Why do animals suffer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
warpspeedpetey said:
how so? i dont think either one actually has emotions, and you havent been able to prove that animals do
Click to expand...
There are several theories of emotion, but all of them involve physiological arousal. Machines are not living organisms, so they are incapable of emotions.
i might have read a few in the 7.5 years i have spent sitting in various university classes. i dont lack education if thats what your trying to say.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what education you have had, but it seems like you don’t understand the psychology of emotion. That’s ok, I didn’t either until I took two semesters in this field of study.
i dont kick vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, or air compressors either.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but many people do, as a psychological defense mechanism called displacement. Yet, although they may take out their frustration or anger on a chair or tv, they stop short of hitting an animal.

I was going to quote some sources from lab experiments for evidence of emotion in animals (most of which involve damage to the amygdala), but there’s so many it would be really time consuming. Instead I will repeat my earlier question (which you never answered); have you never seen physical expressions in animals which mimic those of humans? I don’t mean all emotions and all animals. I don’t think anyone has observed shame in a fruit fly, but certainly there are some higher order animals that clearly express the more basic emotions such as fear, anger, surprise, and sadness.
 
redhen said:
By your logic, human infants before the age of language development also don’t have emotions since they can’t describe them to you in words. I would suggest you talk to any parent and tell them the fear, disgust, sadness, happiness, anger and surprise they think they see in their infants are just assumptions. 😉

my logic is that you dont have any proof for animal emotions that dont admit a rational fallacy

i have raised children.
Go for it. The American Psychological Association would be very interested to review this piece of work.
Click to expand...
if you care to take the positive position that animals do have emotions, then its your burden of proof.
Click to expand...
 
warpspeedpetey said:
of course not. i was an infant at one time and could not talk, and i have emotions.
Click to expand...
But you said earlier that you would not believe an animal had emotions unless it could talk and tell you “I’m feeling depressed”. So how would you discern various emotions in non-verbal humans? I would suggest you would do it the same way as you would observe similar physical (mostly facial) expressions in animals.
 
redhen said:
There are several theories of emotion, but all of them involve physiological arousal. Machines are not living organisms, so they are incapable of emotions.
Click to expand...
i suggest that an animal is no more than a nano-cellular machine, chemistry has jack to do with it.
I don’t know what education you have had, but it seems like you don’t understand the psychology of emotion. That’s ok, I didn’t either until I took two semesters in this field of study.
Click to expand...
yeah, well, ive had a little more than 2 semesters. i understand the theory, im pointing out thatt there is no evidence that animals have emotions, its all anthropomorphism, that cant be proven. thats the ultimate problem

Fair enough, but many people do, as a psychological defense mechanism called displacement. Yet, although they may take out their frustration or anger on a chair or tv, they stop short of hitting an animal.
I was going to quote some sources from lab experiments for evidence of emotion in animals (most of which involve damage to the amygdala), but there’s so many it would be really time consuming. Instead I will repeat my earlier question (which you never answered); have you never seen physical expressions in animals which mimic those of humans? I don’t mean all emotions and all animals. I don’t think anyone has observed shame in a fruit fly, but certainly there are some higher order animals that clearly express the more basic emotions such as fear, anger, surprise, and sadness.
Click to expand...
ive seen those arguements before, there is no evidence for animal emotion, so drawing conclusions from physiological and chemical similarities is just more anthropomorphism, bad science in general. it begs the question by assuming that those similarities equal “emotion” yet another logical fallacy.

as to emotions in animals i have not seen them, i have seen the behavior that people characterize as emotions, but as i could just as easily characterize the actions of a roomba as “emotions”. fear when it turns away from a drop off, desire when sweeps the floor, hunger when it docks for a recharge, pain when it sends an error code, i dont see any rationality to that jump.
 
redhen said:
But you said earlier that you would not believe an animal had emotions unless it could talk and tell you “I’m feeling depressed”. So how would you discern various emotions in non-verbal humans? I would suggest you would do it the same way as you would observe similar physical (mostly facial) expressions in animals.
Click to expand...
i was an infant, and i have emotions, so i dont need to be told that infants have emotions, ive been there. i was never a squirrel, so i dont know that squirrels have emotions.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
if you care to take the positive position that animals do have emotions, then its your burden of proof.
Click to expand...
“Proof” in psychological terms is rarely used. All we can do is make inferences based on observations and self-reports. That doesn’t mean all those scientists and workers in the wide field of animal behaviour are wasting there lives.

"Bekoff abandoned a promising career at medical school for this reason. “A very intelligent cat looked at me and asked, ‘Why me?’ I couldn’t find the words to tell him why or how badly I felt for torturing and killing him.”

