do fish feel 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.