How smart are fish ?

Discussion in 'Reef Fishes' started by Pszemol, Jul 23, 2006.

  1. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    I have a problem... in my huge wisom I have covered a side wall
    of the fishtank with a mirror-foil. Just to cover the unpleasant view
    behind of the tank... and to get some more light reflected back.
    Today I let the fish in this new tank...

    A pair of maroon clowns and hepatus tang get crazy seeing their
    own reflection in the tank wall.

    Now my title question: will they realize this is just a mirror
    soon or they will continue to fight the other fish in the mirror?
    How smart are they ?

    It is difficult to take the foil off since it is in a tight space
    between the tank and room wall... First day I turned off the lights
    sooner and wonder what will the group advice be...
    Should I go trought the trouble of removing the foil or the fish
    will get used to this reflection soon ? If so, how soon will it be ?
     
    Pszemol, Jul 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    They will slowly reduce their aggressiveness against their
    reflection, but will always have a suspicion that it might
    be another fish on the other side.

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com


    Pszemol wrote on 7/22/2006 10:12 PM:
    > I have a problem... in my huge wisom I have covered a side wall
    > of the fishtank with a mirror-foil. Just to cover the unpleasant view
    > behind of the tank... and to get some more light reflected back.
    > Today I let the fish in this new tank...
    >
    > A pair of maroon clowns and hepatus tang get crazy seeing their
    > own reflection in the tank wall.
    >
    > Now my title question: will they realize this is just a mirror
    > soon or they will continue to fight the other fish in the mirror?
    > How smart are they ?
    >
    > It is difficult to take the foil off since it is in a tight space
    > between the tank and room wall... First day I turned off the lights
    > sooner and wonder what will the group advice be...
    > Should I go trought the trouble of removing the foil or the fish
    > will get used to this reflection soon ? If so, how soon will it be ?
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Fish are not intelligent at all, they don't need to be, they have instincts
    instead of handling difficult decisions.
    I used to raise fighting chicken. They are territorial and will defend its
    domain to the death, literally.
    You see, they have no choice, they will respond to a stimuli in the same way
    over and over and over again.
    So, if they get a response "starter" the reaction will be the same.
    In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds in the
    evolutionary scale.
    They will be triggered by the reflection and will respond in the same way
    for ever regardless of self-injury. Remember, animals don't know death or
    that their wounds are not going to heal.
    I visited a friend with a similar issue with a fish but he liked the
    aggressive reaction of the fish. Well, I visited him two years later and
    the same fish was doing the same funny reaction after an illumination
    trigger.
    But don't worry, as soon as they acknowledge its new "neighbors" as
    harmless, they will go around and invest their energy in other things. Yes
    they will comeback again but will not stay there for long. In the other
    hand, if they associate the other fish with the pain they felt after the
    hit, lol, you better change backgrounds.
    iy

    "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
    news:e9u4bu.2po.1@poczta.onet.pl...
    >I have a problem... in my huge wisom I have covered a side wall
    > of the fishtank with a mirror-foil. Just to cover the unpleasant view
    > behind of the tank... and to get some more light reflected back.
    > Today I let the fish in this new tank...
    >
    > A pair of maroon clowns and hepatus tang get crazy seeing their
    > own reflection in the tank wall.
    >
    > Now my title question: will they realize this is just a mirror
    > soon or they will continue to fight the other fish in the mirror?
    > How smart are they ?
    >
    > It is difficult to take the foil off since it is in a tight space
    > between the tank and room wall... First day I turned off the lights
    > sooner and wonder what will the group advice be...
    > Should I go trought the trouble of removing the foil or the fish
    > will get used to this reflection soon ? If so, how soon will it be ?
     
    Inabón Yunes, Jul 23, 2006
    #3
  4. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/23/2006 12:50 AM:
    > Fish are not intelligent at all, they don't need to be, they have instincts
    > instead of handling difficult decisions.


