Do animals feel?

[UndercoverElephant]

Humans are the only creatures who posses complex, gramatical language. I suspect that makes our experience of the world very different from all other animals.

Most animals can't identify themselves in mirrors - i.e. they have no conception of themselves as objects for others. Which means they don't understand that they are like other animals. If they are conscious then they would not be aware that other animals were conscious also and would not be able to imagine themselves as beings who have consciousness, that is they would not be self-conscious. Perhaps language plays a major part in our forming such concepts?

There are other creatures that are capable of non-linguistic empathy. There is a recorded case of a Bonobo which found a fledgling bird flopping around on the ground in its enclosure. It gently took the bird and climbed to the top of the highest tree in the enclosure and threw the bird out of its hands in an attempt to get it to fly. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that one might only expect in humans. I don't know whether the bonobo understood that it was an object for others, but it was certainly capable of putting itself in the position of the bird and trying to help it accordingly, which is close. I suspect similar cases could found for other animals, e.g. Dolphins, dogs, elephants, maybe even pigs - i.e. creatures with both relatively high levels of intelligence and complicated social lives. So I think language is important, but it takes advantage of something more primitive than this (but still evolutionarily advanced - I doubt one could include anything other than the social mammals - not even something as intelligent as an octopus)

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Do other animals feel?



Walk up to a sleeping lion or bear and poke him in the but with a tack.


If he wakes up and attacks you then we have proven other animals feel.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Humans are the only creatures who posses complex, gramatical language. I suspect that makes our experience of the world very different from all other animals.

Most animals can't identify themselves in mirrors - i.e. they have no conception of themselves as objects for others. Which means they don't understand that they are like other animals. If they are conscious then they would not be aware that other animals were conscious also and would not be able to imagine themselves as beings who have consciousness, that is they would not be self-conscious. Perhaps language plays a major part in our forming such concepts?

Identifying yourself in the mirrior is a matter of intelligence and not self identification. I'm sure if you introduced a human who had never seen a reflection to a mirrior he wouldn't realize it was him at first and it would take a while. He'd probably attack it.


Identifying yourself in the mirrior is all about intelligence. Realizing that thing is you and not someone else. Realizing it's you only proves you're smart enough to realize it's you. Not realizing it's you doesn't prove you have no concept of "you". That's just absurd reasoning.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Other animals appear to have the capacity to reason. We just seem to have it in greater amounts.

How is reason possible in the abscence of symbolic thought?

Maybe because no animal other than humans ever had a moral principle or ideology.

Or could ever have one.



We are in a totally different situation to them. Only humans are faced with right/wrong decisions where "right" coincides with "not in my self-interest" but is decided upon regardless. In other words only humans have the potential capacity for free will (assuming it is metaphysically possible, that is.)

I am going to start a new thread related to this, so as not to derail this one. It will be on "Darwinian Archaeology" a.k.a. "Cultural evolution" - which is an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to the archaeological study of pre-human hominids and early-modern humans.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How is reason possible in the abscence of symbolic thought?



Or could ever have one.



We are in a totally different situation to them. Only humans are faced with right/wrong decisions where "right" coincides with "not in my self-interest" but is decided upon regardless. In other words only humans have the potential capacity for free will (assuming it is metaphysically possible, that is.)

I am going to start a new thread related to this, so as not to derail this one. It will be on "Darwinian Archaeology" a.k.a. "Cultural evolution" - which is an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to the archaeological study of pre-human hominids and early-modern humans.

Nonsense. My dog makes a choice to or not to eat his dogfood. He makes a choice to do whatever it is he does. He makes the decision. Saying other animals don't have "free will" is baseless. Where's your proof that my dog doesn't make choices?

If animals didn't have a free will or a choice to do what they do then some other thing would control their actions. If it isn't thought and consciousness it would be genetic instinct. If that were the case they wouldn't be able to do things like chase a ball or bark to go outside since no such actions would of evolved within them.


In short your claims are absurd and baseless.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Nonsense. My dog makes a choice to or not to eat his dogfood.

But not based upon a moral/idealogical right/wrong decision, he doesn't. He just decides whether or not he's hungry and it's good to eat.

He makes a choice to do whatever it is he does. He makes the decision. Saying other animals don't have "free will" is baseless. Where's your proof that my dog doesn't make choices?

I started another thread on this. He does make choices, but they are all evolutionarily explicable. He always chooses to do what is in his own best interest. That includes following your commands, since he sees you as pack leader and his best interest lies in following your commands.

If animals didn't have a free will or a choice to do what they do then some other thing would control their actions. If it isn't thought and consciousness it would be genetic instinct.

At the base level, it's being driven by genetics - only in humans is it also "memetics" (and more). See other thread.

In short your claims are absurd and baseless.

See you in the other thread then.

Geoff

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

But not based upon a moral/idealogical right/wrong decision, he doesn't. He just decides whether or not he's hungry and it's good to eat.



I started another thread on this. He does make choices, but they are all evolutionarily explicable. He always chooses to do what is in his own best interest. That includes following your commands, since he sees you as pack leader and his best interest lies in following your commands.



