35 replies to this topic

[wisp]

http://www.psycholog...301-000001.html

It's three pages - a bit too long for me to copy and paste it all here. It's quite an interesting read though, if you've got the time. Personally I don't think it's too far of a stretch but I know plenty of people who would have a tough time accepting the fact that animals seem to have the same emotions we do.

[SOAP]

As a long-time animal lover, I'm absolutely sure animals have emotions as nearly indepth as our our human emotions. Animals feel fear, love, anger, joy, ect just like we do. They just can't talk about their feelings or express them exactly the same as we do but they do express emotions quite frequently. If anything I think humans are the numb ones, seeing as we have a hard time sensing anything beyond our own personal feelings, even when it comes to other people. But as anyone who'se ever owned a dog or whatever can tell you, animals can be damn near intuitive when it comes to emotions so it's just flagrant ignorance to say they don't feel anything.

Also, I thought it was pretty much general consensus that animals DO feel. I never knew there was any controversy over it.

Edited by SOAP, 21 August 2007 - 03:53 PM.

[Chukchi Husky]

Someone tried to tell me earlier today that animals (mainly dogs) don't have emotions, that they should either be used as tools or eaten, that befriending them is "cruel", and the people that do overestimate themselves, have no social life and like watching people starve to death.

Edited by Chukchi Husky, 21 August 2007 - 03:57 PM.

[Khallos]

Some I met once said he wouldn't eat a fly, because it'd feel extreme pain as it died, yet he ate fish as their "nervous system was less developed". Best to presume most humans are as smart as they're cracked up to be, and they bend things to make life easier. After all, it's easier to kill and eat unfeeling, souless beasts than sentinent, emotional pets.

[SOAP]

Some I met once said he wouldn't eat a fly, because it'd feel extreme pain as it died, yet he ate fish as their "nervous system was less developed". Best to presume most humans are as smart as they're cracked up to be, and they bend things to make life easier. After all, it's easier to kill and eat unfeeling, souless beasts than sentinent, emotional pets.

How do you explain cannibalism amongst humans?

[Fyxe]

How do you explain cannibalism amongst humans?

They tend to be people who don't care either way.

Or just really really hungry types.

Anyway, if you ask me there's no controversy. Anyone who doesn't realise that animals have emotions simply has never owned a pet like a cat or a dog. That's it. Plain ignorance.

[SnowsilverKat]

I don't see why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp. Empathy didn't just magically appear one day in some cavemen or something...

I think the problem is when people assume that animals THINK like humans, though. I'm not saying animals are unintelligent or anything. But if animals thought like people, I think the world would've been blown up by now.

[SOAP]

That depends on what you mean by think. I'm sure physically, they're brain works just like ours. Electrical synapses in the neuro-pathways and all that junk. If you mean having the capacity to philosophize and reason, you're probably right. Though they say dolphins and primates are supposedly self-aware which would bring them a step closer to our level. But other than that, animals are emotional, instinctive creatures and that's okay. It's how nature created them. We just went a different route. Strange that there isn't any other animal taht has risen to our level. We'd probably killed them off though like we did with our ancient rivals, the Neanderthals.

Edited by SOAP, 22 August 2007 - 12:34 AM.

[Steel Samurai]

The neanderthals were homo sapiens with rickets, not another species. At least that's the general consensus these days I hear.

[SOAP]

The neanderthals were homo sapiens with rickets, not another species. At least that's the general consensus these days I hear.

I thought it was a seperate sub species.

Albeit, my grasp on science is a bit rusty. Still I hold to my point. Why are we the only ones with the huge capacity for knowledge?

Edited by SOAP, 22 August 2007 - 04:08 AM.

[Selena]

No, they were another species all together. Just a similar one.

The subspecies / different breeds of homo sapien are homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens idaltu, amongst one or two others. Neatherthals have their own unique classification. Scientists are also saying, to address a statement above, that we didn't kill them all off. Rather, we were better hunters in the open plain, because we could run faster. Thus we got all the food and stuff. And they couldn't find a niche and couldn't cope with the changing climate, as they were fairly specialized. ...Er, anyway.



This thread basically confirms what just about all pet owners already know.

Dog after being yelled at for barking: Sulk avoid eye contact aw.
Dog after being given a tennis ball: OMG YAY HAHAH WAG TAIL NOW.

