[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I asked WHY you would have pain receptors if they didn't work, not to hear once more that there is a theory that maybe they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I was going to comment last time, but your use of "pain receptors" muddys the water.


The issue is this: lower animals have nociceptors. You're assuming they have "pain receptors", which is sort of assuming your conclusion. These receptors dont necessarily induce pain.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like a wasteful evolutionary development.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider this:

- nociceptors develop early in our lineage... these are used to detect harmful stimuli... when one fires, the organism innately moves away from the environment

- as the brain grew within the lineage, the ability to process these messages differently allowed for "pain"


It appears you're thinking that the claim is that these animals have these "pain receptors" just sitting there, and arent feeling pain. Of course not. The higher organisms just have the brain power to take the message in the nerve cells found it lower organisms, and convert it to the feeling of pain. What was once the innate reaction to leave, has become the perceived feeling of pain. That doesnt mean that the innate reaction to leave is a waste.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, whatever happened to vertebrates. Fish are vertebrates.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Umm... i was responding to the question "Why would animals have pain nerves if not for a reason? What reason is there to presume animals cannot feel pain?"

Do you presume invertebrates arent animals?

2. Ive never actually claimed fish DONT feel pain. I just said it was a debated question (which you said was a ridiculous claim, and one that I later proved correct. You seem to be saying now "well... it shouldnt be debated!!"

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it not possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think anyone would it is not possible for certain animals to feel pain. Making statements about another organisms experience is just about impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
So far, it seems your answers, while I'm sure well-intended, are unfolding along the line of "just because" or "it has been theorized," which kind of comes out to the equivalent of "go away kid, ya bother me." I'm just asking for a little more meat as opposed to flat denial.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're really all over the map on this subthread.


Recap:

- I claim that fish might not even be able to feel pain, that that claim is currently debated, but their ability to feel pain almost certainly doesnt allow for them to be tortured

- You say that my claim is ridiculous (specifically, that whether or not fish can feel pain is debated)

- I prove the claim

- You have no way to support your statement of it being "ridiculous", so you change the subject, saying you dislike the scientific definition of pain... you provide a counter determination mechanism that prevents testing of the question "does organism X feel pain?"

- You ask about why lower animals have nerves similar to those that perform a function in higher animals, if those lower dont experience that function (assuming, for some reason, that those similar nerves cant perform some alternate function)... I give a response



Whats interesting, is that I NEVER CLAIMED THEY WERE RIGHT... I SIMPLY CLAIMED IT WAS DEBATED . If you want to learn more, I suggest you read up on the subject, or speak to RDuke55. (I did however state that I didnt feel fish have the capacity to be tortured... if you wish to debate that, Im game)


FWIW, I, nor I doubt, any serious scientist, would ever respond to "Why is it not possible?" with anything other than "its certainly possible... it just seems unlikey"


So, its kind of ironic that you attempt to brush of my statements as someone saying "it has been theorized," when my claim, is, LITERALLY, that it has been theorized.