    Not true.
    Fish are able to learn who feeds them, and who doesn't.
    Able to learn what the fish food container looks like.
    Able to recognize the fridge when someone opens the door,
    and they will beg for food every time you open the fridge
    if they are used to getting frozen food.
    Able to learn to come to you when you call them.
    And able to learn many other things.

    > I used to raise fighting chicken. They are territorial and will defend its
    > domain to the death, literally.
    > You see, they have no choice, they will respond to a stimuli in the same way
    > over and over and over again.
    > So, if they get a response "starter" the reaction will be the same.
    > In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds in the
    > evolutionary scale.
    > They will be triggered by the reflection and will respond in the same way
    > for ever regardless of self-injury. Remember, animals don't know death or
    > that their wounds are not going to heal.


    Not true.
    Fish know when they are dying.

    > I visited a friend with a similar issue with a fish but he liked the
    > aggressive reaction of the fish. Well, I visited him two years later and
    > the same fish was doing the same funny reaction after an illumination
    > trigger.
    > But don't worry, as soon as they acknowledge its new "neighbors" as
    > harmless, they will go around and invest their energy in other things. Yes
    > they will comeback again but will not stay there for long. In the other
    > hand, if they associate the other fish with the pain they felt after the
    > hit, lol, you better change backgrounds.
    > iy
    >


    Fish are a lot smarter than people give them credit for.

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 24, 2006
    #4
  5. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/23/2006 12:50 AM:

    > In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds in the
    > evolutionary scale.


    Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
    acknowledge the reality of the Creator.

    My computer evolved from a toaster oven.

    I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though
    the slots are of different sizes, I could not get a slice
    of bread in there. Obviously, an inferior evolutionary
    process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.

    Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of
    the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange
    them so that they look pretty. You will then have a good
    working model of the theory of evolution.

    Actually, evolution is easy to prove. Simply gather some
    old bones from a variety of animals (your choice), and
    some human bones, and put them together so that they look
    half human, and then give it a name like Suzie.

    Scientist have recently discovered a new class of
    creatures down deep in the sea. They have classified them
    in the zoowacko group. They have 2 heads and 3 eyes on
    each head :)

    Zigg and Zagg, Martians from Venus (they were born on
    Mars, but now live on Venus), did a study of the
    evolutionary order on earth. They decided to first
    doccument the order of evolvement of machines, since it
    was what most interested them. It was quite interesting
    reading, and learning how the different machines evolved
    from each other, like cars, trucks, microwaves, television
    sets, laptops, PDA's, watches, cranes, excetera. If you do
    a search on the internet you might be able to find their
    report :)
    They still have a few missing links to figure out. After
    they get that study completely finished, they are going to
    do their next study on animals and it's evolvement on the
    great planet Earth. After both of those studies are
    completed and proven, they are to decide "which came
    first, the animals, or the machines?" Zigg and Zagg have
    pritty-much decided that the machines came first since
    they are more basic in construction than the animals, but
    that has yet to be proven.


    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 24, 2006
    #5
  6. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44C4D7F7.7060607@WayneSallee.com...
    > Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/23/2006 12:50 AM:
    >
    >> In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds in the evolutionary scale.

    >
    > Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
    > acknowledge the reality of the Creator.


    Creationism is great or people that don't want to
    acknowledge the fact they are alone in the Universe
    and there is no God listening to their prayers :)

    > My computer evolved from a toaster oven.
    >
    > I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though the slots are of different sizes, I could not get a slice of bread in
    > there. Obviously, an inferior evolutionary process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.


    No, it is not evolved from the toaster oven, Wayne...
    That was quite a foolish example :)

    > Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange them so that they
    > look pretty. You will then have a good working model of the theory of evolution.


    Only people who do not know evolution enough could
    make such a comment.

