Do animals have emotions?
>>1989452
Well this will be a thoughtful and eye opening thread.
only conscious animals do.
so that's almost none.
>>1989463
What it's your criteria for consciousness?
>>1989467
passing for a test of it's components such as self-awareness or metacognition.
>>1989471
But any test made will be incredibly biased.
We might not be able to recognize primitive emotions that don't require consciousness.
I remember reading that ant self-awareness paper you posted, would you argue that ants have emotions?
>>1989473
>We might not be able to recognize primitive emotions that don't require consciousness.
because these don't exist.
there are no primitive emotions.
there are no emotions that don't require consciousness.
what you're thinking of is merely instinct without any subjectivity.
>would you argue that ants have emotions?
no, the website that research was published by isn't actually a scientific journal.
it's likely fake.
Oh look it's this topic again, and bugguy is in it. It's going to be a shit flinging conversation about how "my interpretation of these hypotheses (that were not developed by me) are objective fact because all hair the mirror test and interpretations of its results that I personally like the sound of.
>>1989495
you mean how every single definition in every single dictionary agrees with me.
unlike most words, this leaves nothing open for interpretation.
>>1989452
Mammals and birds have all the neurochemical components for emotions, except for self aware emotions such as pride, shame, and guilt.
>>1989492
Emotions are not instinct. A behavior based on an emotive state such as gritting the teeth or chameleon changing colors is instinct.
>>1989506
Emotions are not instinct. Instinct is a series of movement, a behavioral pattern. You don't know your definitions very well.
>>1989516
: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned
emotions are instinct, learn english, learn ethology.
>>1989522
I learned zoology and this is the definition.
>>1989524
emotion is the subjective experience of instinct.
that definition applies to it as well.
>>1989531
>emotion is the subjective experience of instinct
The fuck are you talking about?
The conscious experience that we FEEL during the natural process of emotion is not an instinct because it is not behavior. It is a different thing, that doesn1t even exist if a creature is not conscious therefore it can not be an instinct.
Your heart beating faster upon seeing RFG is not an instinct, but your involuntary deepening of voice and flirty body language is.
>>1989542
>Your heart beating faster upon seeing RFG is not an instinct, but your involuntary deepening of voice and flirty body language is.
My sides
>>1989498
The fuck? That's not even what he said. Bugguy do you ever think about how in every thread you post in, everyone disagrees with you for the same reasons? For someone who considers himself an intellectual, then you must see the delusion of "everyone is wrong except me" do you honstly think that you are the enlightened one who knows more than anyone else?
>>1989506
Consciousness =/= self awareness.
>>1989542
>The conscious experience that we FEEL during the natural process of emotion is not an instinct because it is not behavior
every emotion is a subjective experience of a certain instinct.
>Your heart beating faster upon seeing RFG is not an instinct
love is the subjective experience of maternal instinct.
>>1989610
the only one who claims I'm an intellectual is you.
>>1989631
it's a component of consciousness, you can't actually test for consciousness itself.
>>1989684
Test or no test, consciousness does not equal self awareness, they are different. Metacognition is also a component of consciousness and does not equal consciousness.
Love is an emotional component of maternal instinct but also not the same as maternal instinct. Maternal instinct includes giving milk to young and protecting them; the behavior.
Also friendly or romantic love is not maternal.
>>1989610
He has to be trolling. No one can really be that stupid
>>1989542
>it is not behavior
you might want to think about that a bit more.
your heart speeding up is behavior.
>>1989690
>consciousness does not equal self awareness
consciousness is self-awareness.
claiming they aren't a part of eachother doesn't seperate them, consciousness is a pyramid scheme, lack one requirement and the others don't work.
>also not the same as maternal instinct.
it is the same.
all love is maternal instinct, but not all maternal instinct is love.
>>1989693
everything eventually sums down to some instinct.
without instincts, we don't function, we don't move.
bugguy.jpg
>>1989703
Consciousness is NOT the same as self awareness.
When you dream you are conscious but not self aware for example.
>>1989693
Heart beat is not behavior. Your guts moving is also not behavior.
Not all love is maternal love.
>>1989770
yes it is, self-awareness is a component of consciousness, you can't be self-aware without being conscious.
>When you dream you are conscious but not self aware for example.
speak for yourself, most of my dreams are lucid.
>>1989771
1.1The way in which an animal or person behaves in response to a particular situation or stimulus:
your heart raising is a behaviour.
>>1989771
>Heart beat is not behavior. Your guts moving is also not behavior.
of course it is.
you're either making the mistake of thinking all behavior is external or all behavior is voluntary.
either way you're wrong.
>>1989779
Maybe it is a language difference.
Instinctual behavior can not be voluntary.
Only voluntary behavior can imitate instinctual.
>>1989782
we're discussing the meaning of "behavior," not "instinct."
Your heart speeding up when you see your gay lover is involuntary behavior.
>>1989784
it's the same to him, he thinks instinct is behaviour and that emotion isn't instinct even though emotion is a behaviour.
I don't even understand what he's trying to get at anymore.
