Non-human emotions poll

[KrazyKaiju]

In my ethics class, when we were talking about “moral instinct”, I heard about some experiments.

Two monkeys were kept in separate containers, but each was visible to the other via a glass window. One had a button/switch/lever that would bring down some food. When the monkey did activated this, the monkey got the food, but the other got an electric shock and winced in pain. Later, the first monkey wouldn’t hit the device.

Two monkeys performed similar tasks and were given rewards. One was given grapes. Another was given something else. I can’t remember what it was, but the monkeys love grapes more. The next time, they were given the same rewards, but the monkey with the lesser reward threw its prize away. (A similar experiment was done on dogs.)

This isn’t quite fear or anger, but I just thought I’d share. (And this doesn’t disprove God’s existence, mind you.)

 

[redhen]

i dont think so, i mean we can be sad and smile, we can be happy and frown, thats a poor method then by which to judge emotions, aspecially in another species.

You can’t fake a genuine smile. See further up for the reference to the Duchenne smile.
Anyways, you don’t believe animals have any emotions, but now you think they could be devious with fake emotions?

that is exactly what anthropomorphising is. for instance, say a chimp smiles at you, do you think the chimp is happy?

No, I mentioned before, a non-human ape’s grimace is not necessarily a smile. But the facial expressions for fear and anger, those are reliable.

what evidence do you have of this? even animal behaviorists would disagree here, what universal language is there between a pig, a steer, chicken, and a man?

When psychologists say universal emotion, they mean only in humans.

it may seem obvious to you but even if a chicken could frown, i dont know how that could be extrapolated into “anger” or “sadness”.

Quite right, because of the large difference in physiology. But still, we see consistent, recognizable expressions of some basic emotions. Let’s go back to rats, since they are the mammal equivalent of the fruit fly in lab experiments.

I’ve quoted several lab analysis reports on fear in rats. Now if researches couldn’t make a **reasonable assumption **that the physical expressions they saw didn’t constitute fear, why would they then go on to develop amygdala receptor blockers to inhibit fear? Just a wild, far out guess?

How do they measure fear in rats? One of the main expressions is freezing up. Rats will freeze when they first smell or hear a cat. They may stand on their back feet to see where the cat is and which direction to run to.

This is the same behaviour, and emotion, that a soldier would experience in the woods if he heard an enemy voice, or even heard a twig snap.

Many mammals exhibit this as a response to fear. And yes, when the amygdala receptor blockers are administered, the rats feel no fear and walk blithely up to the cat.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, then the term ***equal rights ***is innapproriate and does not belong in the scenario. Again, there are no animal rights groups that are saying that animals are equal to people.

Using the term **equal rights **is completely off mark. And when you use it, it en-angers people, and it lights unneccessary fires. Perhaps you do not use the term intentionally in a wrong way–or perhaps you do–I don’t know–but I would dispense with using it because it is innaccurate and misleading.

im afraid i must insist that there are such groups of people. i dont mean to offend you, but i can prove it.

here in fact is one whose name is EqualRights4Animals

groups.yahoo.com/group/EqualRights4Animals/

peter singer has a paper called

All Animals Are Equal
by Peter Singer
In TOM REGAN & PETER SINGER (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations

here this guy is referring to equal natural rights. not voting, property rights and so forth

animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com/2008/02/concept-of-personhood.html

By claiming that all sentients have rights, the only rights we would be claiming on behalf of the rights-holding animals are rights that matter to them, and that do not infringe the equal or more fundamental rights of others
here animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm

and here is another one. Dr. Michael W. Fox, how did this guy get a doctorate?

tedeboy.tripod.com/drmichaelwfox/id62.html

Animal rights advocates today challenge the logic and ethics of not according animals equal rights, animals used as companions having infinitely more rights than animals used as commodities. **This call for equal rights **means that all domesticated and captive wild animals should be kept under conditions appropriate to their natures, conducive to their physical health and mental well being because their basic physiological and psychological needs are provided for…

