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:3k9lprFt9mjeU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dbo6cs$61q$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3k7qopFsovjrU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Strong acid sitting ina bottle doesn't cause pain. Strong acid poured
>>> onto unprotected living tissue causes tissue damage which triggers a
>>> chain reaction which includes the biochemical process we define as
>>> "pain".
>>
>> You define it as pain no one else seems to.
>
> *heh* So if I poured strong acid on your skin, you wouldn't say it was
> painful?
Not if I couldn't feel it.
But then again if youm held me under water for a day I'd drown a fish would
not.


>>> And your evidence for this is what, exactly? Remember, you've set the
>>> standard here; I want repeatable experimental evidence from an unbiased
>>> source which proves that pain is always and exclusively in the brain,
>>> please.
>> I've told you cutting the legs of students.
>
> That's hypothetical,
Obnly because of health and safety requirements.

> and wouldn't actually prove that pain is processed in the brain.
> Plewase show me some _actual_ evidence which proves that pain is located
> in the brain and not elsewhere.

Trying pricking yourself in various places with a needle, see where it hurts
and why some spots you don't feel pain.


> It's not evidence, Dave; it's purely hypothetical, and in any case, it
> doesn't prove what you say it proves.
>
>>> Until you get it right, or show repeateable experimental evidence from
>>> an unbiased source that you're right. Is that fair?
>>
>> NO.
>
> So the standards you set were not fair?

Showing that fish move away from things is not a sign that they are in pain.


>>> You measure the current, or you put some other device in the circuit
>>> which will react if there is a current.
>> But unless it's a filament or something that will becomne illuminated by
>> the signal
>> you won't see the light (now there's a suprise).
>
> That's right. But that doesn't mean the signal isn't there, does it?
I'm not saying the signal isn't there, but unless you have the ability to
decode that
signal it might as well not be there.
Turn your head to the left can you here that telephone conversation,
now tuurn to the right can you herar that one ?
No, but all aroubnd you there are all sorts of frequencies some
you experiance such as light and sound others you don't[1] such as
mobile phone frequencies.
Even if you havbe a mobile there's 100s of calls all around you and yet you
can't
detect or decode any of them, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.



>>> Exactly; the signal is there, even if you're not consciously aware of
>>> it.
>> If yuo're not away of the pain then you can't really call it pain can
>> you.
>
> It depends what's going on, I think. If the biochemical processes are
> still signalling pain, then i think it would be fair to say that you're in
> pain but you just can't feel it because of anaesthetic.

anaesthetic is used to relieve pain, the pain is no longer there so it's
not
a worry to the brain and pain is not longer felt.


>
> Actually, the reason the acid in your stomach doesn't hurt is because your
> stomach is lined with thick mucus which precents the acid from doing any
> damage. If the lining is damaged, you get an ulcer, and they, I'm told,
> hurt like ***.

Yep I know someone with that probelm they can take pain killers tom stop the
pain even though it doesn't stop the damage.

[1] you can not percive or decode because you don't have the equipment.


.

Quantcast