>>1989789
>he thinks instinct is behavior
it is.
>and that emotion isn't instinct even though emotion is a behaviour.
>an apple is a fruit and a banana is a fruit so apples are bananas.
emotion is both the instinct and the awareness of it.
because the awareness is not instinctive, emotion is not the same as instinct.
>>1989795
>it is.
ofcourse it is, which is why I don't understand why it's so hard for him to grasp that emotion is instinct.
it's a subjective experience of an instinctive reaction, the experience isn't instinct, but the reaction itself is, you don't have control over the reaction for the most part.
>>1989796
>I don't understand why it's so hard for him to grasp
because unconsciousness can't be imagined.
>>1989800
it's the complete lack of imagination.
>>1989789
Emotion is not a behavior, it is a feeling.
>>1989815
feeling is behaviour.
>>1989796
Emotion is involuntary, bot not all involuntary things are instincts, just involuntary behaviors.
>>1989816
According to which definition?
Is seeing also behavior?
>>1989817
all involuntary behaviors are essentially instincts.
>>1989819
yes.
any reaction to stimuli is behavior.
>>1989819
the one posted in this thread.
>>1989821
but seeing doesn't imply a reaction you dingus
>>1989825
the reaction is it being progressed by your brain.
>>1989825
seeing is a reaction.
Of course they do, where did people get the idea that emotion is strictly a human trait?
>>1989452
>Do animals have emotions?
Do animals feel pain here we go again.
>>1991296
I believe they do, I just wanted to hear a different perspective
>>1992310
people that have emotions think animals feel emotions.
people that don't have emotions think animals don't feel emotions.
the reality is it doesn't matter. We don't care what people we see on the street feel, why the fuck would we care what random animals feel?
>>1992310
it's faith, equal to religion.
>>1992318
people with cognitive empathy think animals feel emotion.
>>1992321
So was believing there were other planets outside our solar system up until recently.
Science is completely dependent on our math and current observational abilities and is only as good as our current abilities.
Understanding the brain is almost completely dependent on observational abilities and figuring out how and what to even look for.
Years from now people will be shaking their heads at half the stuff we think is true today just like we do with out predecessors.
>>1989461
i bet
>>1992337
>Years from now people will be shaking their heads at half the stuff we think is true today
Oh, make no mistake, scientists are laughing at you already.
I come here just to watch the /an/thropomorphization show, and I tell all my friend.
You guys gleefully anthropomorphize anything with bilateral symmetry and an anus. I sometimes wonder if I painted a face on a rock if you'd tell me it has feelings.
But yes, in time neuroscience will probably prove what we've long suspected - that animals in general aren't fully conscious and skillful at hiding it. That bees don't really have secret lives and nope, your cat isn't actually thinking about much of anything. That there's literally nothing wrong with torturing a cow or a carrot, they both have the same mental capacity. The future will be amazing.
We'll likely never find out for sure unless an animal will directly tell us or we find some way of experiencing the mental state of an animal.
Like mentioned, same debate as the one about pain. Many animals will react to pain stimuli similar to humans, but no one can tell for sure if they experience it the same way.
>tfw nobody has mentioned nociception
Only non-aquatic chordates do. Also, arthropods deserve a genocide.
>>1992350
>all my friend
I'm inclined to believe that this isn't a typo.
>>1992645
>>1992350
>That there's literally nothing wrong with torturing a cow or a carrot
Please do not pretend you represent scientists.
You also have zero understanding of the world if you think that's where we are heading. Animal protection groups are getting big and incredibly influential.
>>1992645
I was wondering if anyone would catch that.
I don't get out much.
On the plus side my friend also thinks /an/ is hilarious. She's easily amused.
>>1992666
Lol I bet this queer has a trip and a fursona
>>1992658
>Please do not pretend you represent scientists
I do represent some scientists.
There is currently a fad among ethologists (animals psychologists, lol) to anthropomorphize.
neurology will presumably end that. Because science deals with what IS, not what hipsters WANT things to be.
Animal protection groups are an entirely western liberal phenomenon. We're one tiny famine away from eating fido.
>>1992668
you'd lose that bet on all counts.
>>1992674
>neurology will presumably end that
wouldn't count on it.
>Because science deals with what IS, not what hipsters WANT things to be.
if only but public opinion has the upper hand in science right now.
I've yet to meet a single scientist my age that grasps basic concepts, your sole hope seems top be based on me.
>>1992682
also I hope you realize I don't really give a shit about any of this.
but I wish you good luck finding anyone to continue your tradition that's aged 25+
>>1989452
you choose
http://webmshare.com/MAPn0
>>1992683
the thing about science is it self-corrects.
sure, you get religious fads, but over time they die off once it becomes clear they aren't real.
Neurologists have already mapped and synthesized the brains of a worm. It's just a matter of time before other brains are mapped out. I expect one of the first things they'll do is figure out how to shut down parts of the human brain to emulate the experiences of other animals.
I also expect the experience will be nothing but meaningless static. Like being in a coma or sleepwalking. Something so completely mindless you can't even remember it. Time will tell, but technology is moving faster and faster every day.
