It takes a slow hand to catch a big fish
June 23, 2017 10:36 PM Subscribe
Rock & roll legend. World-class guitarist. Record-setting angler? Guitar god Eric Clapton went to Iceland to learn how to fish for salmon. I think he got it. He also got the biggest salmon caught in Iceland this year, a 42 1/2 inch monster weighing 28 pounds.
Insert obvious pun about "rivers of blood" here.
posted by mml at 11:53 PM on June 23, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by mml at 11:53 PM on June 23, 2017 [5 favorites]
Insert obvious pun about "anyone for tennis?" here.
posted by kokaku at 11:56 PM on June 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by kokaku at 11:56 PM on June 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
I just came here to congratulate scalefree on his post title.
posted by key_of_z at 12:38 AM on June 24, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by key_of_z at 12:38 AM on June 24, 2017 [6 favorites]
And doubly epynomous, to boot.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:46 AM on June 24, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 12:46 AM on June 24, 2017 [4 favorites]
Don't forget 'send them all back' racist.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 1:14 AM on June 24, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by GallonOfAlan at 1:14 AM on June 24, 2017 [5 favorites]
It takes a slow hand to catch a big fish
...and the best local guide money can buy.
posted by fairmettle at 1:14 AM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
...and the best local guide money can buy.
posted by fairmettle at 1:14 AM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
There's an amazing story in Clapton's autobiography about how the rock-bottom moment of his heroin addiction occurred during a fly fishing trip.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:43 AM on June 24, 2017
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:43 AM on June 24, 2017
Can someone please explain catch-and-release fishing to me? You snare a fish through the lip with a sharp, barbed piece of metal, then you torture it for a while as it's desperately trying to escape, then you torture it just a little more by yanking it out of the water for a selfie, and then you throw it back. I honestly don't get it.
posted by scratch at 4:54 AM on June 24, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by scratch at 4:54 AM on June 24, 2017 [5 favorites]
It's you versus an animal with a brain the size of a walnut. Mighty Hunter! Well done!
posted by Devonian at 4:58 AM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Devonian at 4:58 AM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
I bet he was so happy he Creamed himself.
You guys missed one!
posted by leotrotsky at 5:12 AM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
You guys missed one!
posted by leotrotsky at 5:12 AM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's you versus an animal with a brain the size of a walnut.
And yet you still managed to let it catch you.
posted by howfar at 5:13 AM on June 24, 2017
And yet you still managed to let it catch you.
posted by howfar at 5:13 AM on June 24, 2017
He was always good with hooks.
(Come on, mefi, that was too easy! How'd y'all miss it?)
posted by Annika Cicada at 5:28 AM on June 24, 2017 [7 favorites]
(Come on, mefi, that was too easy! How'd y'all miss it?)
posted by Annika Cicada at 5:28 AM on June 24, 2017 [7 favorites]
CLAPTON IS...uuuhhh....COD...? maybe?
posted by NoMich at 6:25 AM on June 24, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by NoMich at 6:25 AM on June 24, 2017 [2 favorites]
Why fish do not feel pain.
Pretty sceptical of that paper, speaking with my rather dusty and little used philosopher's hat on.
I am happy to accept, at least for the sake of argument (although I'm very unsure on this) that there are certain negative qualia that we term "pain", which appear to be analogues of neurological states that fish are not capable of possessing. But accepting that does not, in my view tell me anything about the possibility that fish experience equally noxious qualia of a either a similar or entirely different sort.
Our beliefs about pain are not actually, at their root, beliefs about neurological states, but rather beliefs about qualia. While qualia may very well supervene on neurological states, they are, by definition, not identical with neurological states. I'm not convinced that the author actually recognises the significance of this distinction in respect of this particular argument.
I'd suggest that the only reason for me to assume that human beings other than me experience pain (that is to say that their neurological states correspond to qualia in a way roughly similar to my own) is from inference from their behaviour and statements. If I met a person who told me they felt pain, snatched their hands from the fire, and wept afterward, I don't think it would be reasonable for me to observe their neurology and conclude that, in fact, they're lying, or in some way deceived into think they're suffering, when actually they aren't. A reasonable inferrence from behaviour is the foundation of my belief that the people I meet suffer pain - on the terms of this paper, I infer from people's behaviour that there are qualia that correspond to certain neurological states whenever those states arrise. It seems very odd, then, to look at an animal behaving in a way that implies suffering and say "well, their neurological state is unlike our own, so we can discard the behavioural evidence" - because it was only behavioural evidence that led us to believe that particular neurological states give rise to pain qualia in the first place.
