[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/an/ - Animals & Nature


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 68 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: hooked tarpon.jpg (102 KB, 600x414)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
Do fish feel pain?
>>
Yes, I do.
>>
Anything with nerves feels pain. That's why catch and release is so cruel, because now the fish has a gaping wound in its mouth that will not only continue to hurt it, but is likely to become infected and kill it slowly.
>>
>>2499673
Only that rarely ever happens.
>>
>>2499673

Fish don't have nerves in the way that mammals do. Pain is a combination of physical reactions and mental behavior.

https://www.livescience.com/37921-do-fish-feel-pain-fish-pain.html
>>
>>2499684
they have nerves exactly the same way as mammals do, inherited from a common ancestor
>>
Everything feels pain. When you touch a starfish and it recoils it's feeling what you did to it. It might not "hurt" in the same way we would register pain, like a sharp or burning sensation, but there has to be a negative or unpleasant sensation there to force it to want to move. If it didn't have that they wouldn't survive because they would always be putting themselves in dangerous situations.
>>
>>2499693
>>2499685

You're either trolling or retarded. Read some scientific literature instead of a PETA article and get back to me.
>>
>>2499699
It's certainly not the same thing, but they are fundamentally right. Anything with a negative stimulus response might as well be feeling pain. For all we know, fish or insects or other organisms generally thought not to feel pain might have other "sensory responses" that we fail to understand. That may seem like overly compassionate conjecture, but outside of humans we have essentially no understanding of how things think or feel.
>>
>>2499677
True, though I still find the practice pointlessly cruel. Having fun at the expense of animals, regardless of how primitive, just seems sadistic.
>>
>>2499707
>outside of humans we have essentially no understanding of how things think or feel.
we do, people just don't like to admit it.

there is no evidence fish feel pain. There's also no evidence dogs or cats or cows feel pain. That doesn't work with PeTA's agenda though.
>>
>>2499684
Your article says that

> In a 2003 study, fish were injected in the lips with bee venom or an acid solution. The fish reacted immediately, rubbing their lips on the side or bottom of their tank, rocking from side to side and breathing at a rate comparable to that of a fish swimming at top speed, New Scientist reports.

>And a 2009 study found that after experiencing a painful event, fish demonstrated defensive or avoidance behaviors, indicating the fish felt pain and remembered it.

If fish don't feel pain, why did they respond that way?

I've seen people argue about the definitions of "to feel" and "pain" on this issue. It's said that a creature can't actually "feel" things unless if it's conscious and capable of emotions (and the question of consciousness or emotions on animals are pretty controversial topics on their own, too). Also, the experience of "pain" is so subjective and personal that it's not possible to measure it from the outside; the only way to identify it is by asking "are you feeling pain right now?". But animals can't answer that, which is sometimes held as proof that animals can't experience pain.

Since the words "fish feel pain" make people argue about semantics, I would word it differently. I think fish are capable of observing unpleasant physical sensations on their body. The way they behave makes me believe they can sense aversive stimuli, and their sensory systems are acute enough that they prefer to avoid such stimuli.
>>
>>2499737
>I would word it differently
luckily a scientist one hundred years ago invented a word for that.

nociception.
>>
>>2499712
>comparing the pain of dogs/cats/cows to fish
LOL you're a fucking retard, it's clear those animals feel pain. Even people who don't give a shit about animals know that. You're just spouting stupid shit now.
>>
>>2499745
>it's clear those animals feel pain
it isn't.

they don't pass the mirror test so it's not clear they feel anything.
>>
>The researchers conclude that fish do not have the neuro-physiological capacity for a conscious awareness of pain. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm)

Fish feel pain, but we cannot compare how we experience pain to how fish do.
>>
>>2499684
>anglers maintain they don't feel pain so they can continue fishing

Hmm really makes you think
>>
>>2499747
Fish can certainly become desensitized to mirrors and realize their reflection isn't another fish. Sure, it's not the same as self recognition, but even humans have to be taught wtf a mirror is.
>>
>>2499759
if they don't have conscious awareness of pain they don't feel pain.
>>2499760
anglers know they don't feel pain, we catch the same damn fish over and over.
>>
>>2499764
>Fish can certainly become desensitized to mirrors and realize their reflection isn't another fish
nope.
>even humans have to be taught wtf a mirror is.
also nope.
>>
>>2499413
Damn fishposters..
>>
>>2499747
Ants can pass a mirror test. Are they more capable of feeling pain than a dog?
>>
>>2499786
>Ants can pass a mirror test
they can't.
the 'study' that said they can was rejected by every scientific journal it was submitted to.

funny you believe the fake news though.
>>
>>2499747
Mirror test is an indicator of self-awareness. Not the ability to feel pain. Pain is a much more fundamental, base biological function than self-awareness. Pain is a very primal system and I would argue that it is present in the bulk of animals, even simple ones. At the very least it is probably present in all vertebrates. Feeling pain doesn't require exceptional cognition.

And have you even been around animals like dogs and cats and cows? They most definitely have a pain response. They may not act on it and articulate it the way we do, but it's definitely present. Our biology is similar enough at a fundamental level that it makes sense for a sense of pain to not only have evolved but be present in pretty much all vertebrates, and possibly some invertebrates. And the more we learn about invertebrates and things such as plants, the more we realize that there's all sorts of unexpected behaviors and complexities that we never knew about before. e.g. Plants having a sort of fucntional memory and being able to sense when being harmed, and caterpillars retaining their memory even after essentially liquefying when they become butterflies. Biology never wastes something that works, and pain works.

We can't ask, so all we can do is observe. And we observe that pretty much all animals exhibit some form of avoidance of harmful stimuli.