>>1989452
Yes you stupid fuk.
>>1992682
>I've yet to meet a single scientist my age that grasps basic concepts, your sole hope seems top be based on me.
>i'm the smartest of my generation
>is a landscaper
almost pissed myself
>>1992691
>of a worm
C. elegans is not a "worm"
>everything cylindrical is a worm
>every terrestrial arthropod is a bug
>'merica
>>1992697
>bitching about American English on an American website.
>>1992699
not american english, just american ignorance
>>1992703
>The term worm /ˈwɜrm/ is used in everyday language to describe many different distantly related animals that typically have a long cylindrical tube-like body and no limbs.
>>1992703
they're worms in English.
>>1992707
nematode worms, yes.
>>1992709
notice the
>round-
>>1992711
>nematode worms
that's like saying
>canine dogs
>>1992713
notice the
>Worms
>>1992715
no, it's like saying
>domestic dogs
>>1992718
and i'm arguing with retards again.
>>1992720
>informal names should mean the same things the formal ones do.
>but we should totally keep both names even though they mean the same things.
>boy, other people sure are retarded
>gosh it's a burden being so much smarter than everyone else.
>must be time to fap while looking at anime
>>1992735
>being ok with stupidity
just don't force it on others
>>1992740
I honestly thought bugguy was the only person stupid enough to insist common names correspond with formal taxa.
I might have been wrong.
or maybe not.
>>1992744
>I honestly thought bugguy was the only person stupid enough to insist common names correspond with formal taxa
Yeah, I've never said that. It's just really stupid to call such different organism just "worms" out of lazyness.
>>1992750
>It's just really stupid to call such different organism just "worms" out of lazyness.
>It's just really stupid to call such different organism just "fish" out of lazyness.
>It's just really stupid to call such different organism just "amphibians" out of lazyness.
>>It's just really stupid to call such different organism just "reptiles" out of lazyness.
>It's just really stupid to call such different organism just "monkeys" out of lazyness.
>It's just really stupid to call such different organism just "birds" out of lazyness.
Even if they don't have emotions, what do you lose from treating them like they do?
>>1992752
The diversity within those groups varies wastly.
If you don't know what you're talking about then it's better to be silent.
>>1992752
Are you seriously implying that worms are monophyletic like these groups (execpt reptiles)?
>nice autism you have there
>>1992757
>If you don't know what you're talking about then it's better to be silent
says the guy that insists informal names must describe formal taxa.
you're going above and beyond the call of autism.
>>1992759
nope.
I'm saying common names don't correspond to formal taxa.
and yes, you're probably autistic.
>>1992759
>except reptiles
and fish
and monkeys
>>1992766
none of them are monophyletic.
all of them are paraphyletic and a couple of them are polyphyletic.
though that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
>>1992766
>monkeys
primates are monophyletic
>fish
you're right, i was automatically thinking of ray-finned fish
>>1992771
>Then what's the point of having them?
what's the point of having them if they DO describe taxa?
synonyms are masturbation, they're not needed.
the point of common names is in common discourse. It's easier and simpler to say, "worms" than to give a latin binomial that nobody knows anyways.
>>1992773
>primates
primates aren't monkeys, dorkbreath.
>>1992772
How are amphibians, monkeys and birds not monophyletic?
>>1992778
birds are, my bad.
amphibians and monkeys are paraphyletic.
monkeys are also polyphyletic.
>>1992774
Naming something by it's phylum should not be such a high expectation on a board about animals and nature.
>>1992771
>Then what's the point of having them?
people know what they mean.
>Having a name for a non existing group is kinda obsolete.
the group exists, it's just arbitrary. Normal, healthy people are not bothered by the arbitrary nature of the grouping.
>>1992778
>monkeys
because apes and people
>>1992781
yes, but if we're going to get technical you can't call it a phylum. Linnaean hierarchies aren't strictly followed anymore.
autistic prescriptivism is a slippery slope to start down, my friend.
>>1992780
>amphibians
of course they are.
>monkeys
are you reffering to that "monkeys and primates are not the same" bullshit?
>>1992785
>Linnaean hierarchies aren't strictly followed anymore
phyla still exist for the sake of simplicity. you can call the "cupboard" if you want, it still stands for a distinct group of organisms
>>1992785
>autistic prescriptivism is a slippery slope to start down, my friend.
he's not your friend, buddy
>>1992787
>of course they are
are what?
>are you reffering to that "monkeys and primates are not the same" bullshit?
>reffering
yes, not all primates are monkeys. Monkeys are a paraphyletic and polyphyletic grade within the primates.
>>1992797
Unless you're referring strictly to crown group amphibians, the grade is paraphyletic.
reptiles, birds and mammals all ascended from amphibians.
>>1992800
>Unless you're referring strictly to living ones
fix'd that for you.
>>1992802
same thing last time I checked.
Lissamphibia is monophyletic, que no?