[Chukchi Husky]

Anyway, if you ask me there's no controversy. Anyone who doesn't realise that animals have emotions simply has never owned a pet like a cat or a dog. That's it. Plain ignorance.

Except for some Christians.

[wisp]

The neanderthals were homo sapiens with rickets, not another species. At least that's the general consensus these days I hear.

That's a myth that's been making the rounds recently, far as I know. The neanderthals were a separate Homo species, and the "man with rickets" thing came about from the skeleton of a neanderthal who did appear to have rickets.

Virchow, who first reported the possibility of rickets in a Neanderthal, did not cite it alone. He said the fossil had rickets in early childhood, head injuries in middle age, and arthritis in old age. It is doubtful that an entire population suffered these same afflictions.

[SOAP]

Anyway, if you ask me there's no controversy. Anyone who doesn't realise that animals have emotions simply has never owned a pet like a cat or a dog. That's it. Plain ignorance.

Except for some Christians.

I think their arguement is taht animals have no souls, not that that they're emotionless.

Edited by SOAP, 22 August 2007 - 10:28 AM.

[Chukchi Husky]

To some of them it's the same thing. They see animals like robots following instructions.

[SOAP]

I've never met any Christians like that. And I know some pretty hokey Christians.

[vodkamaru]

To some of them it's the same thing. They see animals like robots following instructions.

Well, they kind of are. A robot would do the same thing any animal would do. Observe the environment with the senses and act. The only difference is the material making the decision, the brain vs. a processor, memory, and some software (which can behave very similarly). Simpler animals will have instincts like: fight, flee, eat, and mate. Animals with higher brain functions just have more "hardware" to "program" giving us the ability to reason and stuff. Surely we experience our consciousness incredibly differently than other animals, but with our minds we can reason where most animals are driven on impulse by instinct and emotion. I'd argue that all animals (including homo sapiens) are similar to robots to some degree.

[SOAP]

Yes, technically, plants animals, all of us are machines if you get right down to it. The real kicker is if actual robots have souls. If humans are technically machines, and if people believe humans have souls, then why can't animals and for that matter artificial lifeforms?

[Fyxe]

but with our minds we can reason where most animals are driven on impulse by instinct and emotion.

Actually, a surprising number of animals have abilities attributed to reason. They can solve puzzles, work in teams and be selfless for no reason other to help their companions. Hell, pigeons and some other animals can even develop superstition.

[SOAP]

The only thing I've heard is that octopuses have advanced problem solving skills and long-term memory, and such. Or was that squids. That and dolphins can look at their reflection and know it's their own reflection and not another dolphin.

[Fyxe]

Ravens can use teamwork to solve problems for getting food out of specialised bins they weren't meant to get into. I think it was ravens anyway. Some type of crow-like bird. Certain primates act selflessly by giving food to partners who weren't given any in controlled tests. Squirrels are famed for working out long series of puzzles to get food.

Aaaand so on.

[Fyxe]

Edit: Fuck you, server.

Edited by Fyxe, 22 August 2007 - 02:32 PM.

[SOAP]

Ravens can use teamwork to solve problems for getting food out of specialised bins they weren't meant to get into. I think it was ravens anyway. Some type of crow-like bird. Certain primates act selflessly by giving food to partners who weren't given any in controlled tests. Squirrels are famed for working out long series of puzzles to get food.

Aaaand so on.

Huh! That's interesting.

[Chukchi Husky]

Ravens can help teach wolves how to hunt.

[spunky-monkey]

Anyway, if you ask me there's no controversy. Anyone who doesn't realise that animals have emotions simply has never owned a pet like a cat or a dog. That's it. Plain ignorance.

You've overlooked one small detail in your hypothesis – those who actually own animals as pets are more than likely to become emotionally attached to them, thereby ruining any chance of fair, unbiased research via observation.

The problem here is we can't measure intelligence accurately, and to be honest, I've never witnessed any human-like personality from pets, oh yeah owners are bound to tell you otherwise but animals only care about where their next meal comes from; any trace or evidence of their sentience is always overridden by instinct, because Nature can be a megabitch.

Here;s this for a comparison; an animal wouldn't feel guilt or regret if it killed you, whereas we do. It simply shows that we are much more developed than them in some respects.

