from the swallow-this-hook-line-and-sinker dept.
Was that fish on your plate once a sentient being? Scientists have long believed that the animals aren't capable of the same type of conscious thought we are because they fail the "emotional fever" test. When researchers expose birds, mammals (including humans), and at least one species of lizard to new environments, they experience a slight rise in body temperature of 1°C to 2°C that lasts a while; it's a true fever, as if they were responding to an infection. The fever is linked to the emotions because it's triggered by an outside stimulus, yet produces behavioral and physiological changes that can be observed. Some scientists argue that these only occur in animals with sophisticated brains that sense and are conscious of what's happening to them. Previous tests suggested that toads and fish don't respond this way.
Now, a new experiment that gave the fish more choices shows the opposite. Researchers took 72 zebrafish and either did nothing with them or placed them alone in a small net hanging inside a chamber in their tank with water of about 27°C; zebrafish prefer water of about 28°C. After 15 minutes in the net, the team released the confined fish. They could then freely swim among the tank's five other chambers, each heated to a different temperature along a gradient from 17.92°C to 35°C. (The previous study used a similar setup but gave goldfish a choice between only two chambers, both at higher temperatures.) The stressed fish spent more time—between 4 and 8 hours—in the warmer waters than did the control fish, and raised their body temperatures about 2°C to 4°C, showing an emotional fever, the scientists report online today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Thus, their study upends a key argument against consciousness in fish, they say.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @06:18PM
Higher body temperature resulting in more efficient metabolism and brain function would be useful if an unknown environment turns out to be hostile. I don't think this is really a good general consciousness test, since it seems like something that could be more directly survival-of-fittest related.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheLink on Friday November 27 2015, @07:11PM
But what is really a good consciousness test? I see no good way for anyone to prove that they're not a philosophical zombie ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie [wikipedia.org] ) and that they truly experience the consciousness phenomena. Neither do I see a good way for me to prove that I'm conscious to others.
So it seems rather foolish to assume that fish or other animals aren't conscious. Even single celled creatures could be conscious for all we know. Sure they could be very stupid but there are plenty of stupid people who'd claim they are conscious too.
Proving that fish and other animals are capable of intelligent behavior whether conscious or not is a different matter- some fish can indeed behave intelligently.
And some single celled creatures have rather sophisticated responses too: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=450&cid=11384#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
One of my theories is brains initially weren't for solving the problem of thinking, many single celled creatures could think already (well enough for the needs of simple animals). Brains were to solve the problem of controlling and using a multi-cellular body. After all even if a single cell was very smart and sophisticated, you can't have the whole body be dependent on that single point of failure, what if it dies? Plus how would you hook up all the different senses and muscles to it?
(Score: 3, Funny) by mhajicek on Friday November 27 2015, @10:32PM
"And some single celled creatures have rather sophisticated responses too"
You're not talking about Ethanol Fueled are you?
Actually I can't even prove to myself that I'm truely conscious. I could be a static record of sequential brain states which includes the state of believing itself to be conscious. Simplify that, and you could have "flag_conscious = 1" as an entity.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday November 27 2015, @11:16PM
I wrote a story about a sentient robot, and he had no fear or any other emotion. I'll post it here when the magazines have all finished rejecting it.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:31AM
Actually I can't even prove to myself that I'm truely conscious. I could be a static record of sequential brain states which includes the state of believing itself to be conscious.
You can prove to yourself that you experience the consciousness phenomena. In fact that's the only thing you can prove 100% to yourself.
Whether you have free will is a different issue.
So either you misunderstand or you don't actually experience consciousness.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:51PM
It appears that I experience consciousness, but I acknowledge that it may be an illusion.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Sunday November 29 2015, @07:55PM
Perhaps you're really one of those who don't actually experience consciousness, just emulating it imperfectly? ;)
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday November 27 2015, @11:13PM
Any species not possessing fear would quickly become extinct, unless they had no predators.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:30AM
I don't think there is a good test, currently... short of directly measuring synaptic activity and comparing the pattern to another animal we'd generally define as 'conscious'.
Would still be a sliding scale, not a line. Probably doesn't even matter in the end.
-parent AC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @08:10PM
Sentience is not consciousness. Sentience is the ability to feel. They react to the environment, they feel, therefore fish are sentient.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday November 27 2015, @06:56PM
See also a relevant paper Can fish really feel pain? [hu-berlin.de] (Paper takes the side of 'no'.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @11:52AM
Paper also has a REALLY hard time keeping medical and metaphysical consciousness separate. Further it ignores multiple studies (which predate this paper) that show the brain still reacts to "pain" even in an unconscious state (contrary to their claims).
Reading through that paper it becomes very obvious it is simply a literature review with an axe to grind. Interesting none the less but hardly useful science on the subject.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Friday November 27 2015, @08:30PM
Also, I'm vegetarian. Just saying.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:05AM
Life is life. Take one kind or another and you are still killing to feed yourself. Bonus points for eating grazers and scavenging omnivores, as neither animal requires plants to die for them to live.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:55AM
...so I could betteridge it. Fish are unbelievably stupid. They are basically just mobile plants. Wikipedia even said so, briefly.