I'm also a bit sceptical of the justification given for why we would be better off assuming that fish do not experience noxious qualia in the way that their behaviour seems to indicate. The reference to the impact of Andrew Wakefield's evil lies seems entirely ridiculous, and the more specific justifications are either very weak or mere wedge arguments.
Dr Key's defence of the premisses of his argument does not in, my view, really engage with these philosophical issues at all. Which, I suppose, is something that philosophers have to get used to, when neuroscientists come along to tell them that fundamental problems which have been considered in the discipline for thousands of years can be solved by a "scientific" theory which is not even susceptible to falsification.
posted by howfar at 6:56 AM on June 24, 2017 [5 favorites]
Pretty sceptical of that paper, speaking with my rather dusty and little used philosopher's hat on.
I am happy to accept, at least for the sake of argument (although I'm very unsure on this) that there are certain negative qualia that we term "pain", which appear to be analogues of neurological states that fish are not capable of possessing. But accepting that does not, in my view tell me anything about the possibility that fish experience equally noxious qualia of a either a similar or entirely different sort.
Our beliefs about pain are not actually, at their root, beliefs about neurological states, but rather beliefs about qualia. While qualia may very well supervene on neurological states, they are, by definition, not identical with neurological states. I'm not convinced that the author actually recognises the significance of this distinction in respect of this particular argument.
I'd suggest that the only reason for me to assume that human beings other than me experience pain (that is to say that their neurological states correspond to qualia in a way roughly similar to my own) is from inference from their behaviour and statements. If I met a person who told me they felt pain, snatched their hands from the fire, and wept afterward, I don't think it would be reasonable for me to observe their neurology and conclude that, in fact, they're lying, or in some way deceived into think they're suffering, when actually they aren't. A reasonable inferrence from behaviour is the foundation of my belief that the people I meet suffer pain - on the terms of this paper, I infer from people's behaviour that there are qualia that correspond to certain neurological states whenever those states arrise. It seems very odd, then, to look at an animal behaving in a way that implies suffering and say "well, their neurological state is unlike our own, so we can discard the behavioural evidence" - because it was only behavioural evidence that led us to believe that particular neurological states give rise to pain qualia in the first place.
I'm also a bit sceptical of the justification given for why we would be better off assuming that fish do not experience noxious qualia in the way that their behaviour seems to indicate. The reference to the impact of Andrew Wakefield's evil lies seems entirely ridiculous, and the more specific justifications are either very weak or mere wedge arguments.
Dr Key's defence of the premisses of his argument does not in, my view, really engage with these philosophical issues at all. Which, I suppose, is something that philosophers have to get used to, when neuroscientists come along to tell them that fundamental problems which have been considered in the discipline for thousands of years can be solved by a "scientific" theory which is not even susceptible to falsification.
posted by howfar at 6:56 AM on June 24, 2017 [5 favorites]
My last paragraph above is too whiny, and I should not have included it. Sorry.
I should probably also say that I am genuinely unsure about whether fish experience noxious qualia. I think that this is a hard problem. I am generally sceptical about the extent to which we can make claims about where and how qualia arise. It is genuinely not clear to me how we could go about an enquiry into this which does not, ultimately, fall back onto the fundamentally behaviourist, and genuinely problematic, basis for inferring the existence of qualia as correlates to neurological states.
posted by howfar at 7:40 AM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
I should probably also say that I am genuinely unsure about whether fish experience noxious qualia. I think that this is a hard problem. I am generally sceptical about the extent to which we can make claims about where and how qualia arise. It is genuinely not clear to me how we could go about an enquiry into this which does not, ultimately, fall back onto the fundamentally behaviourist, and genuinely problematic, basis for inferring the existence of qualia as correlates to neurological states.
posted by howfar at 7:40 AM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
Did he exhibit blind faith in his angling abilities?
posted by AJaffe at 8:07 AM on June 24, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by AJaffe at 8:07 AM on June 24, 2017 [2 favorites]
It's you versus an animal with a brain the size of a walnut. Mighty Hunter! Well done!
