Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Careful, sounds like you may be turning French. (Ogod I sound like @Revoltingest )
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arguments for and against fish cognition
- Thread starter Kharisym
- Start date
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Having had both marine and tropical freshwater fish, the former are definitely way more intelligent than the latter.I had a dwarf gourami that would eat from my hand(and only my hand).
My knife fish recognized me(as opposed to my sons or husband), and would come to the glass when I standing there(I who bring food). Once I started having the 8 year old help with the fish, he would come up for him, too.
We have trouble with cichlids; if they pair up and one dies, the living partner(no matter how vibrant they were) will often pine away and die within a month or two.
Fish form preferences for other fish, not always of the same species. They make friends.
They definitely have personalities.
I will say the larger the fish, the more aware(less instinctual) they seem to be, but this is not always the case. Fish that don't school also seem to be more aware.
After talking with an Applebee's staff(a crappy US chain restaurant) about vegetarianism, and having her help me find something appropriate, I got my dish and started eating... noticed a funny texture. Ate a few more bites. Noticed a piece of bacon. I dug around and saw the whole thing was full of bacon.
Someone threw a breadstick, they were so angry.
I haven't had the pleasure of keeping marine fish(freshwater are expensive enough), but I'd say my cichlids(mine are of the central American variety) are probably my most interactive overall. They seem like aquatic puppies...
I don't know about fish but i have seen it in birds.
As winter is setting in, it's getting colder. I've seen what is presumably older birds stand in the road facing away from traffic and not flying away at the opportune moment. Maybe one of two vehicles will miss so they shuffle over to be in the path of a wheel.
This to me shows foreknowledge and determination.
JDMS
Academic Workhorse
Hi there. I actually work at a lab that uses zebrafish and originally used salmon as model organisms for toxicology research and behavior research. I am actually doing a behavior based research project right now. I've also owned fish since I was 5 years old, and I've spent probably close to 1000 hours at the creek that was at my parents house. I could recognize the fish and crawfish that lived there by name.
I will say that I believe most fish are conscious. Most people who work with fish in research also believe this. Its hard not to.
However, I won't be typing out the pages upon pages of evidence we have, because I don't think you need it. I think you need to be asking yourself why this is a question you feel the need to ask.
First of all, "fish" aren't anything. "Fish" describes a MASSIVE group of animals that have dozens of times the genetic diversity of mammals. There are too many kinds of fish to generalize them. Many fish are most definitely conscious. Cichlids, carp, sharks, rays, etc. Others we aren't sure. So what kind of fish will you eat? Will you pick and choose what species to eat based on what species pass the mirror test?
I also have to ask, why does the consciousness of an animal matter in terms of eating it? If all fish are capable of feeling pain, which is likely, then what does it matter if they are conscious or not? The simplest fish and the most complex fish often wither away and die in aquariums, or act distressed when caught. So what's the difference?
Do you value conscious animals more? In that case, maybe you should re-evaluate how you assign value to them. Because a manta ray or elephantfish is likely more conscious than your dog or cat.
Just some food for thought, from someone who studies fish behavior for a living
I will say that I believe most fish are conscious. Most people who work with fish in research also believe this. Its hard not to.
However, I won't be typing out the pages upon pages of evidence we have, because I don't think you need it. I think you need to be asking yourself why this is a question you feel the need to ask.
First of all, "fish" aren't anything. "Fish" describes a MASSIVE group of animals that have dozens of times the genetic diversity of mammals. There are too many kinds of fish to generalize them. Many fish are most definitely conscious. Cichlids, carp, sharks, rays, etc. Others we aren't sure. So what kind of fish will you eat? Will you pick and choose what species to eat based on what species pass the mirror test?
I also have to ask, why does the consciousness of an animal matter in terms of eating it? If all fish are capable of feeling pain, which is likely, then what does it matter if they are conscious or not? The simplest fish and the most complex fish often wither away and die in aquariums, or act distressed when caught. So what's the difference?
Do you value conscious animals more? In that case, maybe you should re-evaluate how you assign value to them. Because a manta ray or elephantfish is likely more conscious than your dog or cat.
Just some food for thought, from someone who studies fish behavior for a living
Good question, and a reminder of the other minds problem.
My best guess is that a fish has an inner life a lot like a human dream state. In my dreams, there are no words, just apprehensions, implications, emotions, and intensions. The meanings of these things are also understood nonverbally, some seen as danger, others alluring. Even when I am being faced with extinction, I don't experience terror, just a desire to escape.
I gave up fishing because of an incident as a boy when I was deep sea fishing and let a fish drop back into the water removing it from the hook. It bled red and then fell into the salt water. I realized that my contribution to this creatures life was to tear its mouth open and then drop it into salt water to attract sharks. I imagined what salt water felt like with a wound like that. I may have projected too much. The fish looked terrified to me, but they don't actually change their facial expressions to my knowledge.