    > Actually, evolution is easy to prove. Simply gather some old bones from a variety of animals (your choice), and some human bones,
    > and put them together so that they look half human, and then give it a name like Suzie.


    Evolution theory gets new proofs every day with all the work
    scientists are doing all over The World. The problem is
    that you will not learn about these discoveries in church!
    You need to read some real books to find out about them!
    For some people, it is way too difficult to read science books,
    so they settle for "easy answers" derived from "Holy Bible".
    They do not explain anything this way - they just replace
    missing knowledge with unable to be prooven fairy tales... LOL :)
    Every interesting question has only one answer in Creationism:
    "God did it". This way you can explain everything, but you
    will remain KNOWING NOTHING AT ALL.

    > Scientist have recently discovered a new class of creatures down deep in the sea. They have classified them in the zoowacko group.
    > They have 2 heads and 3 eyes on each head :)


    Oh, really ? I would like to read about them...
    Throw some details, please.
     
    Pszemol, Jul 24, 2006
    #6
  7. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 11:25 AM:
    >> Scientist have recently discovered a new class of creatures down deep
    >> in the sea. They have classified them in the zoowacko group. They have
    >> 2 heads and 3 eyes on each head :)

    >
    > Oh, really ? I would like to read about them...
    > Throw some details, please.


    Notice the "zowacko" name :) Obviously there are no
    creatures with 2 heads and 3 eyes on each head. :) There
    are deformities some times, but they are not normal.

    One thing that I find interesting, is that people that
    believe in evolution think that there is less similarities
    between people and animals than people that believe in
    creation.

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 24, 2006
    #7
  8. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44C4EE32.2020700@WayneSallee.com...
    > One thing that I find interesting, is that people that
    > believe in evolution think that there is less similarities
    > between people and animals than people that believe in
    > creation.


    What are you talking about ? Where have you noticed this?
    I find exactly opposite in my observations...

    Christians believe only humans have souls - animals
    are things you can kill and eat, people are "better"
    than animals. Only people go to heaven, right ? :)
    The single thing Darvin said about similarities about
    people to other primates created the most of his
    enemies. People believing in God believe they are
    special and significantly different from "beasts".

    Scientists see much more similarities between humans
    and other living beings than creationists.
     
    Pszemol, Jul 24, 2006
    #8
  9. Pszemol

    rtk Guest

    Wayne Sallee wrote:

    > Not true.
    > Fish know when they are dying.
    >
    >> I visited a friend with a similar issue with a fish but he liked the
    >> aggressive reaction of the fish. Well, I visited him two years later
    >> and the same fish was doing the same funny reaction after an
    >> illumination trigger.
    >> But don't worry, as soon as they acknowledge its new "neighbors" as
    >> harmless, they will go around and invest their energy in other
    >> things. Yes they will comeback again but will not stay there for
    >> long. In the other hand, if they associate the other fish with the
    >> pain they felt after the hit, lol, you better change backgrounds.
    >> iy
    >>

    >
    > Fish are a lot smarter than people give them credit for.
    >


    I agree with everything WS says. Unfortunately there seems
    to be no profit to be made from subsidizing research on fish
    intelligence, so there is minimum evidence of their learning
    ability, aside from anecdotes. But there are plenty of
    those. My fish know me, of course, especially the Cichlids
    who hide from everyone else. Pond fish, saltwater, turtles,
    everyone knows I'm food. They also know, I swear, who the
    net is after and only that fish becomes truly evasive.
    Anyone who says the fish don't know when they're dying has
    never looked in their eyes and felt painfully called upon
    and helpless. Granted I do some reading into what I see,
    but my empathy is based on clear observation.

    rtk
     
    rtk, Jul 24, 2006
    #9
  10. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    The idea that "fish don't think, but only react with
    instinct" is one example of what I am talking about.

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com


    Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 12:22 PM:
    > "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    > news:44C4EE32.2020700@WayneSallee.com...
    >> One thing that I find interesting, is that people that believe in
    >> evolution think that there is less similarities between people and
    >> animals than people that believe in creation.

