User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 65 to 72 of 106

Thread: FOTO feeding Nep. TRUNCATA with FISH !!!

  1. #65
    It's been one of dem days BigCarnivourKid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    I live in Chaffee County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,673
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What exactly has consciousness got to do with pain? Pain as I understand it is hard wired into any organism with a complex nerve system as part of its survival mechanism. It lets the organism know it's being damaged. If your being damaged (hurt) then your life is at risk. So can fish feel pain? I think so. Does the fluid in a nep pitcher have some the same narcotic characteristics of the necter on the pitcher lips? I don't know. If it does then the fish was to out of it to feel any discomfort.
    ---Steve Allinger---

    How come chicken fingers are bigger than buffalo wings?

    My Grow List

  2. #66

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    440
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Actually I think the first article might agree with me more than it does with you
    Actually, NOT. You basically quoted the only line in the document which supports your assertion. Nor did you mention the second document, which features statements like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Indeed, neurobiologists have long recognized that fish have nervous systems that comprehend and respond to pain, and anyone who made it through Biology 101 knows that fish have nerves and brains that sense pain, just like all animals. Indeed, scientists tell us that fish brains and nervous systems closely resemble our own. For example, fish (like “higher vertebrates”) have neurotransmitters like endorphins that relieve suffering—of course, the only reason for their nervous systems to produce pain killers is to relieve pain. Claiming that fish do not suffer is as intellectually and scientifically sound as arguing that the Earth is flat.

    Interestingly, scientists have created a detailed map of pain receptors in fish’s mouths and all over their bodies. A team of researchers at the University of Guelph in Canada recently surveyed the scientific literature on fish pain and intelligence. They concluded that fish feel pain and that “the welfare of fish requires consideration.” Dr. Lynne Sneddon, a scientist of fish biology in the United Kingdom, explains, “Really, it’s kind of a moral question. Is your angling more important than the pain to the fish?”

    Scientists at Edinburgh University and the Roslin Institute in the United Kingdom report that in response to pain, fish also feel emotional stress and engage in “a ‘rocking’ motion strikingly similar to the kind of motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals.” The research team concluded that fish clearly experience pain in the same way as mammals, both physically and psychologically.
    Look, as far as I'm concerned, you can believe whatever you want. What I took issue with was the authoritative tone of your assertion that fish don't feel pain. My point is that there are people out there who really have investigated this issue, and perhaps it is worth listening to what some of these people have to say rather than making one's own pronouncements and relentlessly insisting, despite some amount of evidence to the contrary, that those pronouncements are correct.

    I simply feel that it is at best naive to assert that an animal as complex as a fish does not feel pain. The truth is, we will likely never know what fish experience because they cannot tell us, and because we are not able to experience existence as fish. However, I for one will not arrogantly claim that I know that another life form does not feel pain, nor euphemistically bandy use of the term "nociception" to obfuscate the matter further.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]You're welcome to explain to me "who" exactly is experiencing this pain. That little fish brain just doesn't have the hardware for this sort of awareness... we just assume it does because it's alive and we're alive and our perception starts with us. Top-down thinking.
    Really? How do you know? Are you an expert on comparative neuroanatomy? How about consciousness? What are your credentials?

  3. #67

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA.
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here it is, simple as: Use a fish that won't suffer whatever little fishy hell fishies suffer when they're slowly smothering for 30 hours.
    Don't maim if you can cleanly kill. Don't prolong if you can make it quick. That's just a basic carry-over of decentcy.

    I don't much care if fish possess consciousness, meta-consciousness, or full blown emotions and inner feelings. We don't have a fest when someone kills for food, we shouldn't have a fest about it for our plants... but we -should- do it quickly, because otherwise there is the question of whether or not the animal has the -opportunity- to suffer. Remove that opportunity and all's well.

  4. #68
    endparenthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,262
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Actually, NOT. You basically quoted the only line in the document which supports your assertion.
    I took the entire article into consideration. All of it is moot if there is not a consciousness there to experience the trauma.

    If we built a robot that had the same involuntary self-preservation behaviors... we could talk all we wanted to about all the elaborate circuitry involved and the amazing complexity of the programming, etc etc... but there'd still be "nobody home", no matter how much we started to empathize with it.

