Do animals feel?

[pgwenthold]

My thoughts are that animals have their own set of emotions that resemble ours but are different. People have a tendency to anthropomorphize about animals and this can lead to various problems related to care of animals. People assume animals want the same things they do. This would not even hold true within our own species yet people still do that. People interpret animal behaviors by thinking about why they would do whatever their pet is doing and approach training from that aspect leading to misunderstandings and behavioral problems. A common one is my pet looks guilty therefor knows it shouldn't be doing whatever behavior it is doing .

My dog doesn't "look guilty." He blatently apologizes. When he comes over and stands with his paws on me, I ask him what he did. And then when I walk into the house, I find it (usually, he has gotten into the garbage). Why did he apologize before I even knew what he did?

The other one is sympathy. My dog consoles my wife when she cries. If she is crying about something, he comes over and jumps on her lap.

If people do these things, no one questions if they are "feelings."

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

People have a tendency to anthropomorphize about animals and this can lead to various problems related to care of animals...

... Animals are not humans.

Two falacies. First, we are animals, ergo, anthropomorphize animals is an oximoron.

And its not that "animals are not humans"! you see, "animal" is a broader category than "human".

Animals are not giraffes. Yes, that makes sense too.

 

[Jimbo07]

My thoughts are that animals have their own set of emotions that resemble ours but are different. People have a tendency to anthropomorphize about animals and this can lead to various problems related to care of animals.

I was told regarding animals, "do not anthropomorphize," in an English class. I'm concerned that people take this too far to mean that animals don't have souls, feelings, agendas, etc.

Wouldn't something like Occam's razor suggest that if animals (especially closer animals like mammals) are exhibiting behaviours that look emotionally driven, that they probably are emotionally driven? This would be opposed to inventing something like magical souls for humans so that their actions are different in-kind, rather than just degree. The mere degree to which they were different would then be the subject of study. Am I wrong in thinking this is the approach taken when rigorously scientifically studying animal behaviour and animal-human interaction?

ETA: BDZ and I are on the same track. Blanket anthopomorphism applies only to those who subscribe to some magical difference between humans and animals. Incorrect anthropomorphism, on the other hand, applies only to a misinterpretation of the feeling causing the stated action (dog guilt vs. dog fear, say), and is only a question of rigor in the study.

 

[MWare]

I don't know. My cat has been give me that "come hither" look lately. Normally, I wouldn't worry about this, but I could have sworn when I left the apartment this morning I heard my dog lock the door and whisper something to my girlfriend.

It was probably nothing.

 

[hh-dragon]

My dog doesn't "look guilty." He blatently apologizes. When he comes over and stands with his paws on me, I ask him what he did. And then when I walk into the house, I find it (usually, he has gotten into the garbage). Why did he apologize before I even knew what he did?

The other one is sympathy. My dog consoles my wife when she cries. If she is crying about something, he comes over and jumps on her lap.

Does he only stand with his paws on you if he did something bad? How do you know he is thinking about the garbage? All I'm saying is that his actions could possible have a simpler explanation than the emotion of guilt, which actually involves some pretty complicated reasoning power...

The other emotion sounds very close to human. Like dogs, we're social mammals. If a member of the social group is feeling badly, we try to make them feel better... anything from licking their wounds to making them a cup of tea.

 

[Robin]

Animals are not humans.

No, but humans are animals.

Is it reasonable to assume that with so many similarities between us and other mammals that these similarites end abruptly with the mind?

Granted that people assume these similarties are greater than they actually are, leading to the problems you mention.

But should we therefore conclude that the similarites don't exist at all?

 

[Dogdoctor]

Two fallacies. First, we are animals, ergo, anthropomorphous animals is an oxymoron.

And its not that "animals are not humans"! you see, "animal" is a broader category than "human".

Animals are not giraffes. Yes, that makes sense too.

Humans are animals, animals are not humans unless they are humans. Anthropomorphism has to do with giving human attributes to non human animals.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Humans are animals, animals are not humans unless they are humans. Anthropomorphism has to do with giving human attributes to non human animals.

Huh, yes, but as humans are animals then is animals attributing some caracteristics to animals.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I was told regarding animals, "do not anthropomorphize," in an English class. I'm concerned that people take this too far to mean that animals don't have souls, feelings, agendas, etc.

Wouldn't something like Occam's razor suggest that if animals (especially closer animals like mammals) are exhibiting behaviours that look emotionally driven, that they probably are emotionally driven? This would be opposed to inventing something like magical souls for humans so that their actions are different in-kind, rather than just degree. The mere degree to which they were different would then be the subject of study. Am I wrong in thinking this is the approach taken when rigorously scientifically studying animal behaviour and animal-human interaction?

ETA: BDZ and I are on the same track. Blanket anthopomorphism applies only to those who subscribe to some magical difference between humans and animals. Incorrect anthropomorphism, on the other hand, applies only to a misinterpretation of the feeling causing the stated action (dog guilt vs. dog fear, say), and is only a question of rigor in the study.