I would not, however, argue that avoidance behavior in bacteria means that they feel pain. Bacteria are much more like biological machines. However, I would most certainly argue that most animals with a central nervous system and nerves connected to the surface have some capability of feeling pain.
>>
>>2499790
> every scientific journal it was submitted to.
Ah ,yes. The same Scientists who say muslims enrich our country.
>>
>>2499830
>using your own personal politics to internally discredit scientists so you don't actually have to listen to something you don't agree with
>>
>>2499828
that's a lot of "I would argue" and absolutely no evidence or reason.

look, if we agree that avoiding injury in bacteria isn't evidence of feeling pain, why would it be evidence in cows? You think a central nervous system is the magical point of pain? Then what about insects that lack it but avoid injury? or vertebrates that don't have nerves in their skin?

Ultimately it doesn't really matter what you think. Or what you argue.
>>
>>2499864
I agree on the ultimately. Biology does what it does regardless of what we think.

My evidence comes from my understanding of medicine and medical background coupled with animal rescue, veterinary medicine schooling, and other such activities that give me a lot of time around animals.

And frankly, if you discredit the articles that you are given then I'm not going to waste time finding them for you. It's pointless to argue with you if you find arbitrary reasons to discredit things.
>>
>>2499872
>if you discredit the articles that you are given then I'm not going to waste time finding them for you
you haven't provided any.

so you claim to understand medicine and never encountered the concept of nociception? are you a fucking retard?
>>
>>2499712
there's no evidence humans feel pain.
>>
>>2499880
there's a huge body of evidence that humans feel pain.

they pass the mirror test, for example. Plus they tell us they feel pain. In fact any understanding we have of pain and how it's evidenced comes from humans.

sorry about your retardation.
>>
Can these threads just be banned already? It's always the same circular back and forth between

>animals feel because I think they do/anecdotal evidence
>humans are the only thing that feel anything at all, everything animals experience or appear to experience is actually fake and/or human projection

With literally no real variance or compromise from either side
>>
>>2499412

Well the problem is that fish aren't usually perceived as "cute".
Richard Suhker's law proves why this is a problem because the ammount of Pc (Pain capacity) of the animal is proportional to it's Cf (cuteness factor). It goes as follows:

Pc = Cf x log10.4553

This essentially proves that only aesthetically pleasing mammals are the only animals capable of a pain response.
>>
>>2499897
Usually it's one dude trolling this kind of thread, same guy every time and fucking everyone takes the bait regardless of how many times it is posted.
Probably more or less the same people in the previous threads too knowing /an/'s teeny population. You all should know better by now!
>>
>>2499790
If you can find a refutation of the study, please post it.
>>
>>2499905
>takes the bait
but does it hurt for the fish?
>>
>>2499906
It's not a study.

it wasn't published in a scientific journal. Ironically enough "Journal of Science" is not a journal of science.

scientists can't refute something that's never been formally published.
>>
>>2499897
>With literally no real variance or compromise from either side
learn to read.

both sides admit that some animals can feel pain and some can't. Your autism is showing.
>>
>>2499937
So you don't have any sources that contradict its findings?
>>
>>2499944
there were no findings. The "study" doesn't exist.
>>
>>2499947
So now you're refusing to acknowledge its existence because you have no evidence that contradicts it? If it was refuted through peer review then there should be sources that show as much.
>>
File: journal of science.jpg (21 KB, 510x157)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>2499957
>trolling this hard
A "manscript" on a random filipino blog isn't a study.

I love the word though, "Manscript."
>>
>>2499412
According to Kurt Cobain it's alright to fish because they don't have any feelings.
Then again he stuck a shotgun in his mouth and painted the walls with his brains, so take that for what it's worth.
>>
>>2499968
Wow that's deep dude. Take a bow.
>>
>>2499978
>Wow that's deep dude
Kinda like all the ka-ka piling up from shitposting fest that is this thread.
I do what I can, alas I'm only one man.
*takes bow*
*licks windows*
>>
Anyone who says dogs and cats don't feel pain is a bone a fide idiot. Try accidentally stepping on your pet's paws and you'll see real fast how much pain they feel.
>>
>>2499968
1.5% of suicides are geniuses, .5% of the population are geniuses.

there is a slight but statistically significant chance Cobain's words are more likely to be true because of his suicide rather than less. Add to this his income bracket and the significance only increases.
>>
>>2499995
>Try accidentally stepping on your pet's paws and you'll see real fast how much pain they feel.
that's not pain, that's nociception.
>>
>>2499999
>Nociception (also nocioception or nociperception, from Latin nocere 'to harm or hurt')
>hurt

You don't deserve those quints
>>
>>2499708
I wonder how far you'd get doing that with stray cats in the neighborhood. Hooking them with rod and reel and feather/mouse baits.
>>
>>2500004
the latin base isn't the same as the word derived from it.

keep reading.
almost everything anons are calling "pain" itt are actually just nociception.

pain is an emotion, a quale.
>>
>>2500006
Pain is not an emotion. That's absurd.
>>
>>2500009
>Pain is a distressing feeling often caused by intense or damaging stimuli. Because it is a complex, subjective phenomenon, defining pain has been a challenge.
look up emotion.
you'll find it's a "feeling, a subjective phenomenon."

pain is a quale, an emotion, just like the color red or hunger or that feeling you get when you realize you'll never get a gf and have babbies.
>>
>>2500009
or if you prefer:
>Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage."[1]
notice that it's sensory AND emotional, not one or the other.
>>
>>2500012
>a feeling

Well hell then everything is an emotion. I guess when I'm hungry I'm just being very emotional. Surely it is exactly in the same realm as joy or depression.

