I could not locate the ātongue in cheekā smiley. But, really, is it a consolation that we kill non-sentient life just so we can live?Jesus in the Eucharist as the bread of life and the body and blood of Christ is the closest thing to meat I want in my mouth.
The suffering plant thing is just dumb. No offense. But it is.
Well, like it or not the human animal as well as all others are biological machines. Machines require an energy source. i suppose that the one that exhibits the least amount of response to external stimuli would be the one that it is safest to assume doesnāt feel it.
<-----tongue in cheek?do you have any proof that a roomba doesnt?
Again with the roomba, what gives? Show me the physiological, cognitive and phenomenological facets of a roomba or any other machine. How would you measure the level of **arousal **in a roomba?
I donāt need to provide evidence. The working definition of emotion I provided a few posts earlier excludes these **non-living **objects.
Indulge me; what is your concept of emotion?
:blush:youāre kidding, right?
and as ive said chemistry doesnt matter, some organisms have entirely different chemistry than mammals, are you saying only mammals have emotions? of course not. some people believe their pet frogs, turtles, fish and parrots have emotions. and some people believe their computer have emotions. so its not a false analogy at all
yes i know you call anthropormorphization evidence, simply applying it to a chimps face doesnt make it any better, do you have proof a chimp smiles when its happy? or just at outside stimuli? you seem to be missing what anthropomorphation is becasue you keep repeating that its evidence of something more than projective pareidolia on the researchers part. one may as well claim faces in a cloud are actually people up there, after all it looks like it. for instance this qoute.
see here, they anthropomorphize an expression, and then they use it to make a āgood modelā but the model really isnt good because its based on an assumption.
this thread, you have yet to offer actual evidence, just more anthropomorphation and projective pareidolia
sources arent evidence.
as i just showed its not.
none of which makes an appeal to authority ok, your still in the position of
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
your lack of actual evidence, fallacious reasoning cannot reasonably be construed as evidence, that then is the basis of my opinion.
the processor it runs on.
its interactive programming
circuit boards and sensors.
a multimeter.
an attempt to define out the problem doesnt make it dissappear
love, hate, sadness, happy, embarassment, shame, joy, existential angst, and so on.
exactly how does she know that ancient apes were ādeeply emotional and socialā? because we are? how does she know that emotions arent a mutation entirely within homosapiens? oh thats right, assumptions are evidence. ridiculous.
no im not, im pointing that negatives can be difficult to prove. im quite serious.:blush:youāre kidding, right?
Cāmon, Speedy. You know better than that. Your just pulling our legs to get a rise out of arenāt you!
Itās okay. The joke is on us. We were actually taking you seriously!
I said some animals, not all.
Physiology and cognition is required by our working definition. A roomba doesnāt think, and it doesnāt have muscle, blood or neurons.
You call it that, I call it evidence of universal expressions of emotion, based probably on a shared primate ancestor. Heck I even bet homo neanderthals had similar facial expressions for fear and anger.
I never claimed that. I said some animals (non-human) express fear and anger.
It is more. Your cloud reference, now thatās anthropomorphism.
Bingo! āa simple evolutionary programmed response to stimuli.ā, thatās what a basic emotion is.
I see, the wiki entry means the authority is taken to be infallible. Well, you are welcome to comb through the articles and crtitique them.
So, you donāt have any peer reviewed articles that back up your claim that all non-human animals are incapable of emotions?
The suffering animal thing is just dumb. No offense. But it is.Jesus in the Eucharist as the bread of life and the body and blood of Christ is the closest thing to meat I want in my mouth.
The suffering plant thing is just dumb. No offense. But it is.
A processor is not alive.
software apps donāt think.
printed circuit boards and sensors have subjective experiences? Really?
No, but it gives us a working definition we can agree on. Thatās a good start.
But how do they arise?
Other apes (we being the naked ones), share much of the same physiology as humans. So we can easily recognize some of our emotions in them. For now letās just agree on fear and anger. We can work on happy/sad, and others later.
blush away.The suffering animal thing is just dumb. No offense. But it is.
Plants donāt have nervous systems. Desire is not an emotion.
They probably talk to their plants too.
Plants physiology and animal physiology are vastly different. Thatās not my worldview.