It is likely that animals have their own species specific "emotions". We can infer this from comparative behavioral studies. There is no way to tell what an animal is thinking and what it feels but we can tell how it reacts to various stimuli and compare that to how humans react to similar stimuli. I don't think there is much doubt about animal emotions only how to interpret them. It also depends on your definition of exactly what is emotion.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Huh, yes, but as humans are animals then is animals attributing some caracteristics to animals.

Precisely. Being that we can't read the minds of non human animals the word means just that. However there is evidence that other animals make the same mistake. They probably do that due to lack the intelligence to realize that we are a different species and react to things differently than they do.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Wouldn't something like Occam's razor suggest that if animals (especially closer animals like mammals) are exhibiting behaviours that look emotionally driven, that they probably are emotionally driven? This would be opposed to inventing something like magical souls for humans so that their actions are different in-kind, rather than just degree.

Exactly. Pretty much my thinking.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It is likely that animals have their own species specific "emotions". We can infer this from comparative behavioral studies. There is no way to tell what an animal is thinking and what it feels but we can tell how it reacts to various stimuli and compare that to how humans react to similar stimuli. I don't think there is much doubt about animal emotions only how to interpret them. It also depends on your definition of exactly what is emotion.

I can agree with that. We dont know "what is like to be" any other animal except for us (and that to a degree of course).

 

[pgwenthold]

Does he only stand with his paws on you if he did something bad?

With me? Yeah, pretty much.

I come home everyday, and he basically never stands with his paws on me. When he does, I ask him "What did you do?", he runs off and hides, and I go looking for what he has destroyed. Almost inevitably, I find it.

 

[pgwenthold]

Wouldn't something like Occam's razor suggest that if animals (especially closer animals like mammals) are exhibiting behaviours that look emotionally driven, that they probably are emotionally driven? This would be opposed to inventing something like magical souls for humans so that their actions are different in-kind, rather than just degree.

This is similar to my comment.

If you see people doing the same thing, no one questions whether it is an emotion or a feeling. So why should we resort to special pleading when it comes to other animals?

 

[Bri]

Wouldn't something like Occam's razor suggest that if animals (especially closer animals like mammals) are exhibiting behaviours that look emotionally driven, that they probably are emotionally driven?

Not according to behaviorists. From the Wikipedia article I posted earlier:

Historically, prior to the rise of sciences such as ethology, interpretation of animal behavior tended to favor a kind of minimalism known as behaviorism, in this context the refusal to ascribe to an animal a capability beyond the least demanding that would explain a behavior.

Behaviorism would suggest that in light of the fact that we cannot read the minds of animals, their behavior can and should be explained in other (simpler) ways. More information about behaviorism can be found here.

-Bri

 

[Jeremy]

Yes, animals have emotions and "feelings". Does this make it wrong to kill/eat/make suffer/enslave/etc them?

No. Morality is not based on the feelings of others, but rather on what is beneficial to us in a social sense. You abstain from killing people not because they have feelings, but rather because it is socially detrimental to you to do so, and in turn detrimental to your survival (and the survival of your genes).

 

[Jimbo07]

Behaviorism would suggest that in light of the fact that we cannot read the minds of animals, their behavior can and should be explained in other (simpler) ways.
-Bri

Since we cannot read the minds of humans, should we assume the same?

What are the fundamental differences between English, Barking, Whale song, and primate-human sign language?

The article you posted suggests to me that the real problems lie in defining emotion and even 'mind.' I wasn't using Occam's razor to suggest that my dog barks, because it knows that our yard is expensive and we don't want it damaged by vandalous kids. I was saying that we may use it to see some similarity as in:

- If I touch either my dog's or my wife's shoulder affectionately, neither runs away from me screaming (not just a pain stimulus response)
- OTOH, if I poke either with a sharp stick, they'll flinch or move away (pain stimulus response)
- Command, action, reward => better command, action, reward cycle

I don't think it's a question of whether animals are like humans... it's, "how much are we like them?"

 

[I less than three logic]

Morality is not based on the feelings of others, but rather on what is beneficial to us in a social sense.

No, no, no. Morality is based on the tenets of Scientology.

 

[Bri]

The article you posted suggests to me that the real problems lie in defining emotion and even 'mind.' I wasn't using Occam's razor to suggest that my dog barks, because it knows that our yard is expensive and we don't want it damaged by vandalous kids.

I tend to agree, but a behaviorist would probably reject the claim that emotion (as we know it) is involved if there are other, simpler explanation for the behaviors you described. As far as Occam's razor is concerned, the behaviorist explanation would probably be the most likely since it would involve the simplest mechanism that explains the behavior.

-Bri

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

What are the fundamental differences between English, Barking, Whale song, and primate-human sign language?

English and all natural human languages, including sign languages, are combinatorial systems that can arrange from hundreds to thousands of discrete components (words, we call them) into literally infinite combinations. There is no reliable evidence that barking, whale song, and primate sign language even come close (particularly the last; primate sign language is crap).

Anyway, I agree with those bits of your post about animal emotion; I just couldn't let this slip by.

[/derail]