Protip: the emotion is the attitude/mood derived from the physical sensation. You can be pissy because you are in pain, but the pain itself is not the emotion, your sourpuss/hostile attitude would be.
>>
>>2499998
>genius
>marries Courtney Love
Pick one
>>
>>2500014
>Well hell then everything is an emotion.
yes, you've got it.
almost all of human experience is emotion.
>>
>>2500014
>Protip: the emotion is the attitude/mood derived from the physical sensation.
yes, exactly. but it is impossible to experience a sensation without having an emotional reaction. "Experience" itself implies an emotion.

so the question isn't whether or not fish sense injury and react to it,
it's whether or not they "feel" anything about that. To feel pain requires the ability to have feelings.
>>
>>2499747
Why do retards act like the mirror test is some magical fucking lightswitch where an animal goes from being a total robot to being completely self aware?
>>
>>2500032
>Why do retards act like the mirror test is some magical fucking lightswitch
because we've never experienced a meaningful state between conscious and unconscious. The hypnagogic and hypnopompic states are altered, not reduced.

since altered states are not reduced states, consciousness appears to be binary. Meaning it's either off or on, nowhere in between.

if true this means all the "spectrum" faggots are in fact wrong, and liars. Animals and humans are either fully conscious or not at all.
>>
>>2500023
Jesus Christ

The person just wanted to know if you punched a fish would it get hurt by the punch
Not if it's feelings would be hurt and start crying you fucking doof.
>>
>>2499685
No animal has nerves the same way a mammal does, that's what makes us mammals dumbass.
To feel pain the neuron must fire to a specific part of the brain that recognizes it. Just because a neuron fires to the fight or flight region. Doesn't mean pain was recognizes, just that a reaction is in place.
Mammals often can feel actual pain, they can feel depression due to pain. Even at that it's still limited.
A cow can burn itself on a fence for 7 whole seconds before it comprehends that pain has happened.
It's a survival tactic in most cases.
In the case of the fish they need instinct, not recognition.
Therefore pain is not present.
>>
>>2500068
pain is a feeling. an emotion. Just because you're not aware which of your experiences are emotions (they all are) doesn't change the emotional nature of them.

hunger is an emotion, pain is an emotion, the feeling you get when you rub your tiny pecker and sniff your mom's filthy panties is an emotion. You're used to describing sensations in what you think is non-emotional language, but in fact all human experience is subjective, emotional. That's why we don't use human words like "pain" when talking about animals that don't share our emotions.

they "sense," not "feel."
they "sense," not "experience."
they engage in "nociception," not "feel pain."
they are "stressed," not "feeling stressed."
>>
File: 1498380866448.jpg (9 KB, 348x324)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>2500005
did this with birds in my youth, it didn't end well for anyone
>>
File: 1488779114723.jpg (15 KB, 320x290)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>2499712
>There's also no evidence dogs or cats or cows feel pain
>>
>>2499847
not him nor am I necessarily defending what he's saying, but you can tell a lot about someone based on their belief in something, or rather than the belief itself, the reason for that belief, and from there, it's not hard to determine whether they're retarded or not
>>
>>2499847
I don't even believe ants passed the mirror test. I just hate the appeal to authority fallacy, especially when it comes to science.
>>
>>2500190
You don't understand what the appeal to authority fallacy is
>>
>>2500190
>I just hate the appeal to authority fallacy, especially when it comes to science.
that's not an appeal to authority fallacy.

It is a verifiable fact that some animals pass the mirror test and some don't. It is also a verifiable fact that the mirror test proves consciousness and thus the ability to feel pain.


these facts can't be countered by citing lies.
>>
>>2500198
>>2500199
he's saying that those meme scientists aren't an actual authority and that there's evidence to either side and anyone saying anything is concrete is retarded--or maybe I'm just projecting
>>
>>2500200
yes, that would be an appeal to authority if I named any of those scientists or claimed that the argument is more likely to be true just because they endorse it.

but in reality anyone that wants to can perform a mirror test with their cat or ants or dog or toddler or cow and the results will be the same. Which indicates that the authority of science doesn't disagree with him, reality does.
>>
>>2500201
mirror isn't everything, orcas can't pass a mirror when they're evidently the smartest animal on Earth, but it may be because of their eyesight not being that good or something since they mostly see their word through echolocation?
>>
>>2500198
Yes, I do.
>>2500199
>that's not an appeal to authority fallacy.
Yes, it is.
>>2500201
>or claimed that the argument is more likely to be true just because they endorse it.
Just like you did here >>2499790
>>
>>2499673
You're retarded as fuck. First off all fish don't have a similarly designed mouth. Most gamefish like Bass and Pike have their mouth poked with holes every time their feed on bream or perch. Their mouths are literally designed to not be effected by holes. On the other hand fleshy mouthed fish like catfish are almost never released as their are sought after as a eating fish.
>>
>>2500202
>Just like you did here
the "study" was rejected on methodological grounds rather than personal bias. This may be difficult to understand as a non-scientist.

my understanding with the ant study is that nobody was able to reproduce the results, which indicates that it's false right off the bat. If it had been actually true journals would've been fighting each other to publish it because it would be ground-breaking new science.

scientists WANT to publish crazy stuff like that, we live for that kind of discovery. Sadly if it can't be reproduced it doesn't count.
>>
>>2500205
orcas have passed the mirror test iirc. Check Wikipedia. They're one of 3 dolphin species that regularly pass it.
>>
>>2500204
No you don't
>>
>>2500207
God they get scarier every time I learn more about them. Thank God they're waterbound so they couldn't develop circut boards and shit like that later down the line. Would not like to have to face hideous 20-foot tall all-terrain orca berserker aliens.
>>
>>2500209
they would've easily beat us to the punch if they lived on land where they could harness fire and stone tools. We got lucky I guess.

