Do fish feel pain?

wedigfood

Forum Devotee
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Reaction score
13
Age
68
Location
Thousand Oaks, California
The last "meat" I gave up before becoming completely vegan was fish. In my wildest imagination I did not believe that fish had a conscious, were intelligent and could feel emotions. In other words, were sentient beings. Looking back I am not sure what I thought since they obviously are not plants so what else could they be.

Here are some wonderful quotes by renowned scientists that I recently found that would have cleared up any doubts I had.

The oceanographer Sylvia Earle says, “I wouldn’t deliberately eat a grouper any more than I’d eat a cocker spaniel.” Fish, she explains, “are sensitive, they have personalities; they hurt when they’re wounded.”

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, a prestigious peer reviewed journal, a team of animal scientists surveyed the evidence up to 2004 and declared, “This review of the anatomy, physiology, and behaviour of fish suggests that they are more likely to be sentient than not.”

Am curious as to what other people think/thought about fish.
 
I've seen a fish playing, so I know they have emotions.
I was at a restaurant which had huge aquariums in it. There was something in the tank sending up a stream of bubbles, and this little fish would swim to the bottom of the bubbles, then ride the bubbles to the top and swim back down and do it over again. It was so cute to watch. :)

Also, I've seen videos of people and other animals interacting with different types of fish and sea animals in a playful way. I can post some if anyone wants to see them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Fish is a very broad category, I think its best to think about particular classes of fish. In any case, whether or not fish are "sentient"is a complex question with no good answer. There is, for example, no concrete scientific definition of the term "sentient" and one instead has to rely on philosophic considerations. But anthropomorphizing the actions of fish certainly doesn't address anything.

In any case, since fish lack a neocortex I think its unlikely that they are sentient in any meaningful sense, that is, they are not sentient in the sense that mammals are.
 
I used to fish and pondered this ..

The baits that worked best were not naturaly occuring foods; Sweetcorn, fly maggots, 'boilies', etc.

Fishing 'catch and release' you would often catch the same fish time and time again.

Two possible conclusions ...

1. Fish are thick as sh*t and can't remember that taking things that caused them pain 5 minutes ago will cause them pain again.

2. Fish have enough intelligence to quickly work out that the pain is worth the gain.


I gave up piscating in favour of ****-taking a long time ago, mind.
 
Fish is a very broad category, I think its best to think about particular classes of fish. In any case, whether or not fish are "sentient"is a complex question with no good answer. There is, for example, no concrete scientific definition of the term "sentient" and one instead has to rely on philosophic considerations. But anthropomorphizing the actions of fish certainly doesn't address anything.

In any case, since fish lack a neocortex I think its unlikely that they are sentient in any meaningful sense, that is, they are not sentient in the sense that mammals are.
Let's not have the bivalve discussion, logic.
 
1. Fish are thick as sh*t and can't remember that taking things that caused them pain 5 minutes ago will cause them pain again.

I have seen plenty of humans behave in this manner….Seriously, fear, anxiety and certainly perpetual hunger can drive us all to the brink of insanity. A great quote from the Dalai Lama: "The Dalai Lama, when asked what surprised him most about humanity, answered, ‘Man. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived."
 
In any case, since fish lack a neocortex I think its unlikely that they are sentient in any meaningful sense, that is, they are not sentient in the sense that mammals are.

"More recent studies, however, suggest that crustacean brains and nervous systems are configured differently. For example, fish, lobsters and octopi all have vision, Elwood said, despite lacking a visual cortex, which allows humans to see.." Elwood, a professor in the School of Biological Sciences at The Queen's University in Belfast
 
so in what way are mammals sentient, that fish aren't?
Mammals exhibit all sorts of behaviors that hint at sentience.....fish not so much. The problem here is that there is no scientific criteria for "sentience" and all we really know is that we, that is humans, are sentient and the neocortex is key to our sentience. From this you can conclude that animals with similar brain structures are likely sentient as well but animals like fish have much different brain structures...so how exactly do we determine whether they are sentient or not? You want to look for behaviors that are unquestionable the result of sentience and I don't think such behaviors have been found. Fish behavior can be explained without an appeal to sentience and thus, via occam's razor, fish aren't sentient.

"More recent studies, however, suggest that crustacean brains and nervous systems are configured differently. For example, fish, lobsters and octopi all have vision, Elwood said, despite lacking a visual cortex, which allows humans to see.."
They lack a visual cortex.....but they have eyes which obviously points to the ability to see. But since they lack a visual cortex their vision is likely very different from mammals. Sentience is much more difficult, there is no sense organ to point to, and since they lack a neocortex making comparisons with ourselves and other mammals doesn't work. So the fact that they lack a neocortex doesn't necessarily mean they aren't sentient....it just makes the determination more difficult.
 
I think sentience came before the formation of brains...I believe that evolution formalised, and built structures around what was already there. So even an ant is sentient. Sentience is the way an organism solves problems. Try writing a computer program to solve complex problems.....I suppose ants haven't got a neo cortex either.
If you can't define sentience then how can a fishes behaviour be explained without an appeal to it?
 
I have seen plenty of humans behave in this manner….Seriously, fear, anxiety and certainly perpetual hunger can drive us all to the brink of insanity. A great quote from the Dalai Lama: "The Dalai Lama, when asked what surprised him most about humanity, answered, ‘Man. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived."

That from a man who out of ignorance sacrifices the lives of others to maintain his own health.

I am NOT a Dalai Lama fan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom L.
So the fact that they lack a neocortex doesn't necessarily mean they aren't sentient....it just makes the determination more difficult.

Not very scientific, although I am among those who believe that there is so much we don't know that I am willing to give the benefit of doubt, especially when a life is at stake. Since what we discuss will not appear in the next scientific journal or in someone's doctoral thesis I don't adhere to occam's razor's standards. Although it's not like any scientist has not declared fish as sentient beings, see other posts above.

As far as evolution goes, I am open to
I think sentience came before the formation of brains...I believe that evolution formalised, and built structures around what was already there.
as well as any other theories following the line of thinking of Stephen Hawking as opposed to his wife, saw Theory of Everything, last night, well worth the 2 hours.