[CharlyBaltimore]

I reiterate my point. How many people who buy arowanas or pacu (just for an example) have 40,000+ gallon tanks? Okay, so you don't know anyone personally. These fish are for sale at every fish store I've ever been to, including big conglomerates like PetSmart. So, how many people who walk into Petsmart to buy an arowana or pacu do you suppose have 40,000+ gallon tanks?

For that matter, how many hobbyists do you think even have a place to put such a heavy tank? That would be approx. 280,000 pounds, just of water weight, not including gravel etc.

So - sure slip! If you have a 40,000+ aquarium, go ahead and buy that arowana. I'm all for it.

Regardless. I am obviously not going to change your mind, and you are obviously not going to change mine, so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[skeletalmachine]

Wow, this is a busy thread, I need to check it more often it seems! :) heh

Slipknottin, thanks for the compliment. I concede that I actually don't really know whether or not fish feel pain. After reading Dr. Rose's paper as well as some other sources I can't positively say either way. I do, however, think most people think fish feel pain just as people do and I definitely believe this to be untrue.

GER1023, If you don't have any real input on the subject other than "yes they do" then your vote will probably be sufficient.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore
I reiterate my point. How many people who buy arowanas or pacu (just for an example) have 40,000+ gallon tanks? Okay, so you don't know anyone personally. These fish are for sale at every fish store I've ever been to, including big conglomerates like PetSmart. So, how many people who walk into Petsmart to buy an arowana or pacu do you suppose have 40,000+ gallon tanks?

For that matter, how many hobbyists do you think even have a place to put such a heavy tank? That would be approx. 280,000 pounds, just of water weight, not including gravel etc.

So - sure slip! If you have a 40,000+ aquarium, go ahead and buy that arowana. I'm all for it.

Regardless. I am obviously not going to change your mind, and you are obviously not going to change mine, so we are going to have to agree to disagree.



Not many, and most likely very few of the fish live to anywhere near adult hood.

Is this a reason to get rid of the tropical fish hobby? Of course not. I was upset with PETA's association of misinformed people with many of the hobbyists that are on this website and many others. Many hobbyists know far more of fish and how to care for them than anyone writing these editorials (they call factsheets) for PETA does.

And agree to disagree only works if your a marxist. ;)

[CharlyBaltimore]

Originally posted by slipknottin

Is this a reason to get rid of the tropical fish hobby? Of course not.

I never said there was any reason to get rid of the hobby. You are confusing my views with PETA's. I did say that some people have no business owning fish, maybe that's where you're getting confused.


Originally posted by slipknottin

And agree to disagree only works if your a marxist. ;)

Au contraire. It is the only way to stay happily married for a long time. (It also works for keeping your job.)

[slipknottin]

Heh, maybe your marxism is just coming out in weird places. :p

[CharlyBaltimore]

"Main Entry: Marx·ism
Pronunciation: 'märk-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1897
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society"

I don't see how that applies.

Anyway, name calling won't make me go anywhere.

[tricksterpup]

But the real question is: Does Aquaman feel pain?
;) just kidding folks, still a very interesting topic, I am loving it.
jim

[slipknottin]

Marxist's big theory was how there isnt one truth. There are multiple truths and everything depends on your version of the truth.

And calling you a Marxist isnt name calling... You attempting to agree to disagree is Marxism at its finest.

[carpguy]

Dr. Rose's piece is the only one I've seen that makes his particular claims. I'm sure he's a neuroscientist (I checked), but the article that seems to have caused all this fuss isn't a technical article, its a lay article. It really doesn't make any "technical claims" (its also the only one that shows up if you google the guy). It hedges a lot. And the logic is more than a little tautological.

It is (and must be) entirely true that fish cannot have a human experience of pain. To define some necessary component of pain as a psychological rather than as a neurological experience 1) predetermines the conclusion 2) moves us immediately outside of the good doctor's area of expertise.