Orcas are one of the animals that definitely feels pain and is capable of suffering and a broad range of other emotions.
>>
>>2500203
>mirror isn't everything
this is also true.

rats for example fail the mirror test but display empathy which is clear evidence of Theory of Mind. ToM is itself a variety of recognition of personhood, i.e. consciousness.

there is one reported case of a dog engaging in deception which would also prove ToM. Unfortunately this has to date never been reproduced so we just don't know yet if dogs consciously experience things.

most other animals give no indication that they're consciously aware of themselves or others.
>>
>>2500212
>a dog engaging in deception
do dogs not do this a lot? also
>orca baiting seagull.gif
>>
File: 1503068139683.webm (2.38 MB, 640x360)
2.38 MB
2.38 MB WEBM
>>2500213
>>
>>2500213
>do dogs not do this a lot?
probably, but only once in a science lab.
they need to do it more with scientists watching is all.
>>
>>2500221
>>2500213
an excellent example of an animal that understands deception and thus is conscious of its own pain and suffering.

the trick is in understanding how others react based on how you yourself thinks. Only the conscious project.
>>
>>2500212
I think that a possible reason for why rats don't pass the test is that they don't seem to comprehend things being rats without the smell.
>>
>>2500189
literally fallacious thinking
>>
>>2500482
>implying they don't smell themselves
the lack of odor is a key clue in understanding the mirror.

not that they rely on odor. They show empathy for rats they can't smell, meaning they use vision rather than scent to identify other rats.
>>
>>2499747
>answers thread regarding fish
>successfully baits anons

you've been bamboozled, fish
>>
>>2500509
>They show empathy for rats they can't smell
In the empathy tests I've seen they could clearly smell the rats.

Rats I had showed absolutely no reaction to a mirror.
>>
>>2500526
>In the empathy tests I've seen they could clearly smell the rats.
have you seen a lot of rat-empathy tests?
>>
>>2500533
3 or 4
>>
>>2499412
Sure they do.
>>
>>2499764
>even humans have to be taught wtf a mirror is.
wtf. The mirror test simply shows at what age humans understand the concept of a reflection, and more to the point, their *own* reflection.

Its a very quickly learned concept because once you recognize what the reflection is reflecting (ie. yourself) you realize at an instinctual level what a "reflection" is. Looking at yourself from a pool of water or any other reflective surface reinforces this notion.

Noone has to learn "what" a mirror is.

>>2499830
Red Herring fag detected.
>>
>>2499712
This man kicks puppies
>>
>>2500567
Compare cultures that lack being able to easily see their reflection to western children. There's a pretty big age gap.
Even adults in particular remote tribes took awhile to understand a mirror.
>>
>>2499712
>Dog gets its tail caught in a closing door or its food is stepped on accidentally or its playmate is playing too rough or nipping too hard
>It yelps, obviously it hurt
>Dog hurts its paw
>It limps in an attempt to not put weight on the affected area
>Dog is scratched by cat when being too playful/enthusiastic
>It hurt, so the dog learns not to bother the cat
>Dog is ill, it acts very off and may seek comfort from owner because it is in pain

Is this bait? Of course dogs feel pain. Can't dogs even get depressed for example when an owner or another dog In the house dies?
>>
>>2500618
Foot*
>>
>>2499768
actually yes, children or adults who have not seen a mirror do not understand the high def nature of their reflection for a good while.
>>
>>2500208
Yes, I do.
>>
>>2499673
That is extremely untrue. Anything with nociceptors feel pain, as they are literally the "pain sensor" in the body. For example, earthworms have a nervous system, but have no way of sensing pain.
>>
File: 1305767275415.png (238 KB, 376x411)
238 KB
238 KB PNG
>>2499884
theres no evidence of your existence
prove it to me now!
>>
>>2500636
No you don't
>>
>>2500576
From my experience this is true
I had a family friend that went over to an orphanage in the Ukraine and adopted a 6 yo kid. There wasn't anything wrong with him physically or mentally, but the orphanage he was at didn't have many amenities such as mirrors or television. When the kid saw a mirror or someone on tv for the first time, he would try to get behind the objects in order to find the other person he was seeing. He had to be taught that there weren't other people there.
>>
>>2500863
Yes, I do.
>>
>>2500041
So you think a retarded human who fails the mirror test can't have experiences?

You seem to think self-concept is the same as sentience. Whenever you feel pain, do you suddenly start going through a mental checklist of your life history?

You're like Descartes thinking that animals can't suffer because God didn't endow them with Reason in the form of a soul.
>>
>>2500884
No you don't
>>
>>2500912
Yes, I do.
>>
>>2499747
Neither does a human infant, but babies can certainly feel pain.
>>
>>2502333
Prove it.
>>
>>2499412
they do but they just walk it off!
>>
Why the fuck is it that every time someone asks, "Does X feel pain?" everyone immediately jumps to the conclusion of EMOTIONAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL pain?

There is a vast fucking difference between a human weeping due to grief, and a human crying because they got stung in the face by a bee.

Animals can feel physical pain. It's why they yelp/screech/move away/limp/ etc. They do not need consciousness/self awareness for pain, because they do not feel grief. (unless it's a parrot with an IQ of a human five year old, or an elephant, or a chimp that can speak in sign language)

Grief=/=registering in your brain messages from physically damaged nerve cells.

Animals can feel pain, without being self aware. Fucking deal with it.
>>
>>2499766
That doesn't prove anything. If some asshole was giving me as much delicious lasagna as I could possibly want and all I would have to do to pay for it was letting him stab me with a needle for each plateful I would happily let him stab me over and over again. And then laugh my ass off as I walk away with all his lasagna.

You're not proving that fish feel pain. All you're proving is that those specific fish are smarter than you and know a little bit of pain is worth not FUCKING STARVING TO DEATH IN THE GOD DAMN WILD.
>>
>>2502417
Garfield pls stop
>>
>>2502429
kek
>>
>>2502417
>not proving that fish feel pain
>know a little bit of pain is worth

imagine being this retarded
>>
>>2502449
That confused me too. Considering the post he's replying to I'm pretty sure he meant to say "don't feel".
>>
>There is no 100% conclusive proof this animal feels pain
>Therefore let's assume it does not
>Guilty until proven innocent

Thisthread.taga.argz
>>
>>2502549
>>There is no evidence this animal feels pain
>Therefore let's assume it does not
>science
>>
>>2499412
yes you supid burger
>>
>>2502635
Do only burgers care about fish feelings or something?
>>
>>2499884
You keep rambling about the mirror test like you just heard about it in psych 101, what does that have to do with pain?
>>
Its technically impossible to discern whether or not fish feel pain in the way we do
However fish do respond to noxious stimuli in the same way that we do
So it is safe to assume that they do indeed feel pain
>>
>>2502616
Nervous system + biological need for pain = probably feels the ouchies

Pain isn't just a christmas tree embedded in your nervous system, it has an actual function. Doesn't take a fucking genius to feel it either, it's an extremely basic nervous response that really doesn't require munch brainpower to posses.

