"Barb Knox" > wrote in message ...

> It certainly is a "DUH!" to "discover" that prawns have pain receptors.
> What is very far from a "DUH!" is the issue of whether or not triggering
> their pain receptors results in some subjective experience analogous to
> our experience of pain.

'We address the question of pain perception in fish by first accepting
the assumption that it is unlikely that the conscious perception of pain
evolved to simply guide reactions to noxious events, or to provide an
experiential dimension to accompany reflexes, but rather it allowed
an organism to discriminate their environment in ways that permitted
adaptive and flexible behaviour (Chandroo et al. 2004). The neural
systems involved in nociception and pain perception, and the
cognitive processes resulting in flexible behaviour function, probably
evolved as an interactive dynamic system within the central nervous
system (Chapman and Nakamura 1999).
.........'
http://www.aquanet.ca/English/resear...erspective.pdf

Do that also apply to crustaceans? I think you'll find that it does.

> And the same issue applies to vertebrates too. In a painful situation,
> Fido or Fluffy certainly *act* like we would, but again that does not
> give us a clear window into their subjective experience (if any). We
> can certainly empathise with Fido or Fluffy's plight, but that does not
> imply that they themselves are having a subjective experience similar to
> what we would have in the situation which we are mentally projecting
> ourselves into through empathy.

'Neurophysiologists have so far discovered no fundamental difference
between the structure or functions of neurons in men and other
animals."[19] Anthropomorphism he calls an obsolete straitjacket.

After I read Griffin's book, my quest for a context into which an
understanding of ocean mind might grow met with another stroke of
luck. At the 1980 Conference on Cetacean Intelligence in Washington
DC, I met psychologist Dr Michael Bossley of Magill University,
South Australia. Later he sent me an extraordinary unpublished
manuscript - his review of the scientific evidence for non-human mind,
which was a global survey of formal research into cognitive ethology
since Griffin had defined it. I read this with utter delight and suggested
a title, Continuum, which Dr Bossley accepted.

The implications of Bossley's survey could upset many. He insists
that an entirely new ethical system is required, and presents compelling
evidence for a continuity between human psychological processes and
those of other life forms. He urges our species to climb down from its
imaginary pedestal: 'Everything grades into everything else. We are part
of the natural world.' Much of the research Bossley examines is recent
and ongoing. For the most part it has appeared only in highly technical
literature accessible to specialised academics. It may be several
generations before the full implications are heeded. Like the
Copernican and Darwinian revolutions, it could alter the way we view
our place on this planet, how we treat other life forms and each other.

Legitimate evidence that five vital aspects of being human can be traced
to other animals exists in the published work of established scientists.
In each of five chapters, Bossley summarises that evidence.
...'
http://www.wadedoak.com/projectinterlock.htm

> Here's what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says about the "pathetic
> fallacy" <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058718/pathetic-fallacy>:
>
> "poetic practice of attributing human emotion or responses to nature,
> inanimate objects, or animals. The practice is a form of
> personification that is as old as poetry, in which it has always been
> common to find smiling or dancing flowers, angry or cruel winds,
> brooding mountains, moping owls, or happy larks. The term was coined by
> John Ruskin in Modern Painters (1843-60)."
>
> Someday we may know enough about how brains generate subjective
> experiences to be able to settle the question of whether prawns, dogs or
> cats have any subjective experience of pain. But until then, it's grist
> for the mill of philosophers, theologians, etc.

'Anthropocentrism
By Penelope Smith

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "A human being is part of the whole,
called by us 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences
himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest,
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind
of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection
for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves
from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all
living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Many humans have an attitude that restricts their ability to understand
or empathize with non-human animals and other life forms and has
some serious consequences for all life on this planet. It is called
anthropocentrism, or viewing man as the center or final aim of the
universe. I refer to this in my book, Animal Talk, as the "human
superiority complex" considering humans as superior to or the
pinnacle of all forms of life. From the anthropocentric view, non-
human beings that are most like human are usually considered more
intelligent, for example, chimpanzees who learn to use sign language
or dolphins who signal word or thought comprehension through
touching electronic devices in their tanks. Animals or other life forms
that don't express themselves in human ways by language or in terms
easily comprehensible by common human standards are often
considered less developed, inferior, more primitive or mechanistic,
and usually of less importance than humans.

This viewpoint has been used to justify using animals as objects for
human ends. Since humans are the superior creatures, "dumb,
unfeeling" non-humans can be disregarded, mistreated, subjugated,
killed or whole species eliminated without much concern for their
existence in itself, only their usefulness or lack of it to humankind.

Many humans, as they see other animals are more like them in
patterns of behavior and expression of intelligence, begin to respect
them more and treat them with more regard for their rights. However,
this does not transcend the trap of anthropocentrism. To increase
harmony of life on Earth, all beings need to be regarded as worthy
of respect, whether seen as different or similar to the human species.

The anthropocentric view toward animals echoes the way in which
many humans have discriminated against other humans because they
were of different cultures, races, religions, or sexes. Regarding others
as less intelligent or substandard has commonly been used to justify
domination, cruelty or elimination of them.

Too often people label what they don't understand as inferior, dumb,
or to be avoided, without attempting to understand a different way of
being. More enlightened humans look upon meeting people, things or
animals that are different than themselves as opportunities to expand
their understanding, share new realities, and become more whole.

Anthropocentrism does not allow humans to bridge the artificial gap
it creates. It leaves humans fragmented or alienated from much of their
environment. We see the disastrous consequences of this in human
disruption of the earth's ecology, causing the disintegration of health
and harmony for all including human life.

Anthropocentrism causes humans to misjudge animal intelligence
and awareness. Humans can get too fixed in the view or model that
they indeed are the center of and separate from the universe and
therefore the most intelligent and aware. They then see or seek only
to prove that point.

Anthropocentric humans also tend to judge non-human animals
according to human cultural standards, as human groups often do
with other human cultures. Instead of viewing and evaluating animals
according to the their own cultural experience, heredity, training and
environment, they impose human environments, tests, standards and
methods and evaluate animals, according to the ability to exhibit
human-like behavior.

This is similar to the bias that was found in college preparatory and
intelligence tests, which caused anyone unfamiliar with a white middle
class upbringing to score lower and therefore to be considered less
intelligent. Individuals with different ethnic backgrounds could not
comprehend the tests' frames of reference and therefore were not
able to express their intelligence through them.

When we respectfully regard animals as intelligent, sensitive fellow
beings with whom we walk upon the Earth, our whole perspective of
life changes. In cooperation instead of alienation, we can create a new
balance and joy in living for all us here. Lets each of us do our part.

http://animalliberty.com/animalliber...pe/pene-2.html