While doing an unrelated bibliographic search, I came across the following debate in an unexpected corner of the literature: "The neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain", by James D. Rose, and "An evaluation of current perspectives on consciousness and pain in fishes", by Kristopher Chandroo, Stephanie Yue, and Richard Moccia. The former, published in Reviews in Fisheries Science (!), argues, based on neurobiological evidence, that fish are not conscious and so can't feel pain. (Handy conclusion, that.) The latter, published in Fish and Fisheries, argues in response that fish probably are conscious and do feel pain. Both articles are reasonably sophisticated and offer food for philosophical thought. If you have access, check them out.
Between the titles of the papers and the title of the second journal, one also senses the surface of a major "fish" vs. "fishes" debate in the field. As a Hitchhikers fan, I don't think "So Long and Thanks for All the Fishes" has quite the same ring...
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...
Posted by: Tim Bayne | May 11, 2005 at 03:13 AM
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.
Posted by: Steve Esser | May 12, 2005 at 01:00 AM
Of course fish feel pain and are conscious! They need to feel pain in order to survive! Visit FishAreFriends.com for more info.
Posted by: Jessica | July 02, 2005 at 08:00 AM
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.
Posted by: BickByro | July 04, 2005 at 09:41 PM
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.
Posted by: J. Pourtless | July 12, 2005 at 10:56 AM
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.
Posted by: Ber. | November 19, 2005 at 08:11 AM
Cuttle fish' might be
But the question is
Are Zombie Cuttle fish?
Posted by: Cinder Smith | June 18, 2007 at 08:35 PM