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:3k48ulFsglqeU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dbikmh$cgv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3k26gsFren91U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> It can't be experienced by a wound, but it can (and does, generally)
>>> originate from physical damage of some sort; see the web page I've
>>> linked to from my other post.
>>>
>>> pain comes from the mind,
>>>
>>> Nope; pain is biological.
>> But pain is in the mind, because when you are asleep you don't feel pain.
>
> *heh* That's generally because if you're asleep and you start suffering
> pain, you wake up; I've certainly been woken up by the pain of cramp in my
> leg.
Because it sends signals to the brain it's not because there's a damaged
area.

>> People can feel pain in limbs they don't have because the sensation of
>> pain
>> is in the mind/brain.
>
> That's phantom pain; that doesn't mean all pain is phantom pain.
But it does show how the brains sees bain it invents it.
It doesn't need damaged tissue.


>>> You said that if they were run properly, they _would_ prove something.
>>> Are you changing your mind now?
>>
>> No, proper tests not just saying boo to a fish and seeing if it jumps.
>> You design a test which follows the impulses sent from a damaged area
>> and follow those signals to the brain and find out what those signals do
>> to
>> the fishes behaviour that can't be attributed to anything else but pain.
>
> OK, so for example, Substance P which is implicated in pain transmission
> in humans and other vertebrates; it is also found in some fish, suggesting
> that the neurochemical process of pain transmission is occurring.
> http://www.vet.ed.ac.uk/animalwelfare/Fish%20pain/Neurology.htm
> That's the sort of evidence you want?

That would do but I'm not forgeting the lines'
http://www.vet.ed.ac.uk/animalwelfare/Fish%20pain/Pain.htm
The Case Against the Experience of Pain in the Fish

James Rose of the University of Wyoming has put forth a strong argument for
the inability of fish to experience pain that relies on analogy between
human and fish neuroanatomy. Rose emphasizes the distinction between
reaction to injury and psychological experience of pain and emphasizes that
the existence of the former does not evince the existence of the latter.
Indeed, human experiments have proven that pain is experienced in the brain
and that sensation of and reaction to noxious, or potentially harmful,
stimuli can occur without the experience of pain. The concept of nociception
makes this possible.

Nociception:

The term nociception refers to the detection of noxious stimuli by the
nervous system. The peripheral nervous receptors we call nociceptors sense
stimuli and report to the central nervous system where motor responses are
initiated and the sensation of pain is perceived. Some fish species
certainly do have nociceptive neurones analogous to those found in the human
(see Neuro-physiology of Pain in Fish). However, this means only that these
animals are capable of sensing noxious stimuli; it provides no evidence for
the psychological experience of pain.

>
> Right, which is why using an pain-blocking anaesthetic is a good way to
> determine whether the reactions are caused by pain, or by something else.
> Mind you, the (biased and inaccurate) piece of evidence you've shown says
> that fish are too primitive for emotional distress. Does that mean you'd
> rule out emotional distress as a possible cause for reactions in fish?



What DO YOU mean by emotional distress, do you think fish worry

about whose headlining WGW ?


.

Relevant Pages