Besides half of the Faggotinis™ in this thread probably wouldn't give a shit even if there was irrefutable evidence fish felt pain, since they clearly do not care about the welfare of any non-fluffy animals.
>>
>>2502643
Pain is only experienced by conscious beings.
the mirror test proves consciousness.
>>2502731
>Pain isn't just a christmas tree embedded in your nervous system, it has an actual function
Wrong.
that's nociception.
your nervous system engages in nociception, the SENSING of injury.

your brain FEELS things, feeling requires a conscious brain. If you're not conscious you're not feeling. You're still sensing and reacting, but not feeling.

screaming and running around is not an indication of conscious feeling of pain. Those systems and behaviors evolved long before the conscious ability to feel them.>>2502731
>they clearly do not care about the welfare of any non-fluffy animals.
I don't care about the welfare of any individuals I don't know, human or cute or slimy or fuzzy. Neither do you. You pretend to care in the abstract but in real life there's simply too many humans and other animals suffering to actually give a shit about every one of them.
>>
>>2502640
only burgers are so stupid not to know that every vertebrate feels pain
>>
>>2502748
plenty of vertebrates don't even have nociceptors, there's no way they could feel pain. They lack the nervous system to do it. Most fish and amphibians are in that group.

other vertebrates have nociceptors and thus clearly engage in nociception. But nociception is not the feeling of pain. It is the sensing of injury and the instinctive, mindless reaction to that sensation.

Humans can do this too. People in a coma with brain death may still react to injury despite the apparent fact that they're not feeling it.
>>
>>2502751
fish has good sense of dermic sensing
>>
>>2502754
yes, they're extremely sensitive to touch, vibration, and often bioelectric signals.

they lack the ability to sense injury to their skin or any other part of the body.

You're again anthropomorphizing. Just because fish have nerves in the skin doesn't mean those nerves do the same things yours do. Even your nerves don't all do the same things. For instance you have nerves in your skin that sense stretching but are incapable of sensing pain. There are different types of nerves doing different things.
>>
>>2502760
injury is touch sensation taken to extreme
i think
>>
>>2502742
>"but in real life there's simply too many humans and other animals suffering to actually give a shit about every one of them."

>"If you can't save 'em all then it's better to just give up and save none"

this is the kind of reasoning that makes the greatest of philosophers jealous.

>"Yeah guys uncute animals don't feel pain, they feel this thing called Noiciception™ which is exactly like pain but for animals that I couldn't personally give less of a shit about. Even though, by definition, noiciception is actually not disproving of pain, it's actually a nervous response that indicates that the animal is very likely able to feel pain but fuck that who doesn't like shooting frogs with bb guns for fun? Can't prove it 100%? Not real."

You sound like you're so far up your own ass you believe only humans are able to feel pain. "Oh no guys they meet all known criteria that indicates they might be feeling pain but fuck that, we can't conclude, time to cook fish alive". Literally all the evidence stacked against you, and yet you still deny it. The fuck kind of evidence do you even fucking NEED at this point to have some fucking respect for wildlife? It just seems like you'll only accept it if I used Voodoo magic and turned you into a fucking lobster.
>>
>>2502775
Yes, but in fish it's not taken to that extreme.

but you could also argue that touching a fish causes it pain, just like some humans feel touch or noise or other sensations as painful.

this further proves that the sensation of being injured (nociception) is NOT the same as pain.
>>
>>2502778
>they meet all known criteria that indicates they might be feeling pain
except consciousness.

again, every ethologist in the world agrees that consciousness is required to feel pain. There is no scientist out there that agrees with you.

and personally I find your position monstrous because that means there's countless trillions of animals out there being tortured by nature and wondering why. And that's a very fucked up thing to believe.
>>
>>2502785
"Trust me the smart guys believe it"

Fucking hell man for a nanosecond there I thought I had you by the testicles but now that you told me that all the big boys at the big boy science lab think I'm gay I'm pretty convinced here. I mean there's not munch to say here. Fucking hell man I guess you won. Man how fucking cool are you? Holy shit you even managed to somehow prove that pain cannot be felt without even linking being self-aware and feeling a basic function of the nervous system yourself and yet proving that they ARE linked! Man I wish my cock was that huge!
>>
>>2502793
all I'm saying is your beliefs are based in ignorance and perhaps you should go read even one paper on the subject that wasn't published by PeTA or posted on your wiccan aunt's blog.

scientists could be wrong, but it's much more likely you're wrong since they could easily understand your views while you fail miserably to understand theirs.
>>
>>2502798
Thanks for the tip! I used to respect frogs, letting them live their lives and all that gay stuff but you have opened my eyes. I can now confidently say that I am able to shoot those dumb faggots with bb guns with the help of my cousin Cletus with no worries! Man those people that respect animal life are so fucking stupid amirite? Killing things for fun is the big boy way. Only petafags will disagree with that notion. Hah. Next time somebody looks at me weird when i burn a bunch of ants with a magnifying glass at 25 years old i'll just tell them how stupid they are and that there's no 100% conclusive proof any non-mammals feel pain.
>>
>>2502808
you got it.

your sarcasm is fun, but the fact remains you are retarded if you think frogs or ants feel pain.

you're also retarded if you think there's no 100% conclusive proof any non-mammals feel pain.
>>
>>2502785
>I find your position monstrous because that means there's countless trillions of animals out there being tortured by nature and wondering why. And that's a very fucked up thing to believe
So because the potential truth would imply something horrible, the potential proof is a fundamentally unethical thing?