Quite sure my kat has emotions his focalization so his actions andd facial expressions as well as body language all have exhibited
Anxiety
Fear
Excitement, expectation of something goodd
Depression
frustration
Sexual feelings
That fight or flight thing
Among others
>>1992813
it's a fucking retarded cat, don't anthropomorphise it
>>1992813
there isn't any question about cats displaying normal mammalian behaviors.
the question is, do they know they're doing it?
If they aren't aware of what they're doing, it's just instinct, not emotion.
>>1992813
Sexual feelings for who? You're scaring me anon.
>>1992813
Cats are incredibly emotional, so long as you count "constant brooding aloofness" as an emotion
>>1992818
Can instinct alone really be enough to control an animal?
Plants for sure. There's no question. Nothing they do requires "thinking".
Animals though? It doesn't make sense. Maybe I've got the word instinct wrong in my head. Watching a dog solve a puzzle, you're telling me it's 100% instinctual?
The only animals on the planet that can reason emotion are humans and maybe chimps/bonobo. Clearly no other animal is on our level in terms of reasoning, but does that mean no other animals can do it?
>>1992854
there are plenty of other animals capable of reasoning.
and no, instinct isn't by any means all there is to animal behaviors. There's also conditioning and independent thought. Nothing the anon listed about his cat can't be ascribed to instinct though. Except perhaps anticipation, but that's probably conditioning.
>>1992854
>1992818 #
You are confusing the issue. Reason is reason. emotion is involuntary, almost. Animals behave in ways that result in good feelings
Human babby exhibits certain emotions almost from birth scientists have studied films of babies faces and found about half dozen basic emotions each of which corresponds to a set of specific facial expressions fear -- wide eyes open mouth anger squared mouth narrow eyes happy wide open eyes and smile etc the theory goes that these are present to allow the babby to manipulate his or her environment. Look happy and you get food
Now watch kat face I am quite sure kat learns to do same
What kat lacks is a memory they can feel emotion but they live moment to moment coz no memory not our kind they learn smells what you call instinct Well what is instinct means nothing. They learn differently from people bcc they have a different array of natural gifts different kind of brain kat and dog rely less on eye and more on smell and hearing they remember,beer so many more sounds and smells than we do
now watch cat
>>1993498
if facial expressions are the same as emotions, what does the Mona Lisa painting feel?
>>1989463
Most animals are conscious.
>>1993505
most animals are plankton.
>>1989463
bugguy.jpg
>>1994310
that's a pretty nice collection desu
I'm not sure if what I'm about to post is 100% relevant but I think it might help some of you guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGPIzSe5cAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGPIzSe5cAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGPIzSe5cAU
Only the male ones
>>1992350
Everything you said also applies to humans (primate animals). Nobody can prove human consciousness exists, and there are many humans who display less emotional capacity than animals.
There are humans who are completely devoid of empathy and don't relate to the suffering of other creature, doubtless because their own capacity to feel is severely diminished.
This sort of individual is someone with the same emotional capacity as a carrot. The future will be bleak if such people have their way.
emotion is very important for animal survival everyone who says that only humans feel it are retarded
>>1989452
Of course they do.
Every animal, even the lowest of conscious ones experience Fear.
Fear is the emotion that is present in all living things.
When it comes to higher emotions like Anger, Sadness, Happiness, it depends on the species of the animal. Fish don't experience Anger on the same level a Cat experiences Anger. They experience a quick "Huh, that was something" and then swim off. Cats will stay pissy over something for awhile and then go off and be like "Huh, a bird."
Mammals are higher to experience emotions, especially household animals. One could argue that there is a psychology with household animals.
It may just be an observable thing, but to deny it outright is just as ignorant as saying "Animals don't feel pain."
Here's a good experiment to try out.
Put an animal under duress, do it with a fish or an insect. Keep it in a small container, and occassionally give it extreme pain. Whether that be a jab or shock. Notice that its movement will grow more panicky, to a certain point of surrender where they won't move anymore, not dead, but just defeated.
I believe that to be proof of fear and defeat.
If you are even more heartless, try the same experiment with cats, dogs, horses, etc... if abuse an animal you will see a change in its behavior and you will see fear and defeat in the animal.
To deny this, is to be as heartless as someone who actually abuses animals.
You shouldn't humanize animals, but you shouldn't think them as complete lessers than you. Every lifeform has some form of awareness that should be respected. Yes even slugs.
If you want to look at that as emotion then so be it, just pay attention to the differences in reactions across the animal spectrum. Dogs are more likely to be "Happy" than a slug is.
However, due to us being Humans, no other animal has the amount of complex emotions that we do, at least at the current moment.
A lot of animals have emotions
Duh
>>1994429
By Jove! That's jolly rotten! Why ever would you say such a SEXIST thing?
>>1989684
Let's try that again.
Bugguy do you ever think about how in every thread you post in, everyone disagrees with you for the same reasons? You must see the delusion of "everyone is wrong except me", do you honestly think that you are the enlightened one who knows more than anyone else ?
>>1995392
>everyone disagrees with you for the same reasons?
actually several of us agree with him.
he's not wrong or right, he's talking about an understanding most of /an/ lacks. It's really pretty simple if you look at it as something other than an internet argument where the evil people are disagreeing with you.
