Do fishes have feelings?

[aquariumfishguy]

redwing191 - The research is out there, has been done, and documented. And no, I do not find it ironic that humans can emotionally feel more than any other animal... that is, because I do not consider myself an animal. Below is a piece that comes from a Dr. James D. Rose, University of Wyoming. He is well respected by many, including myself. First, I will post his thesis and then I will take a snippet from his article.

PAIN IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE THAT IS SEPARATE FROM BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO INJURIOUS STIMULI

"Human existence is dominated by functions of the massively developed cerebral hemispheres. Fishes have only primitive cerebral hemispheres and their existence is dominated by brainstem functions. The brains of vertebrate animals differ greatly in structural and functional complexity. Cold-blooded animals, such as fish, frogs, salamanders, lizards and snakes, have simpler brains than warm-blooded vertebrates, the birds and mammals. Fish have the simplest types of brains, of any vertebrates, while humans, have the most complex brains of any species."

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

 

[PumaWard]

I'm sorry, but physical pain isn't an emotion, and doesn't require an emotion to be sense. Pain is a message to the brain that damage is close to or is occuring, so it's a sensation, not an emotion... pain is a step higher than pressure. If fish couldn't feel pain, then they wouldn't hide when they are sick and they wouldn't try to escape a bully. Mental pain (such as the loss of a loved one) does require emotion.

Straight from the Webster's Dictionary: Pain localized physical suffering associated with a bodily disorder (as a disease or an injury)

As for emotions, I do not feel fish have anything beyond the basic survival instict emotions such as fear. I do not believe they can feel joy, anger, or love.

I believe most fish have a longer memory than 3 seconds. If they didn't, they could never learn anything. I've had fish afraid of nets only after they were caught in them... if they had a 3 second memory, they woundn't remember by the next morning what had happened to them.
You can also teach some fish, like paradise fish, to do tricks for for food...

 

[125gJoe]

..... Do fishes feel pain? Alot of people say they dont.

Ever "clean" a fish? They feel pain....

 

[Rushdude]

I'm sorry, but physical pain isn't an emotion, and doesn't require an emotion to be sense. Pain is a message to the brain that damage is close to or is occuring, so it's a sensation, not an emotion... pain is a step higher than pressure. If fish couldn't feel pain, then they wouldn't hide when they are sick and they wouldn't try to escape a bully. Mental pain (such as the loss of a loved one) does require emotion.

Straight from the Webster's Dictionary: Pain localized physical suffering associated with a bodily disorder (as a disease or an injury)

As for emotions, I do not feel fish have anything beyond the basic survival instict emotions such as fear. I do not believe they can feel joy, anger, or love.

I believe most fish have a longer memory than 3 seconds. If they didn't, they could never learn anything. I've had fish afraid of nets only after they were caught in them... if they had a 3 second memory, they woundn't remember by the next morning what had happened to them.
You can also teach some fish, like paradise fish, to do tricks for for food...

He is very right.

 

[Blinky]

This is a VERY interesting thread... I've been thinking about this a lot today!
What about fish who seem to do things for fun? Is that possible? I'm sure I'm anthropomorphising it, but here are some examples of what looks to me to be fish 'play':
I once visited a LFS where the owner had a prized 12" oscar in a HUGE tank. When I asked why there were so many apple snail shells in the tank with him, the owner laughed and said "stand back, and watch this". He moved the front cover glass back, and stood in front of the tank. The oscar started wiggling (what I call the 'food dance'), and then when no food came, the fish went to the bottom of the tank, grabbed a shell, bolted to the top and spat it out of the open top! He did it again, and again, until we were doubled over with laughter at the poor, frustrated fish! Eventually the owner grabbed some food, fed the oscar, and the behaviour stopped - I swear that fish had a smug grin on his face.
My barbs 'play' in the current. I've seen lots of posts where people mention this - I'm sure it serves some purpose other than fun, but it really looks like they're doing it for the sheer joy of it.
Loaches - they lay in heaps like puppies, chase each other around, and generally act like little kids on a play date. Try to watch a group of loaches and not smile - it's impossible, it's like their joy is contagious.
So like I said, I'm sure I'm seeing something that isn't really there - at least not the way it appears - but darn it, they look like they're having fun

 

[redwing191]

"And no, I do not find it ironic that humans can emotionally feel more than any other animal... that is, because I do not consider myself an animal."