The main political opposition** to equal treatment and rights for all animals **comes from the commercial sector of those animal industries that see any change in the status quo as an economic threat.

these guys did a study

core.ecu.edu/psyc/WuenschK/Animals/ABS91.htm

In this study, 284 college undergraduates responded to eleven questionnaire items designed to assess beliefs about the similarity between humans and nonhuman animals and attitudes towards animal rights. The majority of the participants believed that nonhuman animals are capable of thinking and experiencing emotion. Approximately half believed that humans and animals are very similar. Fifteen percent of the participants advocated equal rights between humans and animals.

clearly then there are people and organizations who in their own published words who are advocating equal rights for animals. i dislike upsetting my friends, but you know im a hardcore rationalist at heart. whats true, is true. please forgive my blunt nature.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

“There is a bad as well as a good anthropomorphism. Bad includes the attempt to project obviously human needs and emotions onto animals as when, for example, we enter the Beatrix Potter world of animals dressed up in human clothes and enjoying gardening. But these fantasies should not detract from the truth of good anthropomorphism, which accepts, as a reasonable assumption, that, in their own individual manner, mammals suffer only to a greater or lesser extent than we do. The ‘anthropomorphic’ view was ably expressed by the ‘Ethical Approach’ of the former Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in 1970: ‘the fact that an animal has limbs should give it the right to use them; the fact that a bird has wings should give it the right to spread them; the fact that both animals and birds are mobile should give them the right to turn around, and the fact that they have eyes should give them the right to see’.”

humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html

We’re still on topic with animal emotion and anthropomorphism, so I’ll toss out this link to more commentary by The Revd Professor Andrew Linzey oxfordanimalethics.com/index.php?p=comment

I know he’s Anglican, but I’m hoping you can cut him slack in that respect.
oxfordanimalethics.com/index.php?p=director

this is just opinion that anthropomorphism can be good because it is a “reasonable assumption”. i can anthropomorphise a robots actions and then call that a reasonable assumption, but is it? of course not. unless you have a reason emotion can be restricted to a certain set of chemistries it wouldnt seem that anthropomorphising anything can be “good” after all if something is not true, then it resulted in false beliefs. i wouldnt call that “good”

 

[1catholic]

Yeah. After my dog digs in the garbage…he is ashamed, he gets a funny little grin and goes to hide

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You can’t fake a genuine smile. See further up for the reference to the Duchenne smile.
Anyways, you don’t believe animals have any emotions, but now you think they could be devious with fake emotions?

you can indeed, fake a smile, actors do it all the time. nor do i think animals can be devious with fake emotions, we were discussing the idea of a universal emotional language.

No, I mentioned before, a non-human ape’s grimace is not necessarily a smile. But the facial expressions for fear and anger, those are reliable.

whatever emotion that you assign to whatever reaction is anthropomorphism. if a chimps “fear” face is reliable, how does that prove that it isnt simply a programmed response to stimuli. not an emotion then but a determisitically driven behavior? i can react an infinite nummber of ways to fear, if they only have the one, then i suggest that is evidence more in line with a simple stimuli reaction. that doesnt seem to help your case.

When psychologists say universal emotion, they mean only in humans.

the original poster was trying to apply it to animals.

Quite right, because of the large difference in physiology. But still, we see consistent, recognizable expressions of some basic emotions. Let’s go back to rats, since they are the mammal equivalent of the fruit fly in lab experiments.

having a consistent reaction doesnt help you, our emotions can generate nearly infinite responses, a single or even limited responses then lends more credence to the idea that this "fear is a simple reaction to stimuli.

I’ve quoted several lab analysis reports on fear in rats. Now if researches couldn’t make a **reasonable assumption **that the physical expressions they saw didn’t constitute fear, why would they then go on to develop amygdala receptor blockers to inhibit fear? Just a wild, far out guess?

because they anthropomorphize that reaction as “fear” then they develop a blocker for that reaction to stimuli. incredibly bad science. truth seeking behavior

How do they measure fear in rats? One of the main expressions is freezing up. Rats will freeze when they first smell or hear a cat. They may stand on their back feet to see where the cat is and which direction to run to.

or its a simple reaction to stimuli programmed by millions of years of predation by cats.