[Selena]

You're right. All that your proves is that we're more advanced. Not that they can't think for themselves or have emotions. Of course they're simpler creatures more driven by instincts than we are. You're not going to witness 'human-like personality' from anyone other than humans. Animals have their own, though it can seem similar at times. Care only about where their next meal comes from? I wonder if you've been around many animals at all. They aren't incessantly hungry, you know. Especially if they're pets.

And we're subject to deep rooted instincts as well, so we ourselves are not exactly the poster children for control and benevolent emotion. Mating instincts, territorial behavior, pack mentality, whatever. It's still all there. So-called intellectuals just like to pretend otherwise. As for being concerned only about food, you'd obviously care about having food available for consumption, but the luxury of supermarkets means that you can play on the computer and not worry about hunting and tracking.

[wisp]

And we're subject to deep rooted instincts as well, so we ourselves are not exactly the poster children for control and benevolent emotion. Mating instincts, territorial behavior, pack mentality, whatever. It's still all there. So-called intellectuals just like to pretend otherwise. As for being concerned only about food, you'd obviously care about having food available for consumption, but the luxury of supermarkets means that you can play on the computer and not worry about hunting and tracking.

Yep. Like it or not, we humans have stone-age minds to this day. Society and technology have evolved much faster than we have and we are still designed to live in the environment of early human beings. Why do you think we (speaking generally, of course) are naturally more afraid of snakes and bugs than of cars and electricity? Logically, the latter two are more dangerous, but we still retain fears of poisonous or otherwise dangerous creatures because our ancestors evolved to have those instincts in order to give them a better chance of survival.

[Fyxe]

those who actually own animals as pets are more than likely to become emotionally attached to them, thereby ruining any chance of fair, unbiased research via observation.

It's certainly more fair than never having any knowledge of animals whatsoever. I think you'll find that most scientists accept that animals have emotions that can be attributed to similar human emotions, after all, that's what this whole topic is about.

Besides, just because you own a pet doesn't turn you into a dribbling moron.

The problem here is we can't measure intelligence accurately,

No, but you can't really do that with humans either. Even IQ tests aren't perfect. But you can measure intelligence of animals through controlled tests, anyway, so I don't see your point.

and to be honest, I've never witnessed any human-like personality from pets, oh yeah owners are bound to tell you otherwise but animals only care about where their next meal comes from; any trace or evidence of their sentience is always overridden by instinct, because Nature can be a megabitch.

I think you'll find that most human behavior is driven by similar forces of nature. Just because instinct exists doesn't override emotion.

Here;s this for a comparison; an animal wouldn't feel guilt or regret if it killed you, whereas we do. It simply shows that we are much more developed than them in some respects.

Okay, now this is a rather stupid statement, I must say. Firstly, who says I would feel regret if I killed you? Prove it. Without getting into my mind, you'd have no idea how I'd feel if I lopped your head off. Secondly, last I checked I didn't see a spate of pets slaughtering their owners. And some of them could, some dogs are remarkably dangerous things. They generally tend not to, however.

Besides, humans kill animals all the time, do they all feel regret? 'Regret' and 'guilt' are very subjective things and are in some respects just a construct of human society.

[SOAP]

Here;s this for a comparison; an animal wouldn't feel guilt or regret if it killed you, whereas we do.

That's not a valid argument. We kill animals all the time and most of us don't cry about it. So why should animals feel guilt about killing us? Why should it care. In most cases, we're viewed as either food or a threat so it's not like they're killing out of pure malice. Which is the case with us sometimes when people kick puppies or drown kittens just because they're life sucks that much that harming something defenseless makes them feel that much better.

A much better comparison would be if animals kill within their own species out of malice or just for the fun of it, which is what we humans do. Animals kill within their own species mostly out of territorial reasons. Humans sometimes just kill each because they can. Because seeing other people go SPLAT into huge piles of blood is somehow enjoyable. It's things like taht taht make me wonder if we even deserved surviving this long.

Edited by SOAP, 22 August 2007 - 11:44 PM.

[vodkamaru]

Yes, technically, plants animals, all of us are machines if you get right down to it. The real kicker is if actual robots have souls. If humans are technically machines, and if people believe humans have souls, then why can't animals and for that matter artificial lifeforms?

Uhhh... no such thing as souls...