I meant that it is ironic that mankind is the only animal with negative emotions and we consider ourselves so much "superior" to others animals. Read the Lowest Animal by Mark Twain, really good piece. You said the nerves of fish were different and not the central part of the nervous system, i assumed that you ment the nerve endings which would have nothing to do with emotion. I still do not believe pain is an emotion, pain is merely the activation and stimulation of nerves.

 

[Richard Platts]

But, then this is jsut Descarte -- This is a long argued point.

According to Descartes, animals can have three different grades of sensation: physical, conscious, and self-conscious. Descartes indicated that we have only the first in common with nonhuman creatures. His denial that animals have minds prevents animals from having either conscious or self-conscious tools. Regan's interpretation is more consistent with what Descartes actually wrote. Animals only "felt joy" and other emotions in the first grade of sensation, which is a very unfamiliar sense of "feeling": the animals, in response to a physical stimulus, would mechanically respond by dancing about, appearing happy, or the like, even though the "animal machines" would not consciously feel anything. Thus Descartes actually wrote that animals do not feel "pain in the strict sense," since they lack understanding or a mind, and also that they are not aware of any thing. This appears to rule out the view that animals have conscious feelings according to Descartes. This view did not go uncontested even in Descartes' own time. Voltaire (1694-1778) famously wrote a generation later: "Answer me, machinist, has nature arranged all the means of feeling in this animal, so that it may not feel?"

There are a few people who still hold to Cartesianism. Bernard Rollin found the animals-feel-no-pain thesis expressed in the Bulletin of the National Society for Medical Research, a U.S. lobby group that tries "to block legislation that would in any way place restrictions on biomedical research." Peter Harrison, a philosopher, defends Cartesianism based largely on the view that we cannot absolutely prove that animals feel pain (his argument is much more detailed, however). The criticism of Descartes' view of animals stems from its conflict with commonsense experience of animals and also its being at odds with a variety of considerations in favor of holding that animals can suffer.

 

[Rushdude]

Every fish is probably different also. Not every person has the same level of intelligence. Some fish are probably smarter than others too.

 

[lark]

Responding to a stimulus does not necessarily mean that they feel pain. Different stimuli can have similiar responses. Personally, I look at from a suffering stand point. Can a fish suffer? Yes. Can it feel pain? Physiologically, the ability isn't there.

 

[chunksofpoooo]

Do fish have feelings?

no, of course not. As far as the pain argument is concerned, I think it all comes down to what your definition of pain is. If you define pain as an emotional response, then no, fish technically don’t feel "pain." If you define pain as the response to damage being done or about to be done (as I do), then yes, fish do feel "pain."

Concerning the response to food/feeding time/memory:
There is something called the palovian (sp?) response. A scientist did a number of studies with a dog involving a bell and food (this is a greatly simplified explanation, mind you). Every time he fed the dog, he rang the bell just before. He found that the dog would anticipate food (salivation, increased production of stomach acid, etc) every time he rang the bell, even if he didn’t feed the dog. This is what’s happening when you feed your fish. Regardless of whether you feed your fish or not, every time you walk up to your tank and do whatever (open the hood, pick up the food container, etc) your fish will "presume" its getting food and act accordingly. This ties into fish memory as well (sorta). There is a great difference between short term memory, long term memory, and memory based on pain. If you walk by your tank once and tap the glass, your fish will scatter (most likely), but after a short period of time your fish will resume whatever activity they were previously doing: short term memory. The palovian response is, in a way, "long term memory." Your fish "learns" when feeding time is and responds to whatever stimuli triggers the response, your fish "remembers" what that stimulus is. If you hurt your fish or stress your fish with your fish net (just an example) then your fish will "remember" the net and avoid it. When it comes down to it all these types of memory are in actuality instinct. Your fish isn’t born with the knowledge that a net is painful/stressful, your fish isn’t born with the knowledge that your presence generally means food, but your fish is born with the instinct to associate certain things (you, your net, whatever) and respond accordingly in order to survive. Your fish are as smart as they need to be to survive, no more, and (generally) no less.