    >
    > What are you talking about ? Where have you noticed this?
    > I find exactly opposite in my observations...
    >
    > Christians believe only humans have souls - animals
    > are things you can kill and eat, people are "better"
    > than animals. Only people go to heaven, right ? :)
    > The single thing Darvin said about similarities about
    > people to other primates created the most of his
    > enemies. People believing in God believe they are
    > special and significantly different from "beasts".
    >
    > Scientists see much more similarities between humans
    > and other living beings than creationists.
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 24, 2006
    #10
  11. Pszemol

    atomweaver Guest

    Wayne Sallee <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in
    news:44C4D7F7.7060607@WayneSallee.com:

    Follow-up pointed to talk.origins

    > Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/23/2006 12:50 AM:
    >
    >> In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds
    >> in the evolutionary scale.

    >
    > Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
    > acknowledge the reality of the Creator.
    >


    The small-minded are incapable of seeing that the two aren't mutually
    exclusive. Congrats, Wayne, you're working hard to reduce the status of
    the Almighty to that of a petty god of the gaps... I'm sure He's pleased
    with your enthusiasm, if not your end result.

    > My computer evolved from a toaster oven.
    >


    A statement of your fundamental misunderstanding of 'evolved'...

    > I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though
    > the slots are of different sizes, I could not get a slice
    > of bread in there. Obviously, an inferior evolutionary
    > process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.
    >


    A statement of your fundamental misunderstanding of both 'toaster oven' and
    'computer'...

    > Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of
    > the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange
    > them so that they look pretty. You will then have a good
    > working model of the theory of evolution.
    >


    No, you'd just have an inaccurate anecdote of your misunderstanding of
    evolution, and perhaps the vague feeling that you're being clever.

    Balance snipped, since it can be read here;

    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/86afab43d63180d
    0?dmode=source

    How disappointingly unoriginal, Wayne...

    Regards,
    R. David Zopf
    Atom Weaver
     
    atomweaver, Jul 24, 2006
    #11
  12. Pszemol

    atomweaver Guest

    Wayne Sallee <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in news:44C4F60B.7010007
    @WayneSallee.com:

    > The idea that "fish don't think, but only react with
    > instinct" is one example of what I am talking about.
    >


    Its telling that your example is at least as un-scientific as your own
    Creationist view... Why would anyone associate this idea with
    evolution?

    Regards
    DaveZ
    Atom Weaver


    > Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 12:22 PM:
    >> "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    >> news:44C4EE32.2020700@WayneSallee.com...
    >>> One thing that I find interesting, is that people that believe in
    >>> evolution think that there is less similarities between people and
    >>> animals than people that believe in creation.

    >>
    >> What are you talking about ? Where have you noticed this?
    >> I find exactly opposite in my observations...
    >>
    >> Christians believe only humans have souls - animals
    >> are things you can kill and eat, people are "better"
    >> than animals. Only people go to heaven, right ? :)
    >> The single thing Darvin said about similarities about
    >> people to other primates created the most of his
    >> enemies. People believing in God believe they are
    >> special and significantly different from "beasts".
    >>
    >> Scientists see much more similarities between humans
    >> and other living beings than creationists.
     
    atomweaver, Jul 24, 2006
    #12
  13. Pszemol

    Wilbur Slice Guest

    On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:25:52 -0500, "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com>
    wrote:

    >"Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44C4D7F7.7060607@WayneSallee.com...
    >
    >> Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange them so that they
    >> look pretty. You will then have a good working model of the theory of evolution.

    >
    >Only people who do not know evolution enough could
    >make such a comment.



    Actually, I think there is something to be said for his description.
    Wayne clearly doesn't understand evolution, but I think he's stumbled
    onto something.