There must be, somewhere between us and the starfish, a species that is 1) more primitive than us and 2) experiences pain in a manner similar to the way we experience it. This may be restricted to primates, it may be restricted to mammals, it may not. But there has to be a first instance. Dogs will yelp, they will sulk, they are social and appear to be both emotional and sentient to at least some degree. Do they experience pain? Is their neocortex sufficiently advanced?

Vision appears a good long way down the evolutionary tree, but it doesn't appear as a bright line. It appears as clusters of light sensitive cells. These clusters are in no way capable of anything we might term vision. Between that instance and the eagle there are a very wide range of developmental capacities. This sort of stuff doesn't happen overnight.

At some point, very early on in the game, nociceptors developed. At some point after that the mechanism by which we experience pain also began to develop. I have no idea at what stage of development this mechanism is in in fish. I haven't seen any evidence that Dr. Rose has either, unless he moonlights as an icthyologist.

It does seem to me that the most essential and unpleasant aspects of the experience of pain are very primitive and old brain mechanisms. Much of this stuff happens not in the neocortex but in the brainstem. For instance (http://www.umds.ac.uk/physiology/banks/bds2ns11.html) :


Conclusion:

The anatomical and physiological studies thus provide complementary evidence of pain processing in the brainstem.

Q. Where does the information about pain go after the brainstem?

To answer this question anatomical studies have utilized retrograde transport of substances from the sites in the brain thought to be receive projections from the brainstem, ie. the thalamus. Electrophysiological evidence has been provided using the technique of antidromic activation following electrical stimulation in various parts of the thalamus. Caudalis neurones projecting out of the nucleus are found mainly in laminae I and III-VI but not in layer II, the substantia gelatinosa. Some layer II cells receive low threshold inputs, others nociceptive inputs and many can be modulated by inputs from higher centres. Thus these neurones are critical interneurones. Caudalis neurones in laminae I, V and VI project to;

1) the posterior thalamus,

2) cerebellum, periaqueductal grey (PAG), parabrachial area, brainstem reticular formation, spinal cord, areas of the trigeminal brainstem

Cerebrum anyone?

Fish clearly experience something and since I can't say with any sense of certainty what that might be I prefer to err on the side of caution. I think my own brand of anthropomorphism is kinder and gentler than Dr. Rose's. And I do think he is anthopomorphizing…

[slipknottin]

According to another article I read, Dr. Rose has also implied that humans are the only animals that are conciously aware and experience the sensation of pain.

I wonder if the quote is implying that "pain reaction" is started from the brain stem, or if it passes through the brain stem to get to the cerebrum and neocortex. Notice how its refered to as the "information of pain" not the sensation. Seems possible that this "information" is just this injurious stimuli and doesnt always mean you get a sensation of pain.

[carpguy]

The logical extension of Dr. Rose's argument is that only humans are capable of experiencing pain in the very narrow way he wants to define it. I think there is good evidence that there are other animals that are conciously aware. I think they can experience pain in a manner similar to the way we do because the circuitry is basic, ancient, and well-developed.

You catch the bit on information of pain and let slide awareness and experience? Is the transmission of sensory information a sensation or do we need to tack on bits like awareness? How aware of a smack on the end is a ten-second old child when it starts roaring in pain(?)

[skeletalmachine]

After a little digging I found this, http://www.agfisch.ch/doku/rose.pdf
A little more in depth look at Dr. Rose's work. I definitely know more now, but still can't make a definite decision.

carpguy, I do tend to agree with your ideas. Surely there is no black and white, pain or no. If what slipknottin says in regards to what Dr. Rose said ( that no animals feel pain ) is true then I suddenly have a lot less respect for his work.

Also, you said what I was trying to say much more clearly than I did, "The logical extension of Dr. Rose's argument is that only humans are capable of experiencing pain in the very narrow way he wants to define it." In fact, if you read the link provided above, many of his points seem to rely on very narrow definitions. Especially that of consciousness.

[CharlyBaltimore]

Originally posted by slipknottin
Marxist's big theory was how there isnt one truth. There are multiple truths and everything depends on your version of the truth.

And calling you a Marxist isnt name calling... You attempting to agree to disagree is Marxism at its finest.