    We've built incredibly elaborate, sophisticated, sometimes eerily intelligent-seeming machines that don't need consciousness to accomplish their tasks just fine. We know they don't have it because we didn't put the necessary hardware in to facilitate it... didn't need to.

    But the notion that nature appears to have done the same thing... I dunno, it seems to make people uncomfortable.

    I did just read the first article over again however, and I was mistaken that the paragraph I quoted was the stance of the author of the article. I missed that it was someone else's counterpoint. So I apologize for that. It would have been nice if they'd gone into it further. I wondered why it seemed so much like just an afterthought when it was an extremely important point.

    As for the second document, I did mention it, and did find the endorphin part interesting. I'm going to look into that further. That article sounded somewhat tainted by the tendency to project our own emotions onto other creatures' behaviors. I'm sure the scientists in Edinburgh did more than conclude that "rocking = emotion", so I'm wishing they'd used the scientists own words more than they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Look, as far as I'm concerned, you can believe whatever you want. What I took issue with was the authoritative tone of your assertion that fish don't feel pain. My point is that there are people out there who really have investigated this issue, and perhaps it is worth listening to what some of these people have to say rather than making one's own pronouncements and relentlessly insisting, despite some amount of evidence to the contrary, that those pronouncements are correct.
    We have the exact same tone... maybe that's what bothers you.

    I came to these conclusions after reading the writings of people investigating the issue. I've done nothing but listen. I didn't just make these "pronouncements" up because I thought they sounded good or something... I'm relaying what I've learned. I actually got interested in this specific topic a few years ago when I started keeping fish and really wanted to know what sickness or injury was like for them.

    Your sources didn't impress me much because they largely ignored the one factor that really matters. If there are sources that really address that factor I'd love to learn more from them. How a non-conscious entity has an experience is something I want to know, and if it's somehow actually possible, then I stand corrected. But the research I've done into that side of the issue tends to agree with what I've said -- "it doesn't."

    So then the question is whether fish are conscious or not. We can't find the hardware for it. They don't take in the level of nutrients that would be required to supply energy for it. It seems silly to assume until proven otherwise that it's there just because they're organic like we are.

    Maybe I tend to be too matter-of-fact... but my entries get long enough without filling them with in-my-opinion-s and for-what-it's-worth-s too... I may be wrongly assuming that people will actually take everything others say with a grain of salt and try to verify things for themselves.

    I don't know how to go further into the actual issue because you haven't really addressed the content of what I've said... more me and my tone. So all I can do is repeat myself (or "relentlessly insist", as you put it). If there's something about the content that you find illogical I'm all ears.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]However, I for one will not arrogantly claim that I know that another life form does not feel pain, nor euphemistically bandy use of the term "nociception" to obfuscate the matter further.
    How can I obfuscate the argument with the argument? "Pain" vs "nociception" (suffering vs. mere electrical events) is the argument, as far as I could tell.

    Do you think bacterium feel pain? Would you feel comfortable proclaiming in public that they don't? Do you know what it's like to be a bacterium? Where does the line get drawn on who has the hardware and who doesn't? I think we just see that line (it's not a hard-edged line, but you know what I mean) in different places on the ladder (or tree, more accurately).

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Really? How do you know? Are you an expert on comparative neuroanatomy? How about consciousness? What are your credentials?
    Philosophy of mind coupled with cognitive science are my #1 passion. I don't have credentials on them. It's perfectly fine with me if that somehow renders my input worthless in your mind. No harm done.

    EDIT: Man oh man this entry got long. If anyone actually got to this line I'm both flattered and apologetic.

  5. #69
    endparenthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,262
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (EntwinedScylla @ April 08 2006,4:02)]I don't much care if fish possess consciousness, meta-consciousness, or full blown emotions and inner feelings. We don't have a fest when someone kills for food, we shouldn't have a fest about it for our plants... but we -should- do it quickly, because otherwise there is the question of whether or not the animal has the -opportunity- to suffer. Remove that opportunity and all's well.
    I think I'm with you on that. What's creepy is when I say things like what I've said, sometimes the first thing out of some people's mouths is, "So you're saying we can go out and kill all the lower lifeforms we want to?"

