Re: Fish don't have ethical feet it doesn't mean they can't move- was Re: Ethical feet


"H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3ksmvnFvh9krU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dcauh2$3s7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3kqh4lFvbtkdU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> I keep pointing out that the evidence very very strongly suggests that
>>> they feel pain, yes.
>>
>> One experiment that doesn't really prove pain you mean.
>
> Two (Jesus, is counting to two beyond you?),
Show me them then or is it justy the same experiment done twice.

>which do prove pain fairly conclusively, particularly when taken in
>conjunction with the wealth of neurological evidence,
You mean the ones that show fish don't have those receptors that would
act the same as ours would.


>>>but that doesn't mean that they feel pain in the same way humans do,a nd
>>>I have specifically said that they probably don't feel pain like humans
>>>do.
>> So why use the same word, is it because it makes it easier to give false
>> information.
>
> No Dave, it's because it makes sense to use the same word. Remember you
> said that it's quite possible that different animals and even different
> people perceive the colour red differently? Do you think, then, that we
> should use different words for the colour red?

If yuo could ask a bull to show you a red ball you might need to change the
way
you describe the colour yes, same to a colur blind person. When it comes to
perciving things especially good and bad. If one colour dress attracts you
you might describe that dress as being a nice colour dress, but if it's
burberry
I doubt many goths will agree with your perception. To a bat dog cat and
bull they
may see the dress differently too. To expect every creature on this planet
to percive things in the same way ids a little stupid.
Some assume that they won;t find life on mars because life is liek us going
to a pub,
but life doesn't need to be that simple does it.
For me finding bacteria on Mars would prove that life can exist on other
planets
to some it may prove nothing and that we're still alone in the universe.


> that when analised doesn't prove
>> what I was asking you to prove.
>
> But when i described a hypothetical experiment which was almost identical,
> and asked you whether it would prove that fish feel pain, you said that it
> would. So what has changed?
Because thinking about it changes it.
A red rag to a bull, does not prove that red attracts bulls but they're
lots of evidence
in bull rings that it does. This experiment has been done 100s if not 1000s
times.
But does it proves anything regarding red ?



>
> Drop a large ball into a fish tank and the
>> fish will
>> firstly move away rapidly this isn't pain or a fear of balls or a w ater
>> phobia.
>
> No, absolutely. But if you give them local anaesthetic first, it also
> won't change their behaviour.
Anaesthetic is used to slow fish down parlty so they don't injure
themselves,
local Anaesthetic is difficult to contol in a fish anyway.
A fishes response will change when you introduce Anaesthetic even if it
isn't in pain it reduces it's movements, so I;'m not really sure how you'd
tell.


> The significant point of the studies I pointed you to is not that the fish
> react to the noxious stimuli; it's that they _don't_ react to the noxious
> stimuli if they're given a local anaesthetic.
I don't rememebr them giving fish a 'local' anaesthetic and not the noxious
stimuli
as a control test.

>That's what tells us that
> their reaction is not fear or distress or just self-preservation, because
> the local anaesthetic wouldn't have any effect on fear or distress or
> self-preservation.
But it does have an effect on the whole fishes metobolism it affects the
brain,
I'd just like to see if giving a fish 'local' anaesthetic would chnage
their behavoir
because if you put 'local' anaesthetic intom you'r foot I bet you'd walk
differently,
in other places it might still affect the way you move.
Even at a dentists injecting a 'local' anaesthetic changes the way we move
our mought even if we
werebn't in pain to begin with, the numbing affects us and that can be seen
by others observing.

> The fact that local anaesthetic causes them _not_ to react to the noxious
> stimuli tells us that the reaction they have to the noxious stimuli
> _without_ anaesthetic is in fact due to pain.
Not necessaruily try the same with an amoeba .


> Therefore, that "something" is, if not the same as the pain we feel, then
> at least closely analogous to it. Would you agree with that?
Close well depends what you call close.
I think a small stone under your foot can cause a pain response in that you
lift up
your foot to remove the small stone, but if it's chewing gum and you do the
same
I wouldn't neccessarily assume that chewing gum on the foot would cause the
same pain. (both stone and gum of course have the same direct connection to
the skin i.e I'm not talking about perception through a pointy boot.


>>> However, if you then use anaesthetic to show that the reactions _are_
>>> caused by pain, _and_ you examine the nervous system and find that it is
>>> specifically designed to feel pain, that evidence taken all together is
>>> pretty convincing.
>> Not if the nevous system doesn't feel pain, stamp on your foot, you're
>> neverous
>> system doesn't feel pain does it. No it transmits information to the
>> brain.
>
> *sigh* the nervous system detects noxious stimuli and transmits
> information about them to the brain,
yes it transmits information that is it.

> where those signals are interpreted as pain. Is that better?
Yes, in the same way that if you cut the cord of an old style phone you will
no
longer be able to hear or speak to people using it you will not see the
words
come out of the wires, there is NO way you can intrepret those signals that
go
down the wires as sounds unless you have the corrct equipiment to decide
them.

>
>> Inject a leg with anthesttic they'll walk funny on it if at all this also
>> is not a sign of pain.
>
> No they won't; not unless the foot is actually numbed,
That's what usualy happens it partial disablies the area from either
transmitting
the signals or recieving them, doing this restricts feelings in those areas,
if you'r restricting feeling them what is the anaesthetic doing.

>or the muscle is paralysed, but most local anaesthetics these days don't
>cause numbness or paralysis.

So how do they work then, how would say say remove a wisdom tooth without
numbing the area. Well there's acupuncture I guess and other alternatives
but that
might take even nmore thought.

> We cannot possibly know how thewir pain feels to them, any more than you
> can know how pain feels to me. It is, as various of the sites you've
> quoted point out, an intensely personal experience, which cannot be
> shared.

So if you can't see evidence of pain in humans how can you see it in fish ?

>
>>> That's a tangent, Dave. Stop it, and address the point I made.
>> No it is not you are making assumptions and not considering any other
>> options
>> you are being blinkered. When you do an experiment you should consider
>> what the resultant data could mean aand not just assume that it's
>> proved what you were looking for because that is baised.
>
> We're not talking about bulls and whether they are colour-blind and what
> their political leanings are, Dave. it is a tangent. Now put it down and
> stop being a silly boy.
Try geting a bit of a clue, if you don't know what pain is how will
you find it.

>>> I have said specifically that fish almost certainly don't feel pain the
>>> same way we do,
>>
>> Is that like saying bats[1] see in the dark because they have better
>> eyesight
>> in the dark than we do ?
>
> No, it isn't.

So do bats have better eyesight that humans.

>
>> Bats can see better in the dark but they don't use the same method of
>> vision that humans
>> or even cats use,
>
> Well, they do, actually, but they _also_ use sonar. it's a common
> misconception that bats don't have good eyesight, when in fact, they have
> excellent eyesight, and in general nocturnal bats have far better
> nightvision than we do.

Do you mean night vision or nigth navigation because I could use
a torch a bat could not it doesn;t have the necessary intelect to be able
to use a torch why, well maybe it's because evoloution didn't think
about giving the bats the necessary brain functions to use torches.



> The vet site is perfectly reasonable; it just doesn't say what you seem to
> think it says.

Well if our network wasn't down I might weell post every single
line on that page, buit I doubt it'd make any difference to you.




.

Relevant Pages