I am not saying there are multiple truths. Far from it. What I am saying is that you and I will never agree on what the one truth is, and that the only way to get along is to mutually recognize this disagreement and move on. Neither of us has to sacrifice our beliefs and we can still get along.

This is the key to a good long marriage and is a useful skill in many other real life situations as well. Trust me.

[slipknottin]

Well the problem is that there is really no connection bewteen stimuli and pain or emotion unless you are aware of it.

For instance, when you are unconcious, if someone wacks your knee, youll still have a reflex. Did you know your knee moved? No.

I believe thats where hes making the connection. That there is a difference bewteen the concious and uncouncious sensation or experience of something.

To learn or develop from something you dont need to be aware of it. It is entirely possible for you to subconciously develop. This is why you see peoples reactions to things being altered. This is not that they are aware of these things instantly, but that they have changed their behavioral reaction to some sort of oustide stimuli.

The sensation of pain, and the physical reaction to pain causing stimuli needs to be seperate. Otherwise when we took pain killers our entire bodies would go numb. The attempt to connect a sensation of pain with any sort of potentially injurious stimuli doesnt hold up.

I believe if we define the definition of pain as a psychological sensation that you need to be conciously aware of then his conclusion is entirely correct, that there is no sensation of pain felt by an animal. The definition of pain from most sources is indeed "An unpleasant sensation."

Your biggest argument is the definition of sensation. You want to define sensation as "the faculty to feel" instead of "the faculty to percieve or be aware of." Of course, the definition of "feel" itself is "to percieve as a sensation"


The other is your definition of "conciousness" which you want to mean "a state of being awake, alert" which is indeed present in all animals. Dr. Rose needs to define sensation as "Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts" in order for his argument to work.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore


I am not saying there are multiple truths. Far from it. What I am saying is that you and I will never agree on what the one truth is, and that the only way to get along is to mutually recognize this disagreement and move on. Neither of us has to sacrifice our beliefs and we can still get along. .

exactly, you believe in this case that there are multiple truths and we could never come to 1 conclusion.

[carpguy]

Careful with the definitions. They almost always box out the gray. Mostly besides the point.

If pain is what he says it is, why the advanced hardware? Its like sightless eyes being grown for millions of years by millions of species until one day, quite recently, the thought popped into one of those evolving heads "Hey, I can see! (And the rest of you, unaware as you are of what that information might mean, cannot)". Kind of a silly thought, no?

[CharlyBaltimore]

Now you are just not listening. This is the second time I have had to state that I believe there is ONE truth. NOT multiple truths. JUST ONE.

Whether you are right or I am right, we will never know. We can argue forever about it, or we can say we each believe our own opinion to be the ONE truth and that the other person is wrong, but move on. We both know there is one truth. We both know that it almost certainly is either your view or my view. We will never know what the one truth is. So we can agree that we will never agree on what the one truth is, and by doing so move on from this point recognizing that there is just one truth but that we don't agree on what that one truth is.

Just because we can't agree on what the one truth is, does not mean that there are more than one truth.

Fish either feel pain of some sort, or they don't. Cut and dried. I believe one side, you believe the other. The reality of the situation is that one (not both!) of these things is true. One of us is right, the other is wrong.

The fact is you are not going to change my opinion, and that I am not going to change yours. One of us is definitely wrong. Now we can either fight about this until we're blue in the face, or we can both say, "yeah one of us is right, I believe I'm the one that's right, but regardless, I'm going to stop fighting about it."

This is agreeing to disagree.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by carpguy

If pain is what he says it is, why the advanced hardware? Its like sightless eyes being grown for millions of years by millions of species until one day, quite recently, the thought popped into one of those evolving heads "Hey, I can see! (And the rest of you, unaware as you are of what that information might mean, cannot)". Kind of a silly thought, no?

I believe the point is that we always used our eyes, all animals with any senses can and do use them. In most cases they are hardwired to behavioral reactions. See food, go eat it, smell danger, swim away.

