[anthony]

Originally Posted by jshepherd

My thoughts center on action and reaction. When you are discussing natural pearl formation, you are referring to irritation, or reaction to a particular sensation. This is not a psychological reaction as the mollusk has no brain. The reference to 'gonads' only leads to a human reaction based on human sensation and reality. That is irrelevant to a mussel. Discussing the 'fun' a mussel may have dislodging an intruder is near akin to the fun a lump of coal has developing into a diamond.

Maybe the better term for irritation (in laymen's terms) would be a word for the natural reaction of mollusks to a specific type of abnormality.

This is the point, exactly.
But continue telling a story about "irritation" a mussel may feel is for me as much nonsense as thinking about the pleasure it may give to him.

[anthony]

Under Pearls in Myth we find ‘Christianity also adopted the pearl as a symbol of purity.’ So maybe the Christian thought 'By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food' (Genesis 3: 19) motivates the general acceptance for
‘Natural pearls are formed more or less randomly, when some sort of irritant becomes lodged in the tissue of an oyster or mollusk. In response to the irritation, the oyster secretes nacre, a combination of calcium carbonate and organic substances, which gradually builds up in layers around the irritant. Over a period of several years, this build-up of nacre forms a pearl’

However for me, until an oyster can be interviewed about his feelings, the better story would be: a mollusk can formate a pearl when the mantle tissue gets dislocated so the nacre producing side faces inward rather than outward.

[jshepherd]

I think what we are missing here is the definition of irritation and why it fits. Most assume the oyster is irritated, or annoyed. But there are other definitions of irritation, such as "the neural or electrical arousal of an organ or muscle or gland", or "to excite to some characteristic action or condition, such as motion, contraction, or nervous impulse, by the application of a stimulus".
With or without a brain, it is an irritation that produces a pearl.

[anthony]

I suppose you are right. English is not my language.

So for you "irritation" has -among other meanings- the same meaning as "stimulation". Is that correct?

The Dutch/Flemish (my language) word "irritatie" does not have this "stimulation" meaning. When in a Dutch text about pearls the word "irritatie" is used it only has the negative meaning.
So my original question comes probably from a mistake once made in a English-Dutch translation, that all other Dutch authors adopted. And when I was reading English books or for intance the text on this website I also made this mistake thinking that "irritation" is a negative feeling.
Your English text will be OK then and I will continue playing Don Quichote in Holland and Belgium.

Are there contributors to this forum from Germany, France,.., Spanish, Arab countries? Because I have another question now..

[Slraep]

They are quite the social shellfish, aren't they? Possibly using chemicals to communicate between themselves or some other secret marine method.

A mollusk will move if it finds that it is not getting what it wants. They seek to be comfortable or content(as much as a mollusk can be) and so, unlike a rock, will alter their position to suit themselves.

Anything that is alive has a body molded by nature(evolution) to perfectly suit their environment. Shoving foreign objects into body cavities where they do not normally belong, would seem to me, to be more than a simple "irritaion". One only needs to try it on oneself.

I understand that the mollusk has a very primative nervous system, but assuming that it does not "feel" anything is just that, an assumption. I would rather assume that they do feel, than be proven wrong by some scientist, five years from now. I will avoid the oozing karma if I can help it.

Slraep

[anthony]

Natural pearls regularly show no (or just a very tiny) intruder, shell, or whatever. I started this threat on the natural pearl forum with these pearls in mind.
For what reason the mollusk started a spontanious pearl formation?
For no reason at all? as an impuls on any stimulation? because the mollusk was irritated? or was the lovely nacre ball the result of some exercise?

[pearltime]

And Karen,

I do not know whether they have a sense of self. Do bees have a sense of self? Or ants? Does that make them senseless moving entities? Do bees or ants feel pain?

Zeide

The ability to experience pain has nothing to do with whether or not a being is a "senseless moving entity". They don't equate. Every living thing has value.That wasn't what I was asking. Nevermind, the answer doesn't matter and we don't know the answer ,anyway.
How does one know if an ant or a bee experiences pain? From my point of view they appear to suffer.Who knows? When they are injured, I sure do hate to see them struggle..
Karen

[barbie biggs]

Originally Posted by Slraep

They are quite the social shellfish, aren't they? Possibly using chemicals to communicate between themselves or some other secret marine method.
A mollusk will move if it finds that it is not getting what it wants. Slraep

Are we talking chemotaxis here?
The characteristic movement or orientation of an organism or cell along a chemical concentration gradient either toward or away from the chemical stimulus.

If you have not seen this in action, watch a lizard. They often flick their tongues out, seemingly 'tasting' air, sand, rocks, whatever is in front of them. What many of them are actually doing is sampling the chemistry of the world around them, searching for enemies or prey.

And thanks to Jeremy for his lucid definition of irritation. I was wondering about that.

Once you remove the emotion from the word irritant, this becomes a different discussion. There was an article a few months back about a deep water spiny lobster who could see in something like 12 primary colors. Colors humans can't begin to see in. I have read books (many years ago, good use of imagery) that posited the idea that other species might communicate in light forms.