At the base level, it's being driven by genetics - only in humans is it also "memetics" (and more). See other thread.




See you in the other thread then.

Geoff

1.You don't know if other animals do or don't have an idea of morality. In reality there have been plenty of observations of other animals having traits of empathy.


2.EVERYTHING anything alive does is based on genetics. If "memes" exist then they too are based on genetics. Our genetics determine if we accept these "memes" to begin with or not.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

2.EVERYTHING anything alive does is based on genetics.

That is hotly disputed.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That is hotly disputed.

Evolution is also "hotly disputed" by many. That doesn't mean it's any less true.


Fact is...All we do or are able to do is the result of our genetics one way or another. Period.

Name anything and i'll explain how our genetics are responsible for it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Evolution is also "hotly disputed" by many. That doesn't mean it's any less true.


Fact is...All we do or are able to do is the result of our genetics one way or another. Period.

Name anything and i'll explain how our genetics are responsible for it.

I started another thread to discuss this. Please read the opening post and respond.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57256

 

[Interesting Ian]

Do animals have emotions?

First of all, Im posting this in the religion and philosophy area because I believe those questions have been answered by religion (are still answered by religion). and this answer is simple believed to be true, just because. That said, here is what I think:

1) Evolution is correct.

2) We are animals.

3) We are continuous and homogeneous with the rest of nature (we are not "more different" from a cow than a horse is from a gorilla).

If we accept these premises we are forced to conclude, even without any "scientific proof" that animals do feel and have emotions like us.

Anything else, in my opinion, is being deluded by old religious beliefs in the "superiority of man" because "god create us to be like him, and so, we are obviously above animals".

Yes Bodhi Dharma Zen, for once you are absolutely right.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Anyone who doesn't believe animals have emotions has never owned a dog.

Lots of materialists think dogs and cats are not conscious. There again everything they believe in is utterly insane.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Lots of materialists think dogs and cats are not conscious. There again everything they believe in is utterly insane.

Materialism is the belief that the onlything that can be said to exist is material or based on material objects.


Why would everything materialists believe be utterly insane?


And why would they deny the fact that most other animals think and feel?


The scientific method is based on materialism.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Whats your take about dogs and cats souls Ian? I believed that in your view "consciousness" was a product of an "independent of the body" soul, and so exclusively human.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Whats your take about dogs and cats souls Ian? I believed that in your view "consciousness" was a product of an "independent of the body" soul, and so exclusively human.

I thought this was a skeptical forum?



There's no such thing as a soul. Conscioiusness comes from the brain. When the brain dies so does consciousness.

 

[chriswl]

Identifying yourself in the mirrior is all about intelligence. Realizing that thing is you and not someone else. Realizing it's you only proves you're smart enough to realize it's you. Not realizing it's you doesn't prove you have no concept of "you". That's just absurd reasoning.

Why would recognising the object in the mirror as "you" require too much intelligence (whatever that means), for an animal that is highly skilled at recognising all sorts of objects in a diverse range of environments? If that was all there was to it most animals should be plenty smart enough for that kind of thing, even if it took them some time playing around before they "got it" (obviously its a very unfamiliar experience).

Why do you think animals must have a sense of themselves appearing for others in the same way that other animals appear to them? Why would this be necessary for survival, unless they needed to master skills like empathy, which most animals can't (chimps can, but then chimps can recognise themselves in mirrors).

 

[Tricky]

Lots of materialists think dogs and cats are not conscious. There again everything they believe in is utterly insane.

Owww. Dose nasty owld Matewiawists! With the exception of materialist that believe that nobody is conscious, I'd have to say I've never met any of them who say cats and dogs aren't conscious.

But of course, it would depend on the definition of conscious that you were using. What is yours?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I thought this was a skeptical forum?
There's no such thing as a soul. Conscioiusness comes from the brain. When the brain dies so does consciousness.

huh, guess you are still fairly new.

Thats what Ian thinks, that there are souls that are independent from the physical body. That those souls think and have freewill, etc.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yes, but your definition has no logical basis. The definition you quote does.

In the definition you quote, it is established that "killing a human" is wrong because it might likely cause direct harm to you to do so.

In your definition, that is not established. What you established is that it will make you feel naughty.

morality = that which you determine is in your overall best interest, all things considered (as best as you can or or willing to, consider them).

By your definition, I certainly choose naughty. You'll excuse me if I don't it the way you do.

He may do so but I certainly wouldn't. I just think you and many others like you are utterly clueless on the subject matter of morality. Doing that which is in your overall best interest has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics is all about considering others as well as yourself. Other people are emotional spiritual beings like yourself. I rather think you're doomed to many more incarnations.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Materialism is the belief that the onlything that can be said to exist is material or based on material objects.


Why would everything materialists believe be utterly insane?


And why would they deny the fact that most other animals think and feel?

The same reason they deny that human beings were conscious before we acquired language. They think consciousness is impossible without language. They think consciousness is just an algorithmic process, as symbol manipulation. Not all materialists of course. But the reductive materialists tend to think like this.

The scientific method is based on materialism.

It most certainly is not. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with materialism.