    The basic thing to understand is the part about "get a chain..." This
    describes the fact of evolution - there IS a chain, and it does exist
    in a specific sequence. (Actually, a "chain" is way too simplistic,
    it's more of a gnarly viny bush or something, but the chain will
    suffice for the simple conceptual model)

    But the fossil record is incomplete. Fossils are extremely rare, and
    for many organisms, they are never ever formed. For those organisms
    that had bones and solid parts that would lend themselves to
    fossilization, conditions must be JUST right for a fossil to be
    formed. That's a very rare occurrence.

    This is where the "cut every other link" comes in. We don't have
    fossils of all the animals that ever existed (every link) - we only
    have a few.

    So we humans are left with what was obviously a chain of some sort,
    and we have a certain number of links in that chain. This is where
    the "arrange them" part comes in. We try to draw a view of that chain
    as it actually existed, and place the links where they really go. It's
    not Wayne's "so that they look pretty", but it's "so they make sense
    and reflect the reality of evolutionary development."
     
    Wilbur Slice, Jul 24, 2006
    #13
  14. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    Wayne Sallee, Jul 24, 2006
    #14
  15. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44C4F60B.7010007@WayneSallee.com...
    > The idea that "fish don't think, but only react with
    > instinct" is one example of what I am talking about.


    There are two kinds of an instinct, Wayne...
    One - they are borned with, and the second one they can learn.
    The second one is also called Pavlov instinct in the appreciation
    of the work this scientists has done for the understanding animal behaviour.

    Fish reaction to food is the first kind: they do not have to learn to eat.
    Fish reacting to the fridge opening or seeing a person next to the tank
    is the second kind - the same as the one Pavlov dogs developed an
    salivation reflex for the sound of the bell. Do more reading here
    http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/science+society/lectures/lecture30.html
    If you do a search on google with a keyword Pavlov and dog you
    will find more interesting facts you could match with your fish...
     
    Pszemol, Jul 24, 2006
    #15
  16. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44C52A78.6010303@WayneSallee.com...
    > LOL what's that supposed to mean???
    >
    > I'm one of a kind :) hehehe


    I do not think your argument with toaster oven was an originally yours...

    But anyway - is there any proof for evolution you would be willing
    to accet as "convincing" you the theory works ? Or you just totaly reject
    the theory on the basis of religion and your faith/believe in God ??
    In the second case no proof, even the "in your face" one would change
    your mind and the further discussion is simply mute.
    Please let me know - we could then move on to more interesting stuff ;-)
     
    Pszemol, Jul 24, 2006
    #16
  17. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 6:08 PM:
    >
    > I do not think your argument with toaster oven was an originally yours...


    You are correct on that :)

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 25, 2006
    #17
  18. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    Instinct: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency
    of an organism to make a complex and specific response to
    environmental stimuli without involving reason.

    So someone decided to redefine the word? hehehe

    I find it interesting that you are arguing in this
    direction after your earlier argument about the anemone
    fish and it's anemone.

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com


    Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 5:48 PM:
    > "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    > news:44C4F60B.7010007@WayneSallee.com...
    >> The idea that "fish don't think, but only react with instinct" is one
    >> example of what I am talking about.

    >
    > There are two kinds of an instinct, Wayne...
    > One - they are borned with, and the second one they can learn.
    > The second one is also called Pavlov instinct in the appreciation
    > of the work this scientists has done for the understanding animal
    > behaviour.
    >
    > Fish reaction to food is the first kind: they do not have to learn to eat.
    > Fish reacting to the fridge opening or seeing a person next to the tank
    > is the second kind - the same as the one Pavlov dogs developed an
    > salivation reflex for the sound of the bell. Do more reading here
    > http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/science+society/lectures/lecture30.html
    >
    > If you do a search on google with a keyword Pavlov and dog you
    > will find more interesting facts you could match with your fish...
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 25, 2006
    #18
  19. Pszemol

    tankdoc Guest

    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    news:44C551B5.1030206@WayneSallee.com...
    > Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 6:08 PM:
    >>
    >> I do not think your argument with toaster oven was an originally yours...