We use different words to describe behaviors in animals that are emotions in humans.
this is because we don't ASSUME that the same behavior implies subjective experience of it.
This is very simply because those same behaviors are nearly universal in vertebrates and in some cases all animals, AND we know some of those animals are completely incapable of subjectivity while we suspect many others are equally incapable based on evidence available to all.
it isn't wrong or right, it's just the rules of a game you don't know how to play.
>>1995392
think of it this way-
you are capable of hunger, it causes you to eat.
your individual cells also eat, and are moved to eat by instinct.
but do they feel hunger?
this is an easy question to answer, do you feel the hunger of your individual cells?
nope. Your individual cells don't feel hunger because they aren't conscious. Hunger is a conscious experience, an emotion. Without a brain producing consciousness all you have is a machine driven by instinct and experience.
somewhere between your cells and your human body there evolved the ability to feel emotions like hunger. This ability is informally called consciousness, and without it you have no emotions.
just like your cells.
>>1995392
there's nothing to disagree with, I make statements not claims.
I don't personally agree with all of the things I state, but those are beliefs based on nothing.
>>1989452
Humans are just animals, so yeah
Same with other great apes, some cetacea, maybe some corvids
It's really hard to tell, why don't you go ask one?
>>1995409
>hunger is an emotion
Nigga say what
yeah animals can feel
Fear,they can get angry,happiness all that kind of shit
>>1995534
I hate you so much
145 posts and not one /an/imal has mentioned the MRI dog project.
It's too long, I'll sum up:
>Dogs trained to sit still in MRI machine
>Dogs subjected to behavioral tests
>Dogs brains scanned functionally
>Dog brains light up exactly like human brains
>Same regions, same cues
>Jealousy, longing, separation anxiety, joy, anticipation, all confirmed by analogous brain architecture and function.
It's just dogs. Dogs are special because humans created them. For the rest of the phyla, you're on your own. But I know my dog is an emotional genius. All dogs are.
http://www.neuropolicy.emory.edu/Participate/index.html
>>1989452
>Is bugguy online?
>>1997597
>Inviting bugguy to go full sperglord
>>1989498
bugguy why do you always say that shit about dictionaries agreeing with you EVERY thread
>>1997634
I've noticed this tripfag of whom you speak. The MRI dog project and its work is unassailable. More people should know about it. tripfag can spittle all he wants. They're going to make the baseline argument for non-human personhood for dogs before too much longer. I'll be on board, so I can finally take my dog with me. Cities will start hearing about an idea to use the Canine Good Citizen credential as an access license for businesses and public spaces to consider as a policy soon. It's also an excellent idea.
>>1989703
>all love is maternal instinct, but not all maternal instinct is love
Bugguy showing no-one has ever loved him
>>1992666
>Friend
>Female
>>1989452
No, only humans have emotions because you're all G-d's special little snowflakes.
>>1990733
From the religion of human exceptionalism. Think that "Muh god made me special" is only an ancient belief? Think again! Humans are retards, especially "experts" and they've been working overtime the past few decades to "prove" that as many animals "can't feel pain" or "don't have emotions" or "aren't conscious" as possible so they can justify their continued unethical use of them in experiments.
It's not good science. It's just shit.
>>1992328
Actually, it's more appropriate to flip that and say that people who LACK empathy can't see emotion in non-humans because those creatures aren't like themselves.
>>1992350
You sound like you're living in an entire universe of denial then projecting it onto others. Humans aren't that fucking special. If you think they are, you're a fucking retard. Plain and simple. Most "science" that "proves" that humans are different from all other animals is total hogwosh and bullshit that's just picked up and accepted by the vast majority of the public because it's what they WANT to believe. But it's not backed by anything resembling good science.
>animals aren't conscious, they're just tricking us!
You may as well just have said the Devil did it. That's about how sophisticated that view is.
>>1992643
I wish Hornets would kill you in your sleep.
>>1992674
>There is currently a fad among ethologists (animals psychologists, lol) to anthropomorphize.
You've got that backwards, you insufferable faggot. There is a current TREND in very bad pseudoscience to "prove" that somehow humans are magically not animals, as if we still hold to jewish religious views of how the universe is arranged.
>>1992691
>the thing about science is it self-corrects.
I fucking wish.
http://www.itworld.com/article/2718456/enterprise-software/are-scientists-lying-more-than-ever-.html
Science is getting worse, not better.
>shut down parts of the human brain to emulate the experiences of other animals.
>because humans are just the end of evolution - they haev more "stuff" than the other species that came "before" them
Holy shit you have a fucking creationist view of biology and evolution. Just GTFO.
>>1992756
They have to stop experimenting on them, vivisecting them and eating them or they have to accept that they're sociopaths who have broken empathy. THAT is why this trend is so popular. We stand at the point where science actually has the power to PROVE that animals DO experience their lives very much like humans do in many ways. And that will fuck up EVERYTHING because our entire global civilization is founded on animal abuse. It's just like how we have so many oil shills trying to get people to stay on oil or at most switch to nuclear power for the power grid (BUT YOU BETTER FUCKING STAY AWAY FROM THAT EVIL SOLAR ENERGY!!) - because anything else would totally topple the current power structure and necessitate a massive sea change in human behavior that requires responsibility, empathy and decency, which the vast majority of "humans" lack entirely.