That's retarded, especially when you take into account that ethics, while of vital importance in society, are literally something made up by humans. Nature doesn't feel bad about a pack of hyenas tearing apart a heavily pregnant gazelle and ripping apart the little baby as it struggles to stand. Why would it care about whether she and it suffer? Nature can't feel bad or good about anything - it's just a series of mistakes and coincidences. Something might make YOU feel uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean thinking about it and questioning it is unethical.
>>
>>2499412
yes
but they do not suffer
>>
>>2499673
define pain. The anthropocentric view of pain and why we perceive it as evil depend heavily on higher brain function.
>>
>>2502852
>So because the potential truth would imply something horrible, the potential proof is a fundamentally unethical thing?
no, I think your desire to believe all vertebrates suffer without having any evidence that they do is psychopathic.
>>
>ITT: retard thinks they're smarter than everybody else
>>
>>2502863
I know I'm smarter than everyone else.
I'm trying to help you.
sadly that isn't possible in your case. But others here will understand what I'm saying and see the truth of it.

or you can go to college and learn exactly the same stuff I'm telling you if you're bright enough.
>>
File: picklerick.jpg (74 KB, 1280x720)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
Everyone knows fish don't feel pain. The real question is do pickles?
>>
>>2502863
if you're gonna call someone out, specify, faggot
>>
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/17/opinion/l-why-infant-surgery-without-anesthesia-went-unchallenged-832387.html

Whether a non-human organism feels pain is an extremely difficult and uncertain field. Hell - Until the nineteen-seventies, people largely didn't even scientifically recognize that HUMAN BABIES felt pain, and routinely operated on them without any form of anaesthetic when the kid was as old as a year.

This definitely doesn't mean that insects and fish and other things conclusively feel pain, but nor does it eliminate the possibility that they do.

>>2502862
You're having an extremely emotional reaction to an unemotional question. No-one WANTS to believe that animals suffer, and suggesting that they could is not psychopathic - quite the opposite, in that having sympathy for and a belief that suffering may be possible displays more empathy than aggressively insisting that it can't be possible.
>>
>>2502873
>Until the nineteen-seventies, people largely didn't even scientifically recognize that HUMAN BABIES felt pain
we still don't.
the reason we started using anesthetics on infants was to reduce the parent's suffering, not the child's.
>quite the opposite, in that having sympathy for and a belief that suffering may be possible displays more empathy than aggressively insisting that it can't be possible.
yes, but that empathy is inappropriate and may indicate a mental disorder.
>>
>>2502873
>and suggesting that they could is not psychopathic
But suggesting that it's likely is an emotional response. you want to humanise animals that from everything we know aren't
>>
>>2502873
>people largely didn't even scientifically recognize that HUMAN BABIES felt pain,
Out of curiosity, what new knowledge proved that they do? Seems like you're just moving to an even more emotional argument as if it proved the former. Also babies aren't animals.
>>
>>2502879
I see you didn't read the article. And again, making shrill declarations like 'Worrying about whether fish feel pain makes you mentally unstable' is an extremely emotional response.

>>2502880
No, it's a scientific one, and I don't even believe that it's likely nor did I say as much, particularly in the case of insects. Insects are extremely likely to suffer all manner of extreme and debilitating injuries - loss of limbs etc aren't at all uncommon, with the animal generally showing little concern for them afterwards. If an animal like that was capable of being debilitated by pain the way that mammals often are it'd be bad for the survival of it, since avoiding suffering wouldn't offer the same long-term benefits that more advanced animals get.

Argue with what someone is saying, not what you made up in your own head.
>>
>>2502892
>it's a scientific one,
kek
>doesn't know the scientific definition of pain as distinguished from nociception
>doesn't know that most fish don't even have nociceptors and are thus incapable of pain
>doesn't know that consciousness is required to feel pain
>claims the authority of science
you're way out of your league here, kid.
>>
>>2502887
IIRC it was this guy's studies:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20928962/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1530752/
>>
>>2502899
you realize those studies came out well AFTER anesthetic began being regularly used on infants, right?

so they couldn't have been the thing that changed medical opinions on the subject.
>>
>>2502887
Human beings are animals.
>http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/107385840100700309
>http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/chamberlain/
>https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/14197
>http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198711193172105
With the last one you need to read the whole article to get the gist of it, as it opens up by talking about the old claims that babies didn't feel pain before raising arguments against them.
>>
>>2502902
>Human beings are animals.
All humans are animals, but not all animals are humans.
>>
>>2502901
The first article was in 87, I thought that was when the big change was.
>>
>>2502904
Excellent, you're clearly not the same person who made the claim that 'babies aren't animals'.

Again, concluding whether something that cannot speak is able to feel pain is an extremely difficult and complicated field, as shown by how long misconceptions about baby pain persisted for. This doesn't mean that animals are the same as humans or have the same ability to feel pain, simply that it's a highly uncertain field.
>>
>>2502905
no, consult Wikipedia for a better understanding.

it started with a particular case, those articles came out AFTER the fact. Which is not a comment on whether or not they're correct, just that they are ex post facto justifications.

it should also prove if there's any doubt that the debate continues even now among scientists and doctors. These are not old articles.
>>
>>2502907
>as shown by how long misconceptions about baby pain persisted for
they aren't misconceptions, and the view persists even now.
>>
>>2502907
>you're clearly not the same person who made the claim that 'babies aren't animals'.
I am. Sorry for wording it in a way that doesn't at all change my point but allows you be pedantic and obstruct progression in the discussion.
>>
>>2502914
I don't think she's actually intelligent enough to understand your point.
>>
>>2502909
The last lobotomy was performed in 1967. Alatrofloxacin was banned in 2006 because it fucked up your liver.