    Those serial killers you hear about are popping into my head... the ones who started with animals when they were children. Even if we knew with absolute certainty that something didn't feel pain, I'd never advocate killing it on a whim. It seems like if one enjoys destroying something as miraculous as a lifeform, there's something very very wrong inside them.

    Cruelty is circular in the damage it does... even if one participant doesn't actually feel it.

    And it's about respecting the big picture. The world doesn't need one animal (or one human of course... actually the world needs that even less)... but it does need populations of them to keep that wonderful balance...

    You know what, I'm tired of typing.

    Sorry about all this Mr. Aga...

  6. #70

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    440
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Apologies to anyone else who finds this topic to be of little interest....

    Endparenthesis,

    I appreciate you taking time to thoughtfully and rationally explain your position on this issue. You are clearly intelligent and articulate, and I respect both of those qualities highly.

    The main issue I had was simply that you seemed ready to assure others that fish don't feel pain. My point is simply that we really don't know that with what seems (at least to me) any great degree of certainty. Certainly, there is reason to assert that fish don't have the neurocircuitry to subjectively experience pain as we do. On the other hand, however, there does also appear to be evidence which contradicts that, and ultimately, given that we still don't fully understand the workings of the brain of any living creature, including fish, it seems presently impossible to definitively answer this question. So, what I am really trying to do is to refute your confident assertion that fish don't feel pain, or, to put it more specifically, that they do not experience something akin to our subjective sense of discomfort in response to what we would characterize as painful stimuli. I simply don't believe that we can say this with any reasonable degree of certainty. So, yes, when you said I really disagree more with your tone, rather than your message per se, you are right! I simply wish to put forth that there are counter arguments!

    I am also impressed that you are interested in issues of consciousness. This is something which has fascinated me for a long time, and for that reason I followed a graduate course of study in the psychology of perception, and have also spent time studying neuroanatomy, though both were long ago. My real expertise lies in theoretical physics and, to some extent, in mathematics and software.

    If you're interested, I would like to suggest a couple of books which you might find interesting regarding these issues. And, if you have any sources you would care to recommend, I would be most grateful to hear of them, as well.

    Again, thanks for making the effort to present your thoughts.

  7. #71
    endparenthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,262
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Neps, I agree with you. I'm well aware my tone gets in my own way sometimes and I appreciate you helping me get back on course.

    I'd like to concede and let whatever ideas I've presented mean whatever they mean to people, and take back the actual conclusion itself. Whether what I brought to the table leads people to that same conclusion or not isn't a big deal... the fact that they weighed it was enough for me.

    I'd definitely like to know what books you'd recommend. They could be the same ones I would, but it sounds like you have more exposure so hopefully your list is much longer.

  8. #72

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    440
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi,

    EP, you brought up some good points, and again, thanks for sharing them!

    Insofar as books are concerned, one of the current issues which is near and dear to my heart is the matter of machine intelligence and artificial consciousness. My personal belief is that sometime within the next fifty years or so, two very singular human achievements will be realized. The first of these is the creation of true artificial intelligence. This event will, I believe, rapidly result in the development of non-human intellects immeasurably superior to man's. The second achievement will be the creation of true artificial life, and/or true nanotechnology.

    Two books which deal with these topics which I really enjoy are by Ray Kurzweil. The first is called The Age of Spiritual Machines, and the second is The Singularity is Near. Both are relatively light reading, yet highly informative.

    In addition, available online is a great work about nanotechnology, entitled Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler. You can download it here. This is a very eye-opening look at the future of such technologies, even though it was written in the eighties.

    Personally, I strongly suspect that most humans living one hundred years hence (if any are left) will be fundamentally different than those of us alive today, if for no other reason than that we will have had to modify ourselves to keep up with the machines, and to survive in the harsher global environment due to global warming. However, it will likely be alright, for I think we can make ourselves much better than we currently are.

    Finally, another work relating to consciousness, though a bit older, is Roger Penrose's book The Emperor's New Mind, which concerns itself with issues of artificial consciousness and intelligence. I've not read it in about 15 years, and it is a bit deeper than the others.

    Those are a few titles. If you have some to suggest, I'd love to hear about them!

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •