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:3m0c71F14q1u5U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ddctct$mhm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3lro45F147bnfU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Are you denying that I linked to the page describing the studies carried
>>> out using bee venom and local anaesthetic?
>>
>> Do you mean this page
>>
>> http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/Essays/2004/cohen.html
>> Yes or No.
>
> Yes. Now, are you denying that I pointed to that page? Yes or no?

Yes, I am denying you pointed to that page.



>>> I'm not talking about my point of view, I'm talking about what _you_
>>> said. I described a hypothetical experiment and asked if it would prove
>>> that fish feel pain; you said that it would, so then I pointed you to a
>>> real experiment (well, two, actually) which did pretty much exactly what
>>> I had described. My point of view doesn't come into it.
>>
>> But even on that page it says as a conclusion :-
>> and they reviewed three papers not two.
>
> Yes, but only two of them mirror the hypothetical study I described. You
> really find this "counting past one" thing quite difficult, huh?
So, thery still carried out 3 tests and not 2, just because you ignored one
doesn't mean it never took place.


>> "The research reviewed does not demonstrate that fish have a conscious
>> awareness of pain."
>
> Yes Dave. But _conscious_ awareness of pain is a separate issue. Do you
> understand what that means?

You mean you've found a tangent.
So tell me if a fish has no conscious awareness of pain, then is that the
same thing
as iot not feeling pin or something totaly different .

How would you define the two terms as seperate in human experience.


>>> No, Dave, it does no such thing, and that doesn't answer my question.
>>> When I described my hypothetical study to you, you said that you _would_
>>> accept it as evidence that fish feel pain.
>>> That's what _you_ said. Why did you say it, if it wasn't true?
>> Your hypothetical study is irrelevant, because it wouldn't prove what was
>> required.
>
> Then why did you say that it would?
> That's all I'm asking here; you said that the hypothetical study _would_
> prove what was required,

That's the differnce between evidence and proof do you not understand
the difference. I realise you find judging points difficult unless they
are
bound in leather siting on a shelf next to you, but evidence in the real
world
is collected and anaylised in order that a conclusion is reached.

I tried explaining this to you using the red flag and bull analogy,
maybe it wasn't simple enough for you to understand, so I'll try again.

The evidence that a bull sees red is that it charges towards a person
waving red material. So that is the evidence.
Now if you tried the same thing with other colours and find that the bull
still
charges, then that would be evidence that bulls sees other colours too.
You then might consider that maybe it's not the colour but the movement .
You might then have the inteligence to try not moving because it could
be the act of moving that causes the bull to charge, all these pieces of
evidence
would be used to form a conclusion and every experiment would be evidence
and prof of something, but without thought and comparision you'd have no
idea
what the evidence proves would you, and that is the bit you're having
trouble with.

>>> In most fish, the female lays unfertilised eggs, and the male then
>>> fertilises them. There are some exceptions, but that's usually how it's
>>> done.
>>
>> Some exceptions, a lot of tropical fish give birth to young fish.
>> My mollies gave birth to over 50 of them, born, not hatched.
>
> Were they fertilised internally, or externally?
> There are some fish which take externally fertilised eggs into their
> bodies to "gestate" them. but the act of fertilisation is still very
> different from the act in humans. Would you agree with that?

Mollies are classed a s livebearers, and not egg layers.

>>> Those aren't outcomes, or at least not visible outcomes. Why would you
>>> need to do nine studies to establish which of those situations was the
>>> correct one?
>>
>> I don't need to, but I'd prefer to, before I'd even start studying the
>> results.
>
> You, study? Don't make me laugh, Dave.

As if I'd try and make a goth laugh !.

You do realise that studying is about more than reading a text,
it also requires understanding of what you are reading and not just
agreeing with the author because they are clever enough to get a book
or article published.

>>>We know that fish have complex nervous systems,
>> Because w elook closely at them and from that we can see they don't
>> have the complex brains humans and a lot of other animals have, and that
>> the parts that make
>> us aware of pain don't seem to be present in fish any more than legs are
>> present in ameobas.
>
> But we also see that they respond to pain, and that their nervous systems
> are designed to deal with pain. You've read one biased site that says they
> can't deal with pain, and seen lots of evidence that they _do_;
I've seen lots of biased evidence from Peta and other organisations
including
research which shows plants also feel pain apparently, with veggie friends
I can assure you I've seen lots of 'evidence' of how things thing feel pain
have emotions & form complex relationships.

>why have you chosen the biased site, which doesn't offer any experimental
>evidence, and which goes against all the experimental evidence?
That is an untrue statement.


>>> Why on earth would we compare them, given all these differences?
>> because they are living entities which move and respond to things,
>> they also capable or reproduction.
>
> They're capable of two _completely_ different sorts of reproduction, so
> differeent as to be incomparable. They're "living entities" of such
> different sorts as to be completely incomparable.

If you need to define life you'll find that these "incomparable" things
important to compare. Defining what is liife and what isn't
may not be importenat to you, perhaps you've never had to think about it
where as having an intrest in Sci-Fi and science in gerneral I've found
definitions of what is considered life and what isn't.
To boldy go...no MAN has gone before :) to seek out new life.....


>
>>> Yes, but in this case, the anaesthetics were given by injection,
>> Are you sure about that ?
>
> Yes Dave, I am, and I've already re-quoted it to you.
Only the morphine one, exp2 the first (MS222) was added to the 'swimming
water'

>> Because I don't call that local, unless it was localised fish aren't
>> normally injected with
>> anaesthetic, it is usually added to the water they swim in this will
>> effect the whole fish
>> rather than isolating sections.
>
> But in this case, it was injected; it was morphine, which was injected
> along with the bee venom. Go and read the paper, and then you'll see,

Only the morphine one, exp2 the first (MS222) was added to the 'swimming
water'

>>> No, they were swimming around like normal, instead of sitting at the
>>> bottom of the tank rocking gently.
>>>
>> Conclusion
>
> Are you ignoroing the point we're discussing here?

No, we're trying to find out whether fish feel pain aren't we,
not discomfort or anything else but whether they experience pain
in a similar way to humans.



>> Accept from the neurological scans of fish of course.
>
> The neurological evidence which shows that they have a sophisticated
> system of nociceptors, which have as their only purpose the perception of
> pain.
WRONG.
Their purpose is to trnamit the signal of pain.


> Dave, that one biased piece of evidence that claims that fish don't have
> the right bit of brain to feel pain is bollocks. it is biased (and you
> said you wouldn't listen to biased evidence; I guess you were lying there,
> too?),

No you got very confused yet again.
I'll listen to biased evidence, but I might not agree with it.

> it is misleading. It is not talking about pain perception, it is talking
> about _consciousness_. Consciousness is different. I really wish you have
> the complex bits of brain needed to grasp that, but obviously you don't.
If you're comparing the pain that fish feel with that of what a human feels
this 'minor' detail is very important, pity you can't understand it.


> Is it even worth me pointing out that our knowledge and understanding of
> the brain is extremely limited, and that quite often we find people who
> have bits of their brain missing (congenitally or due to disease or head
> trauma) who function perfectly well, despite missing the bits which should
> perform various functions?
> No, it probably isn't; that's far too complex for you to grasp anyway,
> isn't it?

If they're missing that part of the brain that give sus the awareness of
pain
then they won't feel pain, that's what certain drugs work on, rather than
repairing tissue damage.

>>> They show every sign of feeling pain,
>>
>> and a bull shows all the sizes of being really pissed off by red material
>
> No; bulls show every sign of being pissed off by people stabbing them
> repeatedly and then waving things in their face.

But if you aren;t bright enough to test more thabn one colour
or situation you'll never know what pisses them off.
That's one of the reasons I'd use more than ONE test to prove the point.

>
> Now, do you deny that fish show signs of being affected by noxious
> stimuli?
Yes and people and ameobas and anything else that is said to be alive.

But you still have to understand what noxious stimuli actualy is too.

>>> and they have a nervous system which is quite clearly designed to feel
>>> pain.
>>
>> The nervous system does not feel apin how many more times.
>
> Yes Dave, it does.
No it doesn't it transmits the signals that we call pain.


>>> You just suggested that your friend's eucaplyptus is frightening other
>>> plants away. Do you even realise how stupid that sounds?
>>
>> Only to the ignorant, that believe our perceptions must be the same as
>>
>> animals and fishes and trees and dcars and computers.
>
> You said it, Dave, not me.
> To me, it's perfectly clear that it's not a matter of perception, it's
> simply the case that some plants release certain chemicals into the soil
> which kill or inhibit the growth of other plants.
> No perception is needed.

Well done so it's hadly an awareness of preditors or anyhtuing else they'll
do it by
default they have no concious awarness of the enviroments threats.

> So to compare that situation to a fish learning to avoid fire coral is
> just so stupendously stupid that, really, I wonder you aren't ashamed.
What makes you think the fish learn it, rather than have an automative
responce
to keep clear, do you think they have a list of corals to avoid in some book
they refer to either in their brain or back at the 'school'.

>> Some plants don't like shade they grow away from shaded areas they also
>> grow away
>>
>> form anything they consider toxic.
>>
>> But idiotic peoople such as yourself might take that as evidence of
>> either pain
>
> Except that I didn't; you did.
No I've said that these nioceptors you're so sure mean pain may well
be used for automotive responses such as protection and evasion, agression
and even mating.



>why do you bring up ideas like this, which
> no-one else has suggested, if you don't believe them, and no-one else in
> the discussion does either?
> And why do you then bang on endlessly about them for weeks?
because it takes you that long to get it, sometimes it takes much longer
than a few weeks.



> They say madness is performing the same act over and over again, in the
> hope of a different income.
Depends what the act is surely.

>>> They were able to distinguish between "painting by artist A" and
>>> "painting by artist B" even when they hadn't seen those paintings
>>> before. Therefore, they hadn't learned that that painting would produce
>>> food, they had learned that paintings in that style would prodce food,
>>> and could distinguish between different styles of painting.
>>
>> Well I'd prefer to see that sort of evidence for myself.
>
> Why?
Because then I'd have a chance of seeing if any 'backstage'
trickery was involved. I'd be quite easy to introduce some vibrations to
the fishes
enviroment to change their acts, I'd also try prints of paintings and many
other
experiments.

>> Do yuo think humans could do this
>
> Wow. I think that may be the stupidest question you've asked yet.

One has to achieve things in life it's part of living.
But I know some art experts that can't tell if a particular artist
painted a picture or whether it was fake. Why not just get a few goldfish
to tell the experts save their embarrassment wouldn't it.


>> They do have scales on thier feet, from when they were fish.
>
> No Dave, not from "when they were fish". Fish don't actually _have_ feet;
> their limbs are fins which, if I recall correctly, don't generally have
> scales.
Most birds feet have reptile like scales on thier feet.


> However, I'd still like an answer to my question, since you seem so very
> confused about what I've said. I explained that a study was done to see
> whether pigeons could distinguish between different artists, and you have
> since said that I made that claim of fish. Now, do you know that pigeons
> aren't fish? Yes, or no?

NO and that is irrelivant whether they are fish or birds
I DO NOT believe they can tell artists, that is one artsist from another.
only the incredible niave would assume that.


.

Relevant Pages
Loading