Its only evident in humans that we can conciously control and understand these reactions. That you can sit here and say "im using my eyes" is probably one of the most important steps on the evolutionary (or creation) scale. That trait alone is what seperates us from all other animals.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore
Now you are just not listening. This is the second time I have had to state that I believe there is ONE truth. NOT multiple truths. JUST ONE.


You of course, are implying that there is only one truth. How do you know that this is so if you dont know what that truth is?

[CharlyBaltimore]

Originally posted by slipknottin

You of course, are implying that there is only one truth. How do you know that this is so if you dont know what that truth is?

NOW who is the Marxist?

Of course there is only one truth. It would be silliness to say that fish neither feel pain nor don't feel pain.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore


NOW who is the Marxist?

Of course there is only one truth. It would be silliness to say that fish neither feel pain nor don't feel pain.

I am very Marxist. Never said otherwise. Your the only one that seems to consider this an insult.

So I ask again, how do you know there is only one truth if you do not know what the truth is?

Ill present it to you like this

For you, truth is that fish feel pain; for me, truth is that they dont.

[carpguy]

In exactly the same way that specialized cells transmit information from the brain allowing us to perceive light, specialized cells transmit information to the brain allowing us to feel: feel soft, feel smooth, feel pain. Saying that "concious awareness" is a precondition for being able to "feel" is not unlike saying that it should be a precondition for "seeing". Can you frame the argument so that the statement "fish cannot see" isn't as necessary a conclusion?

I'd agree that fish can't think "Wow, that was a really beautiful sunset" or "Those were the best brine shrimp I ever had" anymore than they can think "that really hurt" but they do see, taste, feel.

I'd disagree that we are the only animals capable of "concious awareness" but I don't think that fish share that capacity with us.

[slipknottin]

See, hear, feel are all relative. Your brain stem and spinal cord can control all these functions without you ever knowing its doing so!

Just as your reflex or your heart will happen regardless of you being aware of them or not.

Want basic evidence of this? Stop breathing... then forget about breating and continue typing. Are you breating now while your typing? Of course. This is showing that you can either be conciously aware or conciously unaware of something, yet it will continue to happen and function regardless.

[CharlyBaltimore]

Originally posted by slipknottin

I really wish schools throughout the world taught more logic classes...

There is no possible way fish can both feel pain and not feel any pain at the same time. Impossible, and illogical.

Either you are right, or I am right. We cannot both be right.

[carpguy]

That's all well and good…

…but can fish see?

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore


There is no possible way fish can both feel pain and not feel any pain at the same time. Impossible, and illogical.


At this time it is entirely possible and logical. Otherwise all of us would have reached the same truth in this debate.

In the future one of us may be proved right or wrong, but until that happens there are multiple truths.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by carpguy
That's all well and good…

…but can fish see?


The question now is wether they are conciously aware that they are seeing, not if they can "see".

[carpguy]

I guess my argument from way back when has been that there is a difference between being able to see and being conciously aware of it.

Humans are certainly not the only animals that are able to see (taste, feel, smell, hear, learn, use language, or solve problems deductively).

[CharlyBaltimore]

Just because we don't know what the one truth is, doesn't mean there's more than one truth out there.

Either there is a God, or there isn't.
Either dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor, or they weren't.
Either humans are decimating the planet, or they aren't.
Either the sky is blue on Pluto, or it isn't.

There is but one truth. Just because we can't agree on what the one truth is, doesn't mean there must be more than one truth. That is silly. Otherwise this would make perfect sense:

There is a God, and there is no God.
Dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor, and dinosaurs were not wiped out by a meteor.
Humans are decimating the planet, and humans are not decimating the planet.
The sky is blue on Pluto, and the sky is not blue on Pluto.

Pure silliness.

[slipknottin]

Sure, Ill agree with that.

I think the good argument Dr. Rose made was when he says that when studies were done where they removed the cerebral hemispheres of fish, the fish continued in what was a fully normal state. They seemed just as they did before they removed the cerebral cortex.