As medical and scientific knowledge increases, which it does so at an extremely rapid rate, people are able to learn more and better. These being relatively new is a good thing, as they're made by modern people with access to modern technology.
>>
>>2502914
All that you're doing now is being passive-aggressive about being disregarded. You haven't actually said anything about my claim which took up the main part of my post - again, concluding whether something that cannot speak is able to feel pain is an extremely difficult and complicated field, and trying to dumb it down to 'Anyone who thinks animals feel pain is PETA/Anyone who thinks animals don't feel pain is a sociopath' is stupid.
>>
>>2502927
your main argument didn't actually address animals other than human babies though
>>
>>2502926
I agree on all points.

I'm just pointing out that this is not settled science necessarily endorsed by all doctors or anything. Probably most of the doctors currently practicing went to school at a time when nobody believed babies feel pain, and that opinion likely hasn't changed.

because the evidence that they do is extremely weak and came after anesthesia was already being used for advertising purposes. Parents were shocked to learn doctors didn't think babies felt pain, and much like the morons on /an/, immediately disagreed violently despite there being no science on their side.

and of course as soon as parents stared bitching, obliging scientists showed up to testify that they're right. Much like PeTA spends millions of dollars a year on studies insisting that fish feel pain.
>>
>>2502931
One of my first posts is where I talked about my doubts at the claims of insects and other lower animals feeling pain.

I'm well aware that you're probably used to people who make stupid claims like 'Animals are just the same as us!!! They hurt and feel and love and fear! #govegan' but I did not and don't want to sink to the level of acknowledging that, since it isn't what this thread is about. But a claim like 'Humans aren't animals' is easily misunderstood.

>>2502933
I'm afraid I disagree, babies offered pain relief generally display lower signs of stress, fear, discomfort and need to be comforted, etc, with multiple studies by people far more educated than either of us being done on the subject. You can't just say 'There is no evidence for babies feeling pain because all the evidence for babies feeling pain is fake'. Intentional corruption in the industry isn't anywhere near as rife or mainstream as that.

If babies genuinely didn't feel pain then arguably it'd make part of the procedure less risky, as anesthetizing itself is easy to get wrong and cause permanent damage to or even kill the patient, particularly with something as fragile as a baby. Doctors would avoid it where possible as they used to, before more evidence came to light suggesting it was necessary. It's not as simple as blaming everything on uneducated parents and corruption.
>>
>>2502943
I fail to see what you were getting at, insects express their reaction to pain even more primitively than other animals, so other animals must necessarily experience pain like humans?
>>
>>2502945
Again - read what is actually being said. I said I DIDN'T think that insects and most other animals felt pain, not that they did.
>>
>>2502943
>I'm afraid I disagree, babies offered pain relief generally display lower signs of stress, fear, discomfort and need to be comforted, etc, with multiple studies by people far more educated than either of us being done on the subject. You can't just say 'There is no evidence for babies feeling pain because all the evidence for babies feeling pain is fake'.
again, all of those responses are to NOCICEPTION, not pain.

it's not that the evidence is fake, rather that you don't know what pain is in the scientific or clinical sense.
>>
>>2502946
Yes, that is what I'm responding to. how does the argument that some animals(excluding humans) definitely don't suffer prove that some do?
>>
>>2502948
Then apparently neither do most of the qualified doctors in the studies on infant pain I linked. How many of them have you looked over?

Nociception is a good explanation for reactions similar to pain in non-sentient life, but in a species which is 100% confirmed to have an understanding of pain (humans) dismissing everything on the basis of that is a lot murkier.

>>2502949
It doesn't prove anything, which is what I've been saying from the start. It is a difficult field of science, and uneducated people confidently making blanket claims to support whichever ideal makes them feel morally superior doesn't do it justice.
>>
>>2502953
>Then apparently neither do most of the qualified doctors in the studies on infant pain I linked.
true.

>Nociception is a good explanation for reactions similar to pain in non-sentient life, but in a species which is 100% confirmed to have an understanding of pain (humans) dismissing everything on the basis of that is a lot murkier.
not at all.
if I have a patient under anesthesia for surgery and find their cortisol and adrenaline levels elevated I don't automatically think they're in pain.

that's an unconscious reaction to nociception. Similarly if I poke a coma patient with a pin and their limb jerks I don't assume they're in pain. Another unconscious reaction to nociception.

the question is one of consciousness, not nociception. The body engages in nociception constantly. But you have to be conscious to feel pain.
>>
>>'tis a mammal after all
>>
Even if fish can't feel pain the way we do, they can definitely feel stress. Fish have the same stress hormone as mammals. Acute stress can be lethal for fish. So even if they don't have a true pain response, something incredibly unpleasant is happening in their brain.

I just skimmed this article: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2004/7/short

>Corticosteroid and catecholamine hormones are released in response to stressors in an attempt to adapt or avoid the cause of stress.
>>
>>2503725
>they can definitely feel stress
again, they'd have to be conscious to feel anything.

there is no evidence they're conscious so science assumes they are not.
>>
How the fuck can people be sadistic enough to honestly believe that human babies don't feel pain? What the hell did they do while operating on them, tie them down to the surgery table and then duct tape their mouths closed so they wouldn't have to listen to the screams of agony as they physically cut the babies open?
>>
>>2503769
Anon, if fish can't FEEL, then how the fuck do they experience stress enough to release a specific hormone as a response?

Stress is purely psychological, you dumb ass.
>>
>>2504314
>Stress is purely psychological, you dumb ass.
no. In humans it has a psychological component.

when we talk about stress in fish we're talking about physiological reactions to bad conditions, not psychological ones.

that's why you can say a person FEELS stressed, but at best a fish IS stressed. We also talk about plants being stressed, this doesn't mean we're discussing the mental state of a tomato or whatever.
>>
>>2504313
>How the fuck can people be sadistic enough to honestly believe that human babies don't feel pain?
anyone that's been circumcised, which was something like 95% of medical doctors at the time.

