Interesting article

Interesting, but I'm not sure what that means, since fish can obviously feel physical distress and make that obvious to their keepers. Keep us posted as more on this subject makes the news.
 
Gotta love that part where PETA says "we believe that fishing is barbaric." It's been said the eating fish is good 'brain food'.......:D
 
That article also says fish don't experience fear. Sometimes my fish get scared and then hide.
 
My fish hide too but the fight or flight reflex is different than feeling fear. I don't know about the study either, interesting though. I don't understand how if they can't feel pain how they run from stuff that hurts, maybe they don't.
 
Last edited:
Sources, Sources. So a newspaper in sydney australia prints a article on this and yet no major newspaper in the USA deals with it. Why? I may question the "research" of this study if NO major paper is picking up on this story...


Remember: even if something is printed in a newspaper...it may not be fact. AND since we are not hearing about this in any major USA papers.. well... I dont know about it. I bet alot of People fish in America and would be interested in that story... But no word yet...
 
Just from the bit in the article, he seems to be arguing that since fish (or chickens) can't be conciously "aware" of pain they can't feel it. That seems to me to be an unneccessarily restrictive definiton of pain. Almost a silly definition. And certainly more of a philosophical distinction then a neurological one. Pain and fear are, beyond a certain point, inarticulate. We don't think pain, we feel it. I don't think we can ever figure out exactly what the experience is like for fish, but I don't think he's saying (or can say) anything more than "Its different from ours".
 
Agree w/carpguy's reasoning - there is a distinction drawn between "awareness of and response to pain" and "feeliing pain" in the conscious sense.

Popularization of science is risky business.

PETA is absurb.
 
"Just from the bit in the article, he seems to be arguing that since fish (or chickens) can't be conciously "aware" of pain they can't feel it."

The article says that not only are fish not concoiusly aware of pain, but they lack the actual neurological and nervous system components to actually even realize or feel any pain.

I thought the chicken analogy was perfect. If your head is cut off, you can'y possibly feel pain in any form, tough your body may still be technically alive...
 
Originally posted by jtrei
If your head is cut off, you can'y possibly feel pain in any form, tough your body may still be technically alive...

Is that true for just chickens or for us as well?

from the article
His report… has concluded that awareness of pain depends on functions of specific regions of the cerebral cortex which fish do not possess… said that previous studies which had indicated that fish can feel pain had confused nociception - responding to a threatening stimulus - with feeling pain.

"Pain is predicated on awareness," he said. "The key issue is the distinction between nociception and pain.

Its that "Pain is predicated on awareness" bit that I have trouble with. Its a redefinition. Exactly why is awareness a necessary precondition? Isn't the realization that I am in pain a reaction to the fact that I am in pain? Are they separate events, neurologically? What exactly is the distinction between nociception (experience of) and awareness of a threatening stimulus? So what is the fishes experience of "nociception"? Do dogs feel pain? Mice? Birds with enough cerebral cortex to do problem solving and rudimentary language?

Originally posted by jtrei
The article says that not only are fish not concoiusly aware of pain, but they lack the actual neurological and nervous system components to actually even realize or feel any pain.

"Realize" and "aware" are both conciousness level events. The newspaper article skips past what it is they "feel". It merely says they can't be aware of those feelings. Seems like a no-brainer :D :rolleyes: .
 
Last edited:
AquariaCentral.com