He never described himself as a mighty hunter or asked for congratulations. He fished. This is a thing that humans do and have always.
posted by ftm at 8:20 AM on June 24, 2017 [3 favorites]
He never described himself as a mighty hunter or asked for congratulations. He fished. This is a thing that humans do and have always.
posted by ftm at 8:20 AM on June 24, 2017 [3 favorites]
And I said "Yes, you hooked wonderful tonight."
[Wanky guitar]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:58 AM on June 24, 2017 [7 favorites]
[Wanky guitar]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:58 AM on June 24, 2017 [7 favorites]
The tiny purple fishes
Run laughing through your fingers
And you want to take her with you
To the hard land of the winter
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:11 AM on June 24, 2017 [4 favorites]
Run laughing through your fingers
And you want to take her with you
To the hard land of the winter
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:11 AM on June 24, 2017 [4 favorites]
If his angling is anything like his music, he probably stole that fish from black people, cooked it up as blandly as humanly possible, and then spouted enough racial slurs to inspire a Fish Against Racism festival.
(Fuck everything about Eric Clapton.)
posted by Sys Rq at 9:22 AM on June 24, 2017 [23 favorites]
(Fuck everything about Eric Clapton.)
posted by Sys Rq at 9:22 AM on June 24, 2017 [23 favorites]
The mens journal article isnt dated, but this happened in august of last year: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/08/eric-clapton-big-fish-record-breaking-salmon-iceland
I thought Id read about it 3 or 4 years ago, but I guess thats just the time compression that happens when everything is horrific.
posted by kingv at 10:34 AM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
I thought Id read about it 3 or 4 years ago, but I guess thats just the time compression that happens when everything is horrific.
posted by kingv at 10:34 AM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
Lay Down Salmon, throw it back and Let It Grow!
posted by spitbull at 11:22 AM on June 24, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 11:22 AM on June 24, 2017 [2 favorites]
I would much rather go fishing with Les and Dean.
posted by bondcliff at 12:55 PM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by bondcliff at 12:55 PM on June 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
Can someone please explain catch-and-release fishing to me?
It's a relatively modern change to an ancient pastime, introduced to ensure sustainability of the fish population. As a sport, it brings a lot of money and awareness to the health of our rivers. Fundamentally it's about people finding lower-impact ways to enjoy our natural environment. Overall I'd say it's not terrible.
posted by ryanrs at 2:38 PM on June 24, 2017 [3 favorites]
It's a relatively modern change to an ancient pastime, introduced to ensure sustainability of the fish population. As a sport, it brings a lot of money and awareness to the health of our rivers. Fundamentally it's about people finding lower-impact ways to enjoy our natural environment. Overall I'd say it's not terrible.
posted by ryanrs at 2:38 PM on June 24, 2017 [3 favorites]
Why do animals feel pain? To alert them to damage and make them avoid it, I suppose. Although, the pain levels that the nervous system can provide seem to be disproportionate. I believe that a smaller level of pain would be just fine for informing me that I have bumped the coffee table with my shin, for example.
It would be surprising, I think, if fish had evolved with no need at all for this kind of system, although I suppose it may be less important in undersea creatures, since there's perhaps less accidental injury in animals who live surrounded by water.
posted by thelonius at 6:59 PM on June 24, 2017
It would be surprising, I think, if fish had evolved with no need at all for this kind of system, although I suppose it may be less important in undersea creatures, since there's perhaps less accidental injury in animals who live surrounded by water.
posted by thelonius at 6:59 PM on June 24, 2017
My last paragraph above is too whiny, and I should not have included it.
Seemed perfectly proper and justified to me.
posted by mediareport at 4:18 AM on June 25, 2017 [1 favorite]
Seemed perfectly proper and justified to me.
posted by mediareport at 4:18 AM on June 25, 2017 [1 favorite]
(Not to derail any further, but the response to Key's fish paper goes quite a bit beyond the Damasios': see here for over 50 responses and counter-responses -- the majority of which, I believe, argue that they do in fact "feel" pain under most plausible definitions of these terms.)
posted by chortly at 10:28 PM on June 26, 2017
posted by chortly at 10:28 PM on June 26, 2017
« Older “...perfect for running, driving, flying or ring... | She came up to me and she said... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:35 PM on June 23, 2017 [4 favorites]