This is the same behaviour, and emotion, that a soldier would experience in the woods if he heard an enemy voice, or even heard a twig snap.

a soldier may hit the ground, fire his weapon, run, call for reinforcements, or freeze. though i wonder how you know its the same emotion? thats right anthropomorphization.

Many mammals exhibit this as a response to fear. And yes, when the amygdala receptor blockers are administered, the rats feel no fear and walk blithely up to the cat.

or

Many mammals exhibit this as a programmed response to stimuli. And yes, when the amygdala receptor blockers are administered, the rats have **no reaction to that stimuli **and walk blithely up to the cat.

see to make any of these statements you must first anthropomorphize them as a certain “emotion” and not a simple response to stimuli programmed by evolution. and that is the base problem to claiming animals have emotions, you cant prove it, you can only assume it.

 

[Benadam]

this is just opinion that anthropomorphism can be good because it is a “reasonable assumption”. i can anthropomorphise a robots actions and then call that a reasonable assumption, but is it? of course not. unless you have a reason emotion can be restricted to a certain set of chemistries it wouldnt seem that anthropomorphising anything can be “good” after all if something is not true, then it resulted in false beliefs. i wouldnt call that “good”

Anthropamorphised religious symbols can be profoundly true. I see little biological reason to believe animals don’t experience emotional states. Call it a projection if you wish but you should have to blame nature for that too. The physiology attached to emotions in humans and animals are too similar to dismiss as something not what they appear to be.

How do you explain the physiological changes that happen in animals but result from the experience of emotions in humans?

 

[Image_of_God]

Does a living being have to be rational and/or emotional for us to respect that it has an entitlement to live its own life, free of human interference?

Is problem solving a rational function of the brain? (Because I can give examples of problem-solving in animals.)

You are reading much more than what I typed. I said nothing about a lack of rationality or emotion being grounds for treating animals with disrespect (it seems that’s what you are implying with your question). If you wish to know how I feel about the subject, go back to the first post that I posted on this thread yesterday. I said there that I do believe that animals should be treated well.

I cannot answer weather problem solving is a rational function of the brain. That is a question I don’t completely know. Someone may be able to answer that for me. However, I will answer that there are two kinds of problem solving: rational and irrational. Rational problem solving is the solving of a problem that is complex enough to necessarily involve abstractions. Irrational problem solving are problems that are simple and there is not much thought that goes into how to solve them. In fact this kind of problem solving is instinctual. For example, if an animal is cold, it will look for shelter. There is no abstraction. Regardless, I would say that in order for a creature to be rational, it must possess reason, an intellect and a will. They are all intertwined and I would say that you can’t have one without the other.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Anthropamorphised religious symbols can be profoundly true. I see little biological reason to believe animals don’t experience emotional states.

what about the lack of evidence? if you wish to assume that animals have emotions thats fine. but surely you would like some good, hard evidence that this is the case, not just assumptions.

Call it a projection if you wish but you should have to blame nature for that too.

thats true, it is easy to do, i do it with my cat opie all the time. i have to remind myself occasionally that he doesnt hang out with me because he likes me, he likes bacon and ear scratches. he is just trained by experience that i will provide those things. someone else could provide them, and just as likely as not they would actually think that opie likes them…truth is opie likes bacon.

see, your right, even when we talk about them we inadvertantly attribute emotions to them such as “liking” things. its natural, but that doesnt excuse a less than rigorous examination for the truth.

The physiology attached to emotions in humans and animals are too similar to dismiss as something not what they appear to be.

i dont agree at all with this statement, those differences alone provide a basis from which to doubt that they have emotions. those dissimilarities could well be the difference between feeling emotions and not, unless you have evidence that those differences dont matter, then the similarity alone really doesnt mean anything.