>>1992815
>EMOTIONS ARE MINE! OTHER ANIMALS CAN'T HAVE THEM! THE MAGIC GOD OF THE JEWS WAITED UNTIL HE CREATED MY SPECIES TO CREATE EMOTIONS!!
Just shut the fuck up, cunt. And stop misusing the word "anthropomorphize". The word DOES NOT mean "if you think humans have anything in common with other species you're stupid".
God I fucking LOATHE dumb bastards like you.
>>1992837
Lol it counts.
>>1993506
Aren't most animals beetles?
>>1994560
>Every animal, even the lowest of conscious ones experience Fear.
This anon knows what the fuck is up. Fear was the first emotion and basically all animals have it, except those without neurons.
>Fish don't experience Anger on the same level a Cat experiences Anger. They experience a quick "Huh, that was something" and then swim off.
Lel apparently you've never met a grouper before. I'm pretty sure they can hold a grudge.
>Put an animal under duress, do it with a fish or an insect. Keep it in a small container, and occassionally give it extreme pain. Whether that be a jab or shock. Notice that its movement will grow more panicky, to a certain point of surrender where they won't move anymore, not dead, but just defeated.
Please don't encourage this.
>However, due to us being Humans, no other animal has the amount of complex emotions that we do
And then you throw all your points in the garbage. There is no "end of evolution" and humans wouldn't be it if there was.
>>1995409
>nope. Your individual cells don't feel hunger because they aren't conscious. Hunger is a conscious experience, an emotion. Without a brain producing consciousness all you have is a machine driven by instinct and experience.
You've got this entirely wrong because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You attribute "muh magical consciousness that only humans get to have" to why individual cells don't feel hunger. The reason individual cells don't feel hunger is because hunger is a composite impulse. It's comprised of the impulses sent by many cells in your stomach lining (mainly). There's literally no way for the cells in your body to experience hunger, because it's not something that involves them at all. Hunger is not the same as "needs nutrition".
>>1997597
Actually I knew you'd bring this shit up eventually because you're obviously a dogfucker and you constantly bring up this "dog exceptionalism" bullshit. Quit.
Yes.
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
>>1998199
it doesn't state that these animals are conscious, it states that there's nothing making it impossible for them to be.
but then again, they still display zero signs of it so they still don't have it.
>>1998206
the wise words of a little gardener
They probably response to their environment like us. The real question should be, does anyone have emotions?
Islam for example teaches that animals have souls and relationship with Allah.
How animals are viewed is not the same in all abrahamic religions. Christianity doesn't mention them (other than what to eat), Islam has specific rules regarding treatment of animals.
Seeing animals as mindless, soulless is not a religious standard view.
>>1989452
Yes. I knew someone who owned two dogs, an older one, and a rescue they got as a puppy. The older dog became kind of a surrogate mother for the younger one.
The younger dog was a pretty happy dog; peppy, tail always wagging, loved to run and play with her "mom," all that. But eventually the older dog grew even older, became sick and passed away. Young dog was never the same after she died. She became meeker, more sullen. Hardly ever wagged her tail. It was rather heartbreaking to see. She died as well, cancer eventually took her.
I think most animals don't have emotions as complex as we do; for example, I own a rescued cat who was found in an alley in a box with all her siblings. She's the runt of her litter, and currently the only one of her litter still alive. For the first few years of her life, she was owned by a friend of mine, who was a kid at the time. He and his other friends were rough with her. Put her in a box, slide it down the stairs, shit like that. So, the cat I inherited is skittish at times, terrified of going outside and mistrustful of people she doesn't know. The mom of the kid who used to own my cat says she's skittish because "all her siblings died," but I think that's a load of shit. Like I said, animal emotions aren't so complex, and house cat litters rarely ever all stick together. I think it's just lingering trauma from being manhandled by a bunch of brats. Pic related, my pussy
>>1998259
why exactly have you started with religion ITT?
only humans because God gave them the ability to have emotions and them alone
>>1998362
Didn't you hear. Anon? Animal emotions are actually just nociception.
Jesus, Descartes had this already had this figured out during the scientific revolution, and you bleeding heart reactionaries are still trying to stand in the way of progress with your doubt.
I bet you support witch hunts and torture carried out by the inquisition, as well.
>>1998366
People bought it up that it is a religious view that animals have no souls/consciousness/subjectivity/feelings.
>>1998369
I doubt bugguy needs a doppelganger to make him look bad.
>>1998372
Stop using the internet to try to change my mind about GOD. I believe in god that doesn't make me stupid or a bible humper it makes you a fag for trying to indoctrinate me and millions of others.Yeah I believe in god but I also believe in freedom to do what I want and think how I want without discrimination.Besides everyone knows that a little Christianity kicks ass,because us Christians have Christmas, the best fucking holiday ever.And if your and atheist and you celebrate Christmas then your a fucking hypocrite!So no present for you!