In humans however, when that is removed we dont know we exist. Our basic functions are continued by the brain stem and spinal cord, but we have no control, and no understanding of what is happening.


Im not going to generalize as Dr. Rose does about all animals, as I believe there are certain species of ape that can certainly reason and may be well aware of their existance and emotions.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by CharlyBaltimore
Just because we don't know what the one truth is, doesn't mean there's more than one truth out there.


Pure silliness.


Not at all. You are demonstrating marxism right now. You believe their is only one truth, and I believe there are more than one. Any advanced math class will surely show you problems where there are more than one solution, and many problems where you come up with many solutions and only 1 turns out to be correct.

All your examples indicate my point. If you believe one and I believe the other, then as long as it remains unsolved there remain two truths.

[CharlyBaltimore]

I am not demonstrating Marxism. I am demonstrating Logic.

There is no way that people who believe in God and athiests can both be right. That is impossible. They are mutually exclusive. Either there is a God or there isn't. The one truth is that there is a God or there isn't. Either the underwear George Bush is wearing now is blue with yellow stripes, or it isn't. There are no two ways about it. You and I could argue all day about whether George W. Bush's underwear is blue with yellow stripes or whether it isn't. Just because you and I don't know which is true, doesn't mean that both our opinions are true.

Two mutually exclusive options cannot both be true. Whether you and I agree have absolutely no impact on what the truth really is. That is just a fact of life. That is Logic.

Anyway, I am going to recognize that you do not know anything about logic, and leave it at that. I am leaving this thread for good. See ya. :o

[slipknottin]

you continue to demonstrate marxism, its quite amazing.

By all definitions, what Im saying is just as logical as any counter argument you make.

opinions are always both true. Thats why they are opinions. If they were fact based then it wouldnt be an opinion now, would it.

[carpguy]

I've seen studies that have birds using language and deductive reasoning and wolves using deductive reasoning, learning by observation. Whales and dolphins are known to have unique dialects -- hardwired?

Dr. Rose's observation about what happens to us when you remove a part of our brain that does not happen to fish when you do the same doesn't have any impact on his argument. Its, um, a red herring…

Fish have a nociceptive mechanism. We have a nociceptive mechanism. The mechanisms are different. Ours is certainly more complex and involves portions of our brain that fish just don't have. But as to the question of what fish feel… I don't know and I don't think Dr. Rose does either. They certainly feel something. What does this feel like for them? I don't think we can or will ever be able to say. As far as feeling (tactile, not emotional) it seems to me that there would be more evolutionary utility in being able to feel pain than, for instance, velvety. It would be one of the first types of "feeling" to evolve (deducing here, not observing).

[slipknottin]

deductive reasoning does not imply awareness either. That fish dont seem to change much after what would be where awareness comes from would indicate that there is no such awareness that is running their daily lives.

Basically you need to explain that fish awareness comes from a part of the brain other than the cerebral hemispheres. As the Dr. explains, there is no proof of this being a valid idea.

And the argument is still that you dont need to be conciously aware of pain, or so called injurious stimuli to react to it.

[carpguy]

As I've said before, I don't think fish are conciously aware. Not even sort of. I do think the basic reaction to recent studies into the minds of other species has been continual surprise at how much is going on in there. I haven't heard of anyone credible making claims for sentience outside of mammals and birds. Fish, no. But deductive reasoning does very much imply awareness. It implies an understanding of time, for instance.

My argument with regards to the fish is this: there is no need to account for awareness of pain in order to account for pain. We know that fish have a well-developed mechanism that should allow them to feel pain. Lack of psychological depth isn't a sufficient reason to discount that out of hand. They don't have emotional states associated with sensation, they don't have memories of sensation, they almost certainly do have sensation. Dr. Rose doesn't account for it.

[skeletalmachine]

deductive reasoning does not imply awareness either. That fish dont seem to change much after what would be where awareness comes from would indicate that there is no such awareness that is running their daily lives.
If you read the full paper which I linked to he does use the carefully chosen words "essentially normal" to describe the behaviour of a fish with its cerebral hemispheres destroyed.