>What the hell did they do while operating on them, tie them down to the surgery table and then duct tape their mouths closed so they wouldn't have to listen to the screams of agony as they physically cut the babies open?
they don't scream in agony. But yes, the baby was generally strapped down to a board for invasive surgeries. They still are.

Surgery on babies of the sort that caused the change in practice are extremely rare. Surgery is very likely to kill them. Anesthetic is also very likely to kill them. Since they started using anesthetic your baby is more likely do die during surgery simply because it's another layer of things that can go wrong. Apparently most parents think it's worth it.
>>
File: 1435361342422.jpg (88 KB, 634x892)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
>>2504314
there is no proof that anyone but the self is conscious you dummy, and we basically still have no idea what consciousness is.
>>
>>2504915
we know exactly what consciousness is, /an/ just doesn't like the definition.
>>
File: proof bird 4.png (106 KB, 680x414)
106 KB
106 KB PNG
>>2504921
>we know exactly what consciousness is
>>
>>2499693
You've obviously never touched a starfish before, they just sit there.

t. touched a starfish
>>
>>2499968
Fuck off Courtney we know it was you
>>
>>2504966
Fuck you! You can't prove shit!
*bangs H*
*blows random hobo*
*doesn't bathe*
>>
>>2504962
We're talking psychology, there is no proof and the only evidence is explanatory power.

1. first evolved sense and response. This is the most basic part of consciousness, and is found in almost all life. Things from bacteria to plants to animals sense their environments and react to them.
2. Next came synthesis- the brain. Vertebrates and many other animals have nervous systems that gather sense data in a brain which processes it as a synthetic reality to which the body responds. The body continues to sense and react to signals not gathered in the brain as well. The animal isn't aware of the sensations, it is just the first stage in approaching awareness.
3. Conditioning. The animal lacks memories as we experience them, but the brain stores information and reacts to it unconsciously via conditioning. This is found in insects and most animals with brains.
4. Memory. This is conditioning such that the animal remembers specific information and physiological states associated with that information, it moves beyond conditioning in that the memory may be available even when the environmental triggers to it are not. This is found in most higher vertebrates. Birds and mammals tend to have memories.
5. Symbolic memory. The animal symbolizes remembered data and then manipulates those symbols. This is found in higher birds and mammals that use tools and solve problems they haven't encountered before without trial and error. It's also the basis for learned behaviors.
6. Symbolic memory and reality synthesis containing a symbol for self. This is the inclusion of the self in the synthetic reality, seeing oneself as a causative agent in that reality. This is consciousness. It is only known to exist in animals that recognize themselves, of which very few exist.

now the problem is that all of these parts of consciousness evolved at different stages in animals, and one or more of them doesn't indicate consciousness. They must ALL be present for an animal to be conscious.
>>
>>2505034
>They must ALL be present for an animal to be conscious.
I.e., an animal MUST BE sensate, respond to a synthetic reality, respond to conditioning, have independent memories, sort those memories as symbolic constructs, and have a symbolic concept of itself.

So consciousness is a mental feedback loop-
it's just a symbolic construct of reality that contains a symbol for itself.

This is difficult to grasp because it's paradoxical, how can a simulation contain itself within it? How can a video game contain the entire video game as well as itself? The answer is fairly simple, the conscious mind doesn't contain itself, it merely contains a symbol for itself to which all of itself is attached. This is difficult to unravel, and it becomes easy to mistake the symbol for the construct because in your mind they are the same thing. But in reality they are not. The construct forms before the symbol for it does, so we know that the concept of self- while seemingly paradoxical- is a later addition to the construct. We synthesize reality symbolically first, and add a symbol for ourselves afterwards. This is- not coincidentally- how the thing evolved in nature as well. Animals with symbolic constructs are relatively common and probably have been for hundreds of millions of years. It's only very recently that consciousness arose when animals evolved to insert a symbol for self into the symbolic construct.
>>
>>2505042
>It's only very recently that consciousness arose when animals evolved to insert a symbol for self into the symbolic construct.
and by "very recently" we mean in the last 60 million years or so.

dolphins, apes, corvids, parrots, and elephants have all been wandering around fully conscious for tens of millions of years. Likely other animals as well. This is very recent in evolution, but still unspeakably ancient compared to our own history.
>>
>>2499412
Ask em
>>
>>2505042
How can a simulation contain itself? what? Have you ever heard of virtual machines?
>>
>>2505166
I did.
He said "put me back asshole"
>>
>>2505235
a virtual machine does not contain the literal machine it runs on.
>>
>>2499685
Thats not how it works you little shit if this was true everything they eat would hurt because fish tend to eat sharp things
>>
>>2499708
If you do it right when you unhook the fish it will be fine
>>
>>2499737
They respond because they know something bad is happining as their body tells them but unlike other animals most fish dont get pain signals that tell them that its more of a just knowing that whats happining is bad and not normal
>>
>>2499747
Mirror test is for intelligence you dope
Obviously you didn't pass it
>>
>>2505680
>The mirror test is a measure of self-awareness developed by Gordon Gallup Jr in 1970.
>The test gauges self-awareness by determining whether an animal can recognize its own reflection in a mirror as an image of itself.

nice dunning kruger, moron.
>>
>>2505682
>am gonna use this cool new buzzword anon show me a couple days ago, he sounded so smart when he BTFO'd my ass

you're welcome kiddo
>>
File: think.jpg (232 KB, 979x832)
232 KB
232 KB JPG
>>2499412
>fish gets hooked
>fish tries to swim away as hard is it can even though it has a hook in it's throat
It can't be that bad for the fish otherwise it would pull so damn hard.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.