Probably all things suffer, so to speak. What is in question is whether they have/need any feelings about it. For many species there may be no point to having any feelings about suffering. An oyster feels pain and moves. It doesn't have to hate whatever causes the pain. Actually, it's more likely that the scallops previously mentioned will feel pain and move. I'm not sure how far the oysters move. Dolphins now, they move, they feel, and I have a friend who got caught in a rip tide outside of Australia somewhere, and about the time he was giving up, a wild dolphin showed up out of nowhere and literally towed him to shore. I had heard of this before but only know one person that it's happened to. Why would a dolphin save a species that kills dolphins?

I have heard it theorized that emotions are a higher function. Being irritated is an emotion. Irritation, such as Jeremy describes, is a physical phenominon. All functions in the body are a result of chemical processes. Even feelings. Babies cry because they are hungry. They get fed. They cry louder next time. (Developing a pathway to the brain.) Do we decide not to feed them? No. If a baby doesn't cry when it's hungry it probably won't survive. The babies with the genes to cry for food, get fed. Just like the oyster that feels pain and defends itself by making a pearl to protect itself against a bacteria, virus, or worm, survives. The oyster doesn't have to have a brain to think. It just has to make nacre, etc. to protect itself effeciently. It's a genetic defense mechanism that has developed over time.

Everything is eventually about math and chemistry.

barbie

PS But I still like the romantic idea of the "social shellfish"

[J Marcus]

I think that Jeremy has covered the most logical and reasonable answers in this thread. Jeremy, you're obviously a man of impressive intellect and knowledge. The only things that I think I might add is that, although implied, a Theory of Mind has not been directly addressed. Also, there is an issue of semantics here.

Semantics first--In addition to the problem of difficulties of meaning and transltion between languages, there is often an important difference in the meaning and use of many terms between common, laymens language and the meaning and technical use of these terms within the discipline of a particular field--in this case biology--particularly here, the biology of lower invertebrate animals. I rather think that in his original post, Anthony is thinking of and referring to the term "irritation" in it's common usage which refers most directly to human experience. In the area of biology I believe that, as Jeremy has explained so well, it has a more functional definition that cannot be equated with its' common, human-referenced usage.

Although there is no concensus in psychology on the definition of the term "mind," it generally is accepted that there is such a thing on the basis that one will know a mind when one sees it. Part of the probable definition of mind is generally accepted, I believe, that a mind is dependant on a certain complexity and organization of a brain. Although at what point a brain produces a mind is very debatable, it is generally considered to be far above that of molluscs, a type of creature that, to my knowledge doesn't even have a brain. At such a low level of complexity, it seems that such human terms as "enjoy," "dislike," happy," "like," etc. have no meaning and only functional definitions such as described by Jeremy above have any real use or meaning. My point would be the answer to this question: How can a creature experience pain, discomfort, sadness or any of these human-referenced states if it has no mind to experience and interpret them?

Marc

[barbie biggs]

Dear Marcus:
Thanks for your answer. As always you think things out thoroughly. One thing: I'm pretty sure that there is a difference in the way that an organism 'experiences' pain or discomfort,which is physical, compared to 'experiencing sadness',which is emotional, and which as you pointed out requires a certain complexity and organization.
I don't think that a thing has to have a brain to feel pain. There are different kinds of nervous systems available to the different critters out there. And as alien as oysters are to us, and as unintelligent as we regard them, they still respond physically to a clean environment, good treatment, (like clean baskets to live in), etc.
I'm not sure a creature has to have a recognizable 'nervous system' to feel pain. If they don't respond to intrusion, why withdraw from being touched. Why make a pearl? We may not fully understand it but something is going on there.
barbie

[barbie biggs]

Quick thought:
It has long been believed by scientists that what separated animals from humans is the ability to plan. Scientists have been deeply involved in proving that we are better than animals. What if it's all important? What if these are delusions of grandeur?
In that case, perhaps we should eat the oyster instead of wasting the gift.
(Just a theoretical argument Jeremy).
barbie

[J Marcus]

Barbie,

You make some interesting statements and ask some intriguing questions here. I hesitate to try to carry this further because we are beginning to go into levels of speculation here that we have no objective ways of knowing about. So--I will answer one question with another question.

by Barbie: What if these are delusions of grandeur?

Is it not also delusional (or at least unknowable) at this point to make any assumption that a creature that seems to be not very much like us experiences phenomena--like pain--in much the same way that we do. It is my thinking that to experience what we call pain perhaps a mind is needed to interpret a stimulus as such. e.g: we have some neural circuits that only cycle as far as the spinal cord, by which a reaction can be elicited by a stimulus that our brain normally interprets as pain. These reactions are the same whether they are felt or whether, because of some anesthetic agent, they are not felt and therefore not interpreted as pain. Oh yes--I think we should eat the oyster--or at least see that it benefits some other inhabitant of the biosphere!