Whatās diet got to do with this, we were debating whether some animals express basic emotions.
which ones then? and whats your justification for that decision, because i assure you that there are few people who go all the way down to protozoa on the suffering and emotion bit, jains for instance.
first, its not āourā working definition, its just something you posted.
you assume its emotion by anthropomorphization, you assume that its an evolutionary trait from an ancestor, but it could just as well be a mutation anywhere along the line.
how do you know that? people anthrpomorphize and come up with that assumption, but i dont see any evidence that it isnt simply a complicated response to stimluli.
how do you know its more? only because it looks like it? anthropormorphization. the cloud reference is actually projective pareidolia
so a roomba reacting to stimuli by its programming is experiencing an emotion too?
i have critiqued them, anthropormorphism and projective pareidolia, those assumptions are at the base of most animal behaviorist thinking.
do you have a peer reviewed claim that a a roomba cant experience emotion as you claim?
I wouldnāt go as far as the Jains, or Buddhists. Even though an organism may have a nervous system and is thus sentient (in their view), if it lacks an amygdala, it is incapable of even the most basic of emotions, fear.
Well we need one, so I threw it out there. How would you modify that definition?
You avoided my question on how a roomba can think (a biological process), or have subjective experiences. A roomba is not a living organism, not by anyoneās definition.
No, we infer it because we observe consistent, temporary, facial expressions (for instance) as reaction to outside stimuli. But they are not all the same across species. A non-human apeās grimace (baring teeth) is not held to be the same as a human smile. That would be anthropomorphism.
Thatās what an emotion is.
Sorry, I used the wrong term.
A roomba lacks any biological organs.
Lack of evidence is not always evidence of absence. Hmm, thatās actually an apologetic for God.
Iād be interested in seeing them nonetheless.
All those researchers studying the effect of a damaged amygdala in humans and other animals, and itās relationship with fear, are not anthropomorphizing. When they instill a learned condition of fear into a rat, for example, they observe consistent behaviour. Itās not as if the rat has the same facial expression for fear as humans do.
no, but it does perform the same basic functions of processing as a brain.
i didnt say software apps, interactive programming, the interaction between processors, memory, sensors, and the encoded reations to simuli. just like an animal.
do you have evidence they dont?, you couldnt, its subjective after all, but your willing to assign that quality to animals, you cant prove that either. there are artificial intelligence researchers
oh, yeah, i thought it was sweet, though technically id prefer bogomips or another indicator of the level of processing activity in the system.
where did i agree to that?
i dont think that there is evidence that they do in animals.
Other apes (we being the naked ones), share much of the same physiology as humans. So we can easily anthropomorphize some of our emotions in them
it doesnt matter where we start, the same anthropomortive assumptions apply.
i repeated his statement to emphasize the inherent contradiction in accepting animal emotions, but not plants. there seems to be no evidence of either.
do you have evidence that a certain chemical system is necessary to have emotions? if so, where do you draw the line and what is your justification?
and plants respond to it from studies done.
so where do you draw the line and how do you justify it?
we are actually debating whether they can suffer, weve had a little mission creep.
as you cant prove that animals have emotions, i wonder how you can prove an amygdala is a requirement to have emotion?
i dont know. but imnot going to go with a definition that atrificially limits emotion to a certain chemical set without evidence to reject such a thing.
no i didnt, give me the post number.
No, we a**nthropomorphize **it because we observe consistent, temporary, facial expressions (for instance) as reaction to outside stimuli. But they are not all the same across species. A non-human apeās grimace (baring teeth) is not held to be the same as a human smile. That would be anthropomorphism.
if emotion is a programmed reaction to stimuli, then a roomba has emotion, because it too has a programmed reaction to stimuli.
you have yet to justify why that important, i dont see any evidence that can restrict emotions to a certain set of chemistry.
you asked the question, why is it ok for you and not me? and if you care to go there as far as religion, then i should tell you that i amazed that your agnostic on religion, but not on this situation that lacks evidence.
feel free to google them, but im not going to put myself in the position to defend their work.
the bolded is anthropormorphism, they characterize the rats reactions as āfearā it may just as well be programmed response to stimuli, just like when a roomba turns away from a staircase, it must be āafraidā!
