Ya don'thave to feel guilty anymore....

[Wildman]

That was an incredible response. Now, can you summarize what you just said in three sentences for someone with a high school education and clogging arteries like me?

[Jimbo Roberts]

I did not really want to imply that being a carnivore versus a vegitarian that there was any moral superiority.
I was trying to say that some (not all, or even a significant number) people justify being a vegitarian because they are not killing an animal, when they are in fact killing something living, namely a plant. That just shows their bias that animals are more worth saving than plants, when it's plants producing oxygen and the true basis of the entire food chain, that allows all animals to survive. (And in reality all living things are just chemical engines) So they do have bias' it's just a matter of degree. They are not truely trying to save everything worth saving, just the things that they see as worth saving. Being a carnivore, a vegitarian, or something in between, does not give that person a moral high ground, it is a choice, a lifestyle, not a justification for condemning one lifestyle over the other. Arguing the relative health benefits does merit discussion, though that is another subject all together.

I would also argue that when we talk about the pain we humans feel, saying that fish feel pain like we experience pain is a huge mistake. I do think the fish feel something when they are stuck by a hook, but what they feel can not be called pain as defined in a human experience. I think they are aware that something is different, and that something is trying to make them do something they don't want to do, like being pulled from the lie they were in.
That is what they are trying to escape. I have hooked fish released all pressure on the line and they go right back to what they are doing, no pressure, no need to try and escape. When you try and hold a fish, even underwater, why does it sruggle so? Is it in pain.... No it's just knows that what is going on is interfereing with what it does naturally. They know that staying out of the water is a bad thing, being captured is a bad thing, they are trying to free themselves and go back to what they normally do. That is not fear or pain that is survival.

I could go on, but I really need to do some work now. I will check back later this evening. And by the way I am not arrogant enough to think that what is currently considered science is the ultimate truth. It is just the best explanation of things as we now understand it.

Jimbo

[midger]

Sheesh........I just thought this was a humerous "observation" that I had come across on the internet--it must be true as it's on the internet, right?

Little did I know that it would lead into a discussion on vegetarianism, creation of the Universe, the Crusades, and the Industrial Revolution

Seriously, it is interesting to think about. I do know fish will begin feeding (at times) after they have been caught and released, because there have been times where I've caught the same fish again within an hour of landing it the first time. Who knows, they may feel the pain of the hook, but just think that getting a meal holds a higher priority than getting hooked again. I'll try to get back to everyone and let them know if I get reincarnated as a trout.

Again, ya gotta love this place for the interesting conversations you can have.

[fly addict]

[philosofisher]

Sorry if I came off like I had an agenda or was trying to proselytize. That wasn't my intent, honestly just having a discussion on the merits of the study. I honestly don't know enough about this particular study to even have an educated opinion on the matter.

The only reason I mentioned my being a vegetarian was because PETA was being mentioned and I more or less consider it a moral imperative to show others that not all vegetarians are extremists. I honestly did not find any of the things to be said about PETA offensive or even unfair. They bring a lot of negative attention upon themselves and that's something that, as someone who roughly shares the same ethos, I feel responsible for.

Wildman, if your question was genuine, the three sentence response is this: Any attempt at an explanation of animal psychology that differs significantly from our own is necessarily going to be fraught with problems insofar as we can't comprehend psychology's different from our own except from our own. Two statements in this study about consciousness and pain led me to point that out as well as point out those two claims weren't very scientific sounding. I was then interested to have a discussion about the difference between (conscious) emotions and (unconscious) instincts insofar as I would like to know how scientists use those words, which is just a profession of my ignorance on the matter.

Those are three long sentences, but that's about the best I can do. Jimbo's latest response shows that we aren't disagreeing on much as it pertains to this debate, since we both agree that statements about fish pain should be taken with a grain of salt. My sense is that he is inclined to agree with the scientists that the pain isn't "meaningful." I'm not inclined to go that far because I think saying that makes the same mistake as saying they feel a type of pain that is just as significant as ours (since both use our experience as the standard), and I think there is no last word (yet) on how fish feel pain if they are even capable of it. I grant, however, that the second mistake isn't as egregious as the first, again, in agreement with Jimbo. Still, I find it significant that we can't help but talk about fish behavior without anthropomorphizing (injecting our own behaviors). So both my response and Jimbo's use words like "knows," which is a cognitive state that suggests awareness about some situation. We both acknowledge that fish don't "know" like humans, but they appear to "know" something, if it's not that they are experiencing pain then what is it? Jimbo says,

"They know that staying out of the water is a bad thing, being captured is a bad thing, they are trying to free themselves and go back to what they normally do. That is not fear or pain that is survival."

I'm led to a question like this: what, then, is the impetus to survive? Why do fish want to survive? I don't know the answer to it, but one possible answer to it is that they feel pain. They thrash against a hook set because they feel pain, and pain is an evolutionary adaptive trait that aids in survival as evidenced in us and mammals. (That's the most immediate answer to why we would thrash.) But here Jimbo makes a good point, because it seems like fish lack what is cognitively necessary (a neurocortex) to feel pain. But that's why I then raised questions about what one means by "instincts" as opposed to conscious states like pain. I'd like to know more, but sadly don't have the time, certainly not presently.

Finally, I'd just say that as far as I'm concerned there is no controversy here about the discussion taking place and that's not because I'm trying to push a view I can't see as flawed, it's because I'm honestly not trying to push anything at all, but just have a discussion. For these reasons I think it's plausible to assume that fish feel something like pain, but I'll be the first to tell you I don't know a lot about the issue.