None of what I have written in this thread is meant as a value judgement. My (subjective) opinion is that it is all important. Also, as you mention, it seems that over the centuries, there has been a constant, arrogant pressure, a relentless attempting to shore up the idea that we (humans) must be supremely distinct from the other animals. It is with great interest and amusement that I have watched these apparently false icons of our humanity go falling off their pedestals one by one. Tool use? Too many animals to list. Planning? Again--very strong evidence that some would call proof that a number of animals engage in this. Language? Dr. Pepperwood has proven beyond reasonable doubt that even African Grey Parrots have this one down. One can have a two way conversation in English with Griffin and the other successors to, alas, the late Alex, the first known and recognized English conversant parrot. Chimps and Gorillas have been taught to converse in sign language. I would suggest that if anything truly sets us apart from the other intelligent animals nipping at our heels it is the level of sanctimonious arrogance displayed by so many humans. (all present company not included in this sad grouping!)

Respectfully,
Marc

[laurenb]

The parts of the human brain used to manifest and manage pain are larger than most of the mollusks we're talking about. We know their systems downregulate stress responses, otherwise they'd all die of shock when nucleated. I also strongly doubt mollusks have memory, and I contend memory is a semantic and physiological requirement for suffering because one must compare a present state to a past one to suffer.

Pain or the presumption of pain matters to me, but not in a Heideggerian equivalence sort of way. A mollusk trying to maintain homeostasis after nucleation doesn't, in my opinion, compare to the suffering of humans mining precious gems/metals, the poverty brought about by the absence of fair trade, or even the plight of a veal calf or a factory-farmed chicken.

Easing the suffering of humans will change the face of luxury consumption completely. Who can say what will happen to animals as globalization changes perspectives and energy expenses push more countries into decades of "green" introspection, inevitably shaping values other than energy consumption. Perhaps I will nevermore feast upon osso bucco and our pearls will be splashed with red paint.

Can't find the post now, but I liked someone (McLaurin's?) description of a creature that would face 1/100,000 survival ratios in the wild being raised with all the care possible, creating an enduring history of its nurtured existance in the form of a pearl.

PP's Akoya documentary said the farmers use the meat for food and the shells for fertilizer. Farmers in general are thrifty sorts-- I expect everything gets used in most productions.

[J Marcus]

By Laurenb: "I also strongly doubt mollusks have memory, and I contend memory is a semantic and physiological requirement for suffering because one must compare a present state to a past one to suffer."

Excellent point! There must be a context for comparison and without memory, where is the context?

I think also that you make an excellant point about the suffering of humans in the gem trade. It is something that concerns me greatly. The conundrum that I see here is that it is at least my impression that in many cases the alternative to the misery resulting from mining these gems is the misery of even worse poverty or even of starvation. However, I am also aware that these are not the only alternatives. Fair trade practices being one of these.

As sort of a fun aside, you mention that our brains are a lot larger than most of the mulloscs we are referring to. Consider this: I have read that african grey parrots, such as the late Alex, have a level of intelligence roughly equivelant to a three or four year old human--and they manage this with a brain the size of a shelled walnut! Size isn't everything. . .

Marc

[barbie biggs]

Originally Posted by J Marcus

By Laurenb: "I also strongly doubt mollusks have memory, and I contend memory is a semantic and physiological requirement for suffering because one must compare a present state to a past one to suffer."

Excellent point! There must be a context for comparison and without memory, where is the context?

I think also that you make an excellant point about the suffering of humans in the gem trade. It is something that concerns me greatly. The conundrum that I see here is that it is at least my impression that in many cases the alternative to the misery resulting from mining these gems is the misery of even worse poverty or even of starvation. However, I am also aware that these are not the only alternatives. Fair trade practices being one of these.

As sort of a fun aside, you mention that our brains are a lot larger than most of the mulloscs we are referring to. Consider this: I have read that african grey parrots, such as the late Alex, have a level of intelligence roughly equivelant to a three or four year old human--and they manage this with a brain the size of a shelled walnut! Size isn't everything. . .

Marc

My apologies. When I used the word suffering, I was referring to its simplest and initial meaning in Random House Dictionary "To undergo or feel pain" I didn't mean to imply the next item which was to feel distress which would again be an emotion. Both of your points are well taken.

I have often wondered, even while reading here on the Pearl Guide, about the damage done to the Earth removing jewels and gold from it. Companies tear the earth apart and do not fix the damage they do. Arsenic is used in the process of retrieving gold and it kills the rivers and the creatures and plants. Peoples lives are indeed miserable who work in these conditions. I love 22 kt gold but wonder how much of it we should possess. Yes we can, but should we under these conditions?

And I have personally visited a turkey barn with 2,000 birds in it. It was a large barn run by a fairly humane person who felt that if he did not overcrowd his birds then he would not have to cut off their beaks and claws as so many do to keep the birds from killing each other in their frustration at the overcrowded conditions they live in.

Oh and speaking of walnuts, I love horses and they have brains the size of walnuts (roughly) and parrots are much smarter than the average horse. (You can trust me on that.) Although I've known some fairly clever horses. But it's possible that the size of the brain in comparison to the size of the creature may have something to do with intelligence. On the other hand, a creatures intelligence or lack of it has never been a requirement necessary for me to have compassion for their situation.

Thanks for the stimulating conversation.

My husband had some interesting things to say about this yesterday. He's asleep now but if I can I'll post some of his ideas later, or get him to.

barbie