Basically you need to explain that fish awareness comes from a part of the brain other than the cerebral hemispheres. As the Dr. explains, there is no proof of this being a valid idea.
Neither does he prove with out a doubt that it is not a valid idea. He quotes a source as saying that "Even great apes, having substantially less nonsensory association neocortex than humans would be unlikely canidates for human-like higher-order consciousness, as thier behavioural characteristics, such as inability to aquire true language use, inidicate." Perhaps his definition of awareness is a little too narrow? Not that I believe fish are self aware.


carpguy, I have seen similiar studies. I saw one in which an octopus was able to learn how to accomplish a task by watching another octopus do it. It was extremely fascinating.

[karfixer]

:p How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootise Roll? I believe that fish are capable of sensing injury/unpleasant stimuli, but do NOT suffer "pain" as humans are capable of. The brain of a fish is far too simple to have an emotional response. They are instinctive creatures and the most developed are only capable of limited memory.

[Dragon_Lord_Tia]

from my last post im saying the discus was feeling emotional pain silpnottin

now can we have yes or no answers not mumbo jumbo it makes it easier to understand

the facts lead to fish dont feel pain but still its hard not to say they dont

lets rely on our poll thats what i say then its final

6 pages holy crap has that been the biggest thread so far or what

[Lila]

Originally posted by RENEGADE
at lest we all agree that fish don't have emotional pain. can you imagine if your fish got depressed becuase you forgot to feed it!!!!

I haven't read this whole thread yet, but reading this quote reminded me of something.

My LFS' competitor has a old folks home that he takes care of. He charged them $2,600 for two 55 gal. tanks with basic set up. Then, he charges them $260 a month to do water changes on them once a month. At the last visit, the worker from the store told the folks that their fish were depressed. And need to see a fish psyc.

They are now talking with my LFS to check out their stuff, and get a quote from him on monthly changes.

And a poll is opinions, it doesn't decide what fact or truth is. I don't believe fish feel pain. But, that is my opinion, I haven't read any articles on it yet. But, I will.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by Dragon_Lord_Tia
from my last post im saying the discus was feeling emotional pain silpnottin

the facts lead to fish dont feel pain but still its hard not to say they dont

lets rely on our poll thats what i say then its final


Emotions? Thats a different debate, and one youd have an ever harder time proving.

Yes, the facts do show that it is very very unlikely fish feel pain. And what your poll says either way is essentially meaningless. Notice of all you said they believe fish feel pain, only two or three could make their point? Sounds to me like most of the voters are prejudice.

[slipknottin]

Personally I dont see how deductive reasoning is anything more than a complex reaction to stimuli. If you hit the button food comes out... So the dog hits the button. Thats deductive reasoning and doesnt show anything more than behavioral action.

The opposing argument has to be you dont need to be aware of pain to feel it, and you can feel pain without specialized pain regions of the brain. Neither has any supporting evidence.

[GEV83]

My god already 7 pages talk about a hot topic. OK lets lay this to rest already. People are going to believe what they want to believe. Unless you show them a fish and do the test infront of them to try to prove they cant fish pain then there never going to believe it. I personally feal fish do feal pain others say no. But does it really matter as long as you care for our fish who cares. If you afraid of hurting fish when fishing then dont fish. Me myself love fishing even though Ive only done it twice. Fish is a food source and yes we eat our catch. But yeah if they feal pain or not is up to every one to decide not some scientist who has nothing to do then poke at fish to see if they feal pain. This is all I got to say. oh my Jag said that FISH FEAL PAIN. She said ouch and she grabbed her tail with her fins holding it asking for one of those liquid band aids.

[ChilDawg]

And my betta said that they didn't. He was feeling especially cocky since GER's Jag is in Cali and couldn't get here very easily. My Cories just sat there and munched on Aponogeton bulbs and my Oto continued to suck.

[thom336]

And all this heppened without me taking part? 7 pages and I havent put my 2 cents in yet? Bloody hell....

Well, to tell the truth I dont know what I can say that hasnt been said.

Hope that was helpful,
Thom.