> 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

> 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.