3 ms·

Because "feelings" is undefined. If the only evidence of having/not having "feelings" in fish is the increase of temperature, why not simply talk about the incr

Because "feelings" is undefined. If the only evidence of having/not having "feelings" in fish is the increase of temperature, why not simply talk about the increase of temperature, without inventing "feelings"? Not inventing non-material objects unless something is impossible to explain without them is the basis of science, it is called Occam's razor. My server also increases temperature under high load. Should I conjecture that it has feelings?

SwellJoe 11y ago
It is one of many aspects of the fish mind mentioned in the article; things like developing memories, comparing oneself to other fish, exhibiting preferences, etc. Each of them alone may not be enough to argue "fish have feelings" or "fish can think" or "fish are sentient beings", but they are evidence of those things. They don't make it so, but they hint at something that it is hard to figure out without a number of data points. Occam's razor can just as easily be applied here to come to a conclusion that is opposite your conclusion. Fish do things that mammals (humans) do. We know that mammals do those things (stress fever) because they are experiencing things in a way at least somewhat comparable to the way we experience them (they are experiencing discomfort and fear and their body is responding to it, just as ours do). What is the simpler explanation here? 1. Your conjecture that fish are utterly and completely different from other living things that exhibit this response and that they are exhibiting this response for reasons unlike our reasons (i.e. they aren't experiencing discomfort and fear, but are still heating up like we do). 2. They're more like other sentient beings than we'd previously assumed, and are experiencing things in some ways similarly. In short: If you're coming at this with the strongly held belief that fish are impossibly different from humans and can't possibly have feelings, you would interpret your way. But, if you're coming at it with no strongly held beliefs on the subject, and you see a fish behave in ways that indicate they are sentient and experience suffering like other animals...well, you assume the responses and behaviors are because they are kinda like those other animals. Your assumption (that this response has no relation to the similar response in mammals) requires a new explanation for why the response happens. Thus, it seems to not be the simplest explanation (to me).
- ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago
  > Occam's razor can just as easily be applied here to come to a conclusion that is opposite your conclusion. I don't conclude that fish don't have feelings and human have. What I say is that "feelings" and "experiencing" are undefined terms. So, both statements "fish have feelings" and "fish don't have feelings" are meaningless. > Your assumption (that this response has no relation to the similar response in mammals)requires a new explanation for why the response happens. I didn't assume that. "Experiencing fear" is not an explanation for heating. The real explanation requires less abstraction, modelling organism as close to physics as possible, explaining biological processes that happen inside, not just comparing fish to mammals in a way that is more abstract than biology itself. > Thus, it seems to not be the simplest explanation (to me). Occam's razor is not about the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation for everything is "god will". Just as inventing "god" is simpler, inventing "fear", "feelings", "mind" and other non-material things is simpler, but unnecessary and does not explain anything really.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    So, humans don't have feelings either, because it's simpler to explain it as a mechanical process?
    - ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago
      See, I never said that fish does not have feelings or that fish have feelings. I think it is meaningless. "Feelings" is an abstraction that makes it easier to explain human behaviour. With fish, asking questions like "does it have feelings", "does it have free will", "is it conscious" etc. is just the same as asking the same questions about machines: it does not help you to make any decisions about how to interact with it, so it does not matter.
      - SwellJoe 11y ago
        So, to extend the question I asked before: Does that mean because we cannot ever really know what goes on in another human's mind, does that mean human "feelings", "free will", or "consciousness", are meaningless and does not help us make decisions about how to interact with other human beings?

SwellJoe 11y ago

It is one of many aspects of the fish mind mentioned in the article; things like developing memories, comparing oneself to other fish, exhibiting preferences, etc. Each of them alone may not be enough to argue "fish have feelings" or "fish can think" or "fish are sentient beings", but they are evidence of those things. They don't make it so, but they hint at something that it is hard to figure out without a number of data points. Occam's razor can just as easily be applied here to come to a conclusion that is opposite your conclusion. Fish do things that mammals (humans) do. We know that mammals do those things (stress fever) because they are experiencing things in a way at least somewhat comparable to the way we experience them (they are experiencing discomfort and fear and their body is responding to it, just as ours do). What is the simpler explanation here? 1. Your conjecture that fish are utterly and completely different from other living things that exhibit this response and that they are exhibiting this response for reasons unlike our reasons (i.e. they aren't experiencing discomfort and fear, but are still heating up like we do). 2. They're more like other sentient beings than we'd previously assumed, and are experiencing things in some ways similarly. In short: If you're coming at this with the strongly held belief that fish are impossibly different from humans and can't possibly have feelings, you would interpret your way. But, if you're coming at it with no strongly held beliefs on the subject, and you see a fish behave in ways that indicate they are sentient and experience suffering like other animals...well, you assume the responses and behaviors are because they are kinda like those other animals. Your assumption (that this response has no relation to the similar response in mammals) requires a new explanation for why the response happens. Thus, it seems to not be the simplest explanation (to me).

ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago
> Occam's razor can just as easily be applied here to come to a conclusion that is opposite your conclusion. I don't conclude that fish don't have feelings and human have. What I say is that "feelings" and "experiencing" are undefined terms. So, both statements "fish have feelings" and "fish don't have feelings" are meaningless. > Your assumption (that this response has no relation to the similar response in mammals)requires a new explanation for why the response happens. I didn't assume that. "Experiencing fear" is not an explanation for heating. The real explanation requires less abstraction, modelling organism as close to physics as possible, explaining biological processes that happen inside, not just comparing fish to mammals in a way that is more abstract than biology itself. > Thus, it seems to not be the simplest explanation (to me). Occam's razor is not about the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation for everything is "god will". Just as inventing "god" is simpler, inventing "fear", "feelings", "mind" and other non-material things is simpler, but unnecessary and does not explain anything really.
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  So, humans don't have feelings either, because it's simpler to explain it as a mechanical process?
  - ycmbntrthrwaway 11y ago
    See, I never said that fish does not have feelings or that fish have feelings. I think it is meaningless. "Feelings" is an abstraction that makes it easier to explain human behaviour. With fish, asking questions like "does it have feelings", "does it have free will", "is it conscious" etc. is just the same as asking the same questions about machines: it does not help you to make any decisions about how to interact with it, so it does not matter.
    - SwellJoe 11y ago
      So, to extend the question I asked before: Does that mean because we cannot ever really know what goes on in another human's mind, does that mean human "feelings", "free will", or "consciousness", are meaningless and does not help us make decisions about how to interact with other human beings?