Strict behaviourists might laugh at this, saying the animal’s expression was merely a physical response to particular stimuli. But if they are consistent they must say the same about human emotions, too. "

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4595810.ece
 
🍿
**My dog sure gets excited when it is feeding time. When I come home and he is hiding under the bed, I know he has done some thing he shouldn’t have. When he is bored, he just lays there and stares at me.

I’m just sayin…🤷**
 
redhen said:
“Proof” in psychological terms is rarely used. All we can do is make inferences based on observations and self-reports. That doesn’t mean all those scientists and workers in the wide field of animal behaviour are wasting there lives.
Click to expand...
we arent talking psychology to start, even though you brought it up, because we dont know that animals have a “minds” to start with on any level other than simple reaction to stimuli. without even knowing that most basic first principle of psychology is true, i think it is a waste to simply assume it is and then waste liftemes and billions studying animal behavior for any more then the utility value that a farmer, or pet owner might need.
"Bekoff abandoned a promising career at medical school for this reason. “A very intelligent cat looked at me and asked, ‘Why me?’ I couldn’t find the words to tell him why or how badly I felt for torturing and killing him.”
Click to expand...
its indicative of another useful career wasted by assumptions of first principles that cant be proven, the young man could have been a doctor, instead he assumed something unprovable and wasted his years in pre-med.
Strict behaviourists might laugh at this, saying the animal’s expression was merely a physical response to particular stimuli. But if they are consistent they must say the same about human emotions, too. "
Click to expand...
so now, human emotions are solely in response to stimuli? hardly, we can overcome our evolutionary programming, animals cannot. consider a buddhist monk who sets himself on fire in order to protest something, and then resists the temptation to run, but simply sits there until he passes out and dies? how about ascetics who starve themselves to death? obviously we are capable of responses to stimuli that lay outside our basic evolutionary programming, the urge to survive in this case. how about simply not responding to stimuli as an act of will? can an animal do that? ive never seen it. if they receive stimuli sufficient for action to occur than an action occurs, they are simply deterministically driven. just like a machine

so i dont think its consistent to claim that both systems work the same, obviously we have the empirical evidence that they do not.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4595810.ece
Click to expand...
this link didnt work but i think i get the gist from the rest of your post.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
we exist, therefore G-d exists.
Click to expand...
Right. I won’t bother discussing that point with you any further, for reasons that should be obvious. But I will offer an equally valid* proof:

“Humans have emotions, therefore animals have emotions.”

I’m interested, why do you type ‘G-d?’ Are you scared of typing the whole word?
  • Actually ‘colossally more valid’ based on scientific evidence (the only kind that matters).
 
wanstronian said:
Right. I won’t bother discussing that point with you any further, for reasons that should be obvious. But I will offer an equally valid* proof:
Click to expand...
they arent, please enlighten me.
“Humans have emotions, therefore animals have emotions.”
Click to expand...
the conclusion doesnt follow from the premise. in this case.
I’m interested, why do you type ‘G-d?’ Are you scared of typing the whole word?
Click to expand...
yes
  • Actually ‘colossally more valid’ based on scientific evidence (the only kind that matters).
Click to expand...
then please present this scientific proof.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
they arent, please enlighten me.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? “We exist, so God exists?” What’s your chain of logic here?
the conclusion doesnt follow from the premise. in this case.
Click to expand...
It is a more valid conclusion than yours, and is supported by observation.
yes
Click to expand...
Wow, really? Why?
then please present this scientific proof.
Click to expand...
books.google.com/books?id=x1bbhp_f9pQC&dq=emotion+animals+date:2006-2008&lr=&as_brr=0&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/6/883

adapo-maf.com/ANIMAL%20EMOTION/animalemotion.html
 
Aren’t we supposed to be talking about animals here? 😛

We exist, therefore unicorns exist.
 
wanstronian said:
books.google.com/books?id=x1bbhp_f9pQC&dq=emotion+animals+date:2006-2008&lr=&as_brr=0&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/6/883

adapo-maf.com/ANIMAL%20EMOTION/animalemotion.html
Click to expand...
**The first one looks like a very cool book I am going to have to read.👍

The second article is very short but provides a lot of links to reputable sources…Good link:thumbsup:but download the pdf

The third is very good.excellent research material for us ANTHROPOMORPHORISTSI think that is what I’m gonna name my band!**

Thanks wanstronian!:tiphat:
 
:confused:mice, used in the millions in education and research, are not considered to be “animals” under the federal animal welfare act in the U.S. and aren’t protected from harmful research.- from the third link:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top