    >
    > You are correct on that :)
    >
    > Wayne Sallee
    > Wayne's Pets
    > Wayne@WaynesPets.com


    A 400 pound Marlin has a brain about 1/2 teaspoon in size, not a whole lot
    of room for things like philosophy ( knowledge of death ) or creative
    thinking. A fish has no knowledge of death, that should be obvious to
    anyone.

    Evolution is not a theory, or at least not a theory under much controversy
    among the scientific community, the real theory that is kicked around is
    natural selection as the primary method of evolution. The fact that drug
    resistant bacteria evolve from a common source should be all anyone needs to
    see to move evolution from theory to simple fact.

    The fact that Chimps and Humans share about 98% of their DNA is a commonly
    tossed about fact that can confuse people, the fact of the matter is that
    almost all mammals share 98% of their DNA.

    The topic is much more complicated than simple reading of headlines or blind
    faith.

    There is no real reason for evolution and "god theory" to be mutually
    exclusive.

    Jerry I.
    - The Bible is my favorite work of fiction, hands down.
     
    tankdoc, Jul 25, 2006
    #19
  20. Wayne, Wayne...
    When I was teaching biology in a CC, I knew better than to argue with lost
    causes.
    Just to give you an example of your lost cause here is a simple question;
    When and where the fish told you all those things?
    Now, here is a more complicated question;
    Who told fish that they are going to die, God?
    Fish are animals not humans like many people would like to think, you for
    example.
    They act as a response, they are able to learn a response to a stimuli, that
    is not intelligence. As I type here and hit the X key, for example, the
    computer writes that letter in a way that I can interpret it. Better yet,
    if I combine the X with the CTRL key, it will perfom a different task.
    Actually, if you use Word for example, it even completes the words for you
    or correct your spelling if instructed...
    Do you think my laptop is smart or just responding to a stimuli?
    lets see!
    iy
    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    news:44C4D7C2.9080508@WayneSallee.com...
    >
    >
    > Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/23/2006 12:50 AM:
    >> Fish are not intelligent at all, they don't need to be, they have
    >> instincts instead of handling difficult decisions.

    >
    > Not true.
    > Fish are able to learn who feeds them, and who doesn't.
    > Able to learn what the fish food container looks like. Able to recognize
    > the fridge when someone opens the door, and they will beg for food every
    > time you open the fridge if they are used to getting frozen food.
    > Able to learn to come to you when you call them.
    > And able to learn many other things.
    >
    >> I used to raise fighting chicken. They are territorial and will defend
    >> its domain to the death, literally.
    >> You see, they have no choice, they will respond to a stimuli in the same
    >> way over and over and over again.
    >> So, if they get a response "starter" the reaction will be the same.
    >> In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds in
    >> the evolutionary scale.
    >> They will be triggered by the reflection and will respond in the same way
    >> for ever regardless of self-injury. Remember, animals don't know death
    >> or that their wounds are not going to heal.

    >
    > Not true.
    > Fish know when they are dying.
    >
    >> I visited a friend with a similar issue with a fish but he liked the
    >> aggressive reaction of the fish. Well, I visited him two years later and
    >> the same fish was doing the same funny reaction after an illumination
    >> trigger.
    >> But don't worry, as soon as they acknowledge its new "neighbors" as
    >> harmless, they will go around and invest their energy in other things.
    >> Yes they will comeback again but will not stay there for long. In the
    >> other hand, if they associate the other fish with the pain they felt
    >> after the hit, lol, you better change backgrounds.
    >> iy
    >>

    >
    > Fish are a lot smarter than people give them credit for.
    >
    > Wayne Sallee
    > Wayne's Pets
    > Wayne@WaynesPets.com
     
    Inabón Yunes, Jul 25, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.