How do you explain the physiological changes that happen in animals but result from the experience of emotions in humans?

do you mean something like i have an emotion and somehow my dog knows it?

thats called teplepathy. give me a break, there are obviously some factors of which we are not aware that a dog may be they have completely alien sensory worlds, they notice things we dont, subtle odors, body language, tones of voice we cant even hear. heck, opie can hear a bag of catfood, and only a bag of catfood, rustle from across the house, full of people, every tv blaring, and a party going on. i suggest that they are aware in ways that we cant even really begin concieve

animals seem to know when earthquakes are coming, do you think they do it telepathically? or do you think that it is more likely that there is some phenomenon they can pick up on that we cant, EM field changes for instance.

 

[Image_of_God]

fear? i just think that saying animals have emotions is basic anthropomorphization. its an assumption, a guess, something that we would like to believe. though i do it myself sometimes with opie, i must say its irrational to me, it makes for bad science. i see it as an argument like the problem of evil, it sounds great and agrees with emotions right until you find out your standing on the doorstep to atheism. some things should be rejected because of where they go in the end, and this ends up at peter singers preference utilitatrianism. as there is no evidence of animal emotions, then i dont see a need to even set foot on the path.

Well you are afraid of anthropomorphization because it leads to atheism right?

But I would like to know why you feel that way.

 

[cecilia97]

If you have a neighbour who has the same ideas as my Priest expressed, you will often see their animals neglected. Why? Because the people are busy with their family and they don’t consider the animals. And sometimes the animal is suffering greatly and its as if the people don’t even notice its suffering. They just tune it out.

I disagree. You may have noticed these two things going hand in hand with some people, but that doesn’t mean one attitude (thinking animals do not have immortal souls or should not be treated as well as humans) causes the other (mistreatment or neglect).

I have pets that are nearly like family to me. I take excellent care of them…a dog would be lucky to live in my home. But I do not really believe I will see my former pets in heaven. I believe they are aware and have souls, but not immortal souls. And if my home was burning, I would surely help the humans first and the dogs second, as much as I love my pets.

My neighbor, however, once tried to poison my dog. I was amazed at how someone could treat an animal so cruelly. Turns out, he treats his children rather badly, too. I don’t think he’s ever given any thought to whether dogs have souls or not. He’s just not a kind person.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well you are afraid of anthropomorphization because it leads to atheism right?

But I would like to know why you feel that way.

no, im not “afraid”, and anthropomorphization leads to singers preference utilitarianism, eugenics, etc. devaluing of human life.

the problem of evil leads to atheism if people let it. there actually is no POE but it sounds like there really is until you point out it too is based on nothing but assumption.

 

[Benadam]

what about the lack of evidence? if you wish to assume that animals have emotions thats fine. but surely you would like some good, hard evidence that this is the case, not just assumptions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;5579504:

You have to assume they don’t feel emotion. There is alot of evidence.

then provide whatever evidence you wish and i can point out the problem. anthropomorphization is at the heart of it all, extrapolating emotions from animal reactions because they seem similar to ours, but that excludes the possibility that the event is nothing more than a reaction to stimuli.

ya gotta luv’m. There is a law that both cats and man share. The law of death which wasn’t ordered to man. Nature projected onto certain kinds of animals the physical pattern that happens to man when he feels stuff. Why are the other animals bodies responding to that makes their physiology look the exact same way ours does. We are emoting so we know what it is. What about tthem?

sorry my fault.it reads like the signal was lost…
.
The realm of animal emotion isn’t at the primordial heart of man. The same faculties but not ordered to the same end. Their souls are mortal. They emote. The primordial laws of death we share with them now. We respond to the law of death. But we are not ordered to that end

thats sounds good, but i mean scientific evidence of animal emotions.

 

[Benadam]

then provide whatever evidence you wish and i can point out the problem. anthropomorphization is at the heart of it all, extrapolating emotions from animal reactions because they seem similar to ours, but that excludes the possibility that the event is nothing more than a reaction to stimuli.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Science can’t make an emotion, can’t feel one so it can’t explore the emotional realm. It can only study the physiological patterns that accompany emotions and some even confuse what they can measure for the emotion. There is no evidence that they are void of emotion. their bodies show evidence that they are not. Philosophical proofs, sound theology, the shoulders we stand on are against the idea that the anima soul does not have the power to emote.