>>1998027
>you're obviously a dogfucker and you constantly bring up this "dog exceptionalism" bullshit. Quit.
You sure sound mad. Too bad no one cares enough to do a cat MRI project. Then they could have unassailable evidence of non-human personhood too.
You can call anons names on the internet, though, if it makes you feel better. Changes nothing about the evidence, tho. Just makes you look like a tantrum throwing child. Hateful too.
>>1998372
it's a religious view that they do.
it's a belief based on nothing.
>>1998429
No. I'm pretty sure the main religions (Christianity, Islam, Jewish) believe animals don't have souls.
It's just the faggot pet owners that think they do.
>>1989463
This statement was loaded from the beginning.
>>1998206
But they do lol?
>>1998486
they don't
unless you're too stupid to read.
TUESDAY, Aug. 4, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Dogs process human faces in a specific region of their brains, researchers report.
"Our findings show that dogs have an innate way to process faces in their brains, a quality that has previously only been well-documented in humans and other primates," study senior author Gregory Berns, a neuroscientist at Emory University in Atlanta, said in a university news release.
The findings show that dogs are born with this innate response to faces. If it was learned -- for example, by associating a human face with food -- then faces would trigger a response in the reward region of their brains, Berns explained.
People have at least three face-processing regions in the brain. Being able to identify faces is important for any social animal, the researchers suggested.
"Dogs have been cohabitating with humans for longer than any other animal," study first author Daniel Dilks, an assistant professor of psychology at Emory, said in the news release.
"They are incredibly social, not just with other members of their pack, but across species. Understanding more about canine cognition and perception may tell us more about social cognition and perception in general," he explained.
The result of Berns' early research is revealed in the bestselling book "How Dogs Love Us." If you have a dog, this is a must-read book. It reveals much about the interactions we have with our dogs. It tells us our dogs know us and appreciate who we are.
It's a fantastic book. Berns not only writes a great story of decoding the canine brain -- in a way that is accessible to laypersons -- but he also tells the story of a family who loves its dogs -- his. Berns, his wife and daughters are dog people. That is clear. And their love of their dogs is clear, too. What Berns was wanting to know is if their dogs loved them.
So, do our dogs really love us?
"That's certainly what I believe," Berns said. "When I wrote the book, it was based really on just two dogs. The scientific reaction to the book was kind of dismissive. It's just two dogs, it doesn't really prove much at all."
What started as two dogs and, basically with Berns' self-funding, has expanded to about 25 dogs. The project goes on.
"Since we've grown the project, we're getting a greater understanding of how their (dog) brains work," Berns said. "Dogs are different from each other. There as different from each other as people are different from each other. And we're getting an appreciation of that with their brain responses as well."
Although we are just beginning to answer basic questions about the canine brain, we cannot ignore the striking similarity between dogs and humans in both the structure and function of a key brain region: the caudate nucleus.
Rich in dopamine receptors, the caudate sits between the brainstem and the cortex. In humans, the caudate plays a key role in the anticipation of things we enjoy, like food, love and money. But can we flip this association around and infer what a person is thinking just by measuring caudate activity? Because of the overwhelming complexity of how different parts of the brain are connected to one another, it is not usually possible to pin a single cognitive function or emotion to a single brain region.
But the caudate may be an exception. Specific parts of the caudate stand out for their consistent activation to many things that humans enjoy. Caudate activation is so consistent that under the right circumstances, it can predict our preferences for food, music and even beauty.
In dogs, we found that activity in the caudate increased in response to hand signals indicating food. The caudate also activated to the smells of familiar humans. And in preliminary tests, it activated to the return of an owner who had momentarily stepped out of view.
The ability to experience positive emotions, like love and attachment, would mean that dogs have a level of sentience comparable to that of a human child. And this ability suggests a rethinking of how we treat dogs.
Dogs are more skillful than great apes at a number of tasks in which they must read human communicative signals indicating the location of hidden food. In this study, we found that wolves who were raised by humans do not show these same skills, whereas domestic dog puppies only a few weeks old, even those that have had little human contact, do show these skills. These findings suggest that during the process of domestication, dogs have been selected for a set of social-cognitive abilities that enable them to communicate with humans in unique ways.
>>1998429
Yeah, gonna have to go ahead and for once let you know you're full of shit. The view that humans are magically special is the religious view, and the abrahamic religions have been the biggest proponents of that erroneous view. Humans aren't special, they're not magic and they don't have "something" that no other animal does. They're just stupid apes. And like most apes they're cancer to boot.
>>1989452
Do bears shit in the woods?
>>1999122
>The view that humans are magically special is the religious view
no one said humans were special.
consciousness isn't limited to humans.
>and they don't have "something" that no other animal does
we're the largest genus of self-aware animals, but not the only, that's what we have.
just like mantis shrimp have the best eyes.
