Admin


Blog powered by Typepad

« Metametaphysics conference | Main | Philosophy in the 1960s »

May 10, 2005

Comments

Tim Bayne

Cool references. Re the 'fish' v. 'fishes' question, I was once told that 'fish' was the plural for individuals and 'fishes' the plural for species. So, at the risk of labouring the obvious, if you want to say that Ben, Jenny and Sophie are in the tank you say "There are lots of fish" in the tank, but if you want to say that there are snapper, cod and tuna in the tank, you say "There are lots of fishes in the tank.") It sounded plausible at the time, but now it seems a bit, ummm, fishy...

Steve Esser

I might recommend folks check out the journal Consciousness and Cognition (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10538100) which had a recent issue devoted to animal consciousness with papers that appears to support the Chandroo et.al. account contra the Rose paper.

Jessica

Of course fish feel pain and are conscious! They need to feel pain in order to survive! Visit FishAreFriends.com for more info.

BickByro

David Foster Wallace is one of the smartest Daves on the planet, IMO... so it's nice to be able to post a link to his work on this blog! DFW's penetrating consideration of the consciousness of lobsters can be found via www.lobsterlib.com/feat/davidwallace

The piece was originally published in Gourmet magazine, surprisingly enough. Lobsterlib.com obviously found it much in keeping with their own philosophy.

J. Pourtless

The debate is meaningless anyway, since 'fish' or 'fishes' is itself not a term which denotes a real group. The classical taxon 'Pisces' is not monophyletic: it does not include Tetrapoda.

Ber.

Stephanie Yue, who worked on this paper, is the most beautiful woman these eyes have ever seen... I miss her dearly.

The paper is very interesting too.

Cinder Smith

Cuttle fish' might be
But the question is
Are Zombie Cuttle fish?

The comments to this entry are closed.