Same thing happened with a BB gun and a crow in a tree. I lodged a BB in its armpit, making flying difficult. I only did that once. Same reaction. My contribution to this bird's life was to give it pain and cripple it, making it vulnerable.
And a lizard. As a boy, I lifted a rock to look at one I saw scamper under it, inadvertently dropped the rock, and saw its guts extruding. Never again.
What did these animals experience? I'm not sure. I hope less than what I projected onto them. I hope it was more like my dreams than what the experience would have been like were I on the fishhook or crushed by the rock.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Not sure I put much credence in this supposed test, given it is "failed" by (amongst others) cats, dogs and some primates (including the Red-Necked Maga).
- Mirror test - Wikipedia
Last edited:
JDMS
Academic Workhorse
Totally agreed. I mentioned this test because the OP also mentioned the mirror test. It has some use, but it is flawed. There is a lot more to animal cognition and self awareness than the mirror test.
I'm not sure I'd pass the mirror test if someone hadn't told me that hideous thing in the mirror was me...
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Some mornings I can't recognise myself.
Kharisym
Member
Hi there. I actually work at a lab that uses zebrafish and originally used salmon as model organisms for toxicology research and behavior research. I am actually doing a behavior based research project right now. I've also owned fish since I was 5 years old, and I've spent probably close to 1000 hours at the creek that was at my parents house. I could recognize the fish and crawfish that lived there by name.
I will say that I believe most fish are conscious. Most people who work with fish in research also believe this. Its hard not to.
However, I won't be typing out the pages upon pages of evidence we have, because I don't think you need it. I think you need to be asking yourself why this is a question you feel the need to ask.
First of all, "fish" aren't anything. "Fish" describes a MASSIVE group of animals that have dozens of times the genetic diversity of mammals. There are too many kinds of fish to generalize them. Many fish are most definitely conscious. Cichlids, carp, sharks, rays, etc. Others we aren't sure. So what kind of fish will you eat? Will you pick and choose what species to eat based on what species pass the mirror test?
I also have to ask, why does the consciousness of an animal matter in terms of eating it? If all fish are capable of feeling pain, which is likely, then what does it matter if they are conscious or not? The simplest fish and the most complex fish often wither away and die in aquariums, or act distressed when caught. So what's the difference?
Do you value conscious animals more? In that case, maybe you should re-evaluate how you assign value to them. Because a manta ray or elephantfish is likely more conscious than your dog or cat.
Just some food for thought, from someone who studies fish behavior for a living
Its a question I want to ask because if they're not, then I totally want to eat them. And yeah, I'd pick and choose based on which ones meet X criteria, and I'd only care about the ones likely to grace my plate. (Though as stated in my OP, fish exist in a sufficiently unique environment that I question the value of the mirror test for establishing self awareness in them so I'd use a different criteria unless it can be shown that the mirror test is independent of those environmental considerations.)
"I also have to ask, why does the consciousness of an animal matter in terms of eating it?" This is a major question I also ask myself. At this time my rules about killing are a product of other aspects of morality I hold, which stem from the fundamental question 'why is it not okay to kill a random person on the street?' Right now my ethics regarding this stem from a tautology
Per it being self evident to people who work with fish assigning them the quality of p-consciousness (Defined based on this article: What Is It Like to Be a Bass? Red Herrings, Fish Pain and the Study of Animal Sentience which is my current reading focus. Its dense so I'm processing it slowly), the caveat here would be the question, "Are you engaging in anthropomorphization?"
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Stop fishing for compliments. (See what I did there
)
Stop fishing for compliments. (See what I did there
Don't worry, I'm sure all I'll get will be a boot.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Have you read Other Minds: The Octopus, by Peter Godfrey-Smith?
JDMS
Academic Workhorse
"Are you engaging in anthropomorphization?"
In some ways yes, but in terms of empirical evidence that I base my beliefs on, no. There is empirical evidence for the consciousness of fish.
But does that really matter? Whether you eat a fish or not is a moral debacle, not a scientific one. You are the one holding the reins, so what YOU believe is what matters in the end. If you cannot be convinced, if you feel the need to be convinced, etc..... that is all your prerogative.
In the end its impossible to determine the state of another animals mind. You will never know what the fish sitting on your plate was feeling, and I won't either.
The question is, with your morals, are you able to eat a fish guilt-free? If so, eat the fish.
Kharisym
Member
Noperoni. Might look into it later.
Kharisym
Member
I have a metric I use to establish personhood and premise my rules on killing based on that metric. My purpose with this thread is to try and gather ideas and evidence regarding that. Right now I cannot eat fish guilt free because I don't know if they meet said metric. I'd like to eat them, therefore the question is important to me.
Are you assuming that the answer for one species of fish will be the same for all other species of fish? Given the wide variety of fish, that may not be a reasonable assumption.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
As alluded to above by @JDMS I don't think any amount of reading up on scientific research will address the fundamental issue which you term
Only a fish knows what it's like to be a fish. There isn't a simple threshold bar above which animals can be labelled cognitively self-aware.