>>1999285
>the largest genus
>literally only one species in the genus Homo
okay
>>1999285
Typo, I meant consciousness IS limited to humans. We were made by God to be this way in His image.
>>1998435
Islam definitely believes animals have souls.
The souls are just different from that of humans.
>>1998390
You are not good at imitating bugguy.
Also I am not religious but I have interest in it because it is unique to the human animal
Literally every single living thing with a nervous system has feelings, emotions, feels pain and desire in mostly the same way.
The only difference is the specific ways it manifests, its ability to communicate, and the general intelligence of the creature.
Just examine your counter-argument before you post it, and realize why your pseduo-intellectualism is wrong.
Most? Probably.
Dogs can 100 percent feel happy and sad. You can easily tell. Also fear.
So at least some animals do.
I have trouble believing certain reptiles do though.
Also, dropbears are tiny brained, pretty much purely instinctual dumbasses. I don't think they can feel emotions.
>>1998745
they've been domesticated for that for thousands of years.
reacting isn't understanding.
>>1998750
key sentence: what I believe.
it's religion.
>>1999298
most closely related hominids pass it, only rational to assume our even closer family does as well, but they're extinct.
>>1999343
baseless claim.
>>1999354
dogs cannot feel happy or sad they are fish and fish are all essentially flesh robots
only humans are capable of anything past nociception and even then a few minorities probably aren't
>>1999387
>most closely related hominids pass it, only rational to assume our even closer family does as well, but they're extinct.
dead hominids exhibit the same level of intelligence bugguy does
>>1999390
This thread, specifically your posts, have convinced me that not all humans are capable of rational thought.
Ten minutes observation of a dog interacting with the family who owns it would tell you that they are capable of feeling happy/sad.
>>1989774
Let me guess hurr durr mirror test i jack off to mirrors every night hurr durr.
>faggut face it, you're wrong and a faggot.
>>1999390
but humen are fishes as well
>>1997996
My god will you stop comparing people who think animals aren't conscious to a religion (particularly Judaism/Christianity). It's so edgy and unnecessary. I know it has to be a single person doing this because all your posts are written the same way.
I'm just going to leave these here.
http://www.livescience.com/49093-animals-have-feelings.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150714-animal-dog-thinking-feelings-brain-science/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animal-odd-couples-excerpt-the-emotional-lives-of-animals/8005/
cute birds
are they for sale??
>>1999473
click bait pseudo-science
it's like reading the wiki on genders after the feminism raid.
>>1999521
>but it's okay when I use those sites as a source
>>1999521
>>1999521
m'nociception
>>1999387
>baseless claim.
How is it a baseless claim?
Pain, hunger, pleasure, all of these things are inborn and powerful feelings everyone has based on the nervous system. These are automatic rewards and punishments to allow the creature to change its behaviors to influence survival; sex feels good, eating feels good, being too hungry feels bad, etc.
THIS is consciousness. These are feelings and emotions. You refuse to accept them but the proof is right there.
It just keeps stacking up. Evidence after evidence. It's unstoppable, really. You'd have to be a bible thumping fundy who believes that Jesus rode to kindergarten on the back of a dinosaur to think otherwise. nonhuman personhood is just a few short years away.
"Yet researchers have now discovered that dog and human brains process the vocalizations and emotions of others more similarly than previously thought. The findings suggest that although dogs seem to be wired in a way that helps them to grasp what we feel by attending to the sounds we make."
"dog brains have voice-sensitive regions and that these neurological areas resemble those of humans. Sharing similar locations in both species, they process voices and emotions of other individuals similarly. Both groups respond with greater neural activity when they listen to voices reflecting positive emotions such as laughing than to negative sounds that include crying or whining."
"Until now researchers had identified voice-sensitive brain regions only in humans and macaque monkeys, whose last common ancestor lived 30 million years ago. The last common ancestor of humans and dogs—a mammalian carnivore with a brain the size of an egg—existed around 100 million years ago. The canine finding thus suggests that the voice-sensitive brain regions in both species evolved at least that long ago, if not earlier.
But dog owners might be most interested in what this study says about our special relationship with canine pets. Humans domesticated dogs somewhere between 18,000 and 32,000 years ago, and since then they have become people’s best friends, hunting partners, guards and even purse accessories. “This similarity helps explain what makes vocal communication between dogs and humans so successful,” he says. “It’s why dogs can tune into their owners’ feelings so well.”
>>1999543
>nonhuman personhood is just a few short years away
the world really is goint to shit, isn't it?
>>1999543
"To compare active human and dog brains, postdoctoral researcher Attila Andics and his team from MTA-ELTE Comparative Ethology Research Group in Hungary trained 11 dogs to lie still in an fMRI brain scanner for several six minute intervals so that the researchers could perform the same experiment on both human and canine participants."
This is what the community of humans who live outside of unicorn land call "replication." It's what happens when scientists re-create the same results separately from the first scientists. It's how we got things like computers and internets and DNA evidence to use in courts for things like convicting the right murderers and exonerating innocent people on death row. Oh, and food. Without the replication of experiments to increase yields of just about everything, you'd also be starved to death by now.