There doesn’t exist any evidence for something that isn’t physical. That’s why only yours can be logical…but only for you.

absolutely true, there is no scientific evidence for animal emotions, there in fact never has been, ive argued the issue several times for hundreds of posts and have yet to find someone who admits that. even hardcore science folks want their emotional connections to animals to be true so much that even in the face of a giant lack of evidence they will twist any way they can to keep it, most people dont bother to admit there is no real evidence, they just leave eventually.

i am a rationalist however and i dont think that animals have emotions simply because it seems like it. i need evidence. even physiological changes dont denote emotions, because in non-humans there is no way to judge if emotions are actually taking place, or if its just a response programmed by millions of years of evolution.

i am hardly alone in such ideas, frankly this concept that animals have emotions didnt come into the mainstream until the 1960’s with jane goodalls work with primates. prior to that most scientist felt as i do, now they have most have fallen prey to an unprovable, as you see, proposition. jane good all actually changed nothing in the debate, though people go on and on about it, she doesnt have any actual evidence of emotions in non-human primates either, but her subjects, being much more similar to us drew them into anthropomorphism. i think at some point in the future, maybe a long time from now, real science and rationalism will come to the fore again in this subject because assumptions dont mean jack.

if you care to read more, you might look up clive wynn and google some others. have a good night, it was nice talking to you.

 

[ljubim]

Not all animals express emotion.

No, an emotion is a temporary reaction to an outside stimulus (or some could say internal as well for such events as dreams).

I’m trying to find out what percentage of CAF members think that some animals express some basic emotions such as fear or anger. I’m hoping it would be a majority.

Don’t get me wrong, I think they do for sure! There just weren’t many responses and I was wondering, hmm, this is a bit random. Sometimes I enjoy asking questions, please don’t mistake me for a nut! I had a dog once, and he definitely loved/adored me and my family.

 

[Benadam]

.

i am a rationalist however and i dont think that animals have emotions simply because it seems like it. i need evidence. even physiological changes dont denote emotions, because in non-humans there is no way to judge if emotions are actually taking place, or if its just a response programmed by millions of years of evolution.

 

[jmcrae]

I know, this is what he meant. And, its what I disagree with. Animals go to heaven also. I don’t know if every animal goes to heaven but I think so. Animals are not born with original sin, they do not go to judgement like we do.

That’s right, they don’t. That’s why they don’t go to Heaven. They are not held accountable for their actions on the earth, because they don’t have eternal life.

We must realize that animals couldn’t survive if they were made without intelligence.

You are confusing the intelligence with the immortality of the rational soul. Only human beings have rational souls - animals can be very intelligent, but they don’t actually reason - their intelligence is subject to their instincts, and to the stimulus of the present moment. I am sure you have heard of the bear whisperer who thought that he was friends with a bear. Ultimately, the bear became hungry, and ate him. The bear is not guilty of a sin, though, because the bear does not have the use of reason - he simply reacted to the stimulus of the moment - hunger - and responded by eating the nearest food - the bear whisperer.

And, if my dog is not in Heaven, I don’t want to go there.

Well, God is in Heaven. But if your dog is more important to you than God, then you have already broken the First Commandment, and you won’t be going there, anyway. But I am quite sure that you don’t value your dog ahead of God Himself.

And if I thought my dog’s spirit was not eternal, then I would probably just kill myself.

If your dog’s spirit were eternal, then it would be a mortal sin to own him as a pet - you would be required to allow him his freedom, to follow his own dreams and ambitions, and to support him with a just wage for whatever work he does for you.

 

[Image_of_God]

no, im not “afraid”, and anthropomorphization leads to singers preference utilitarianism, eugenics, etc. devaluing of human life.

the problem of evil leads to atheism if people let it. there actually is no POE but it sounds like there really is until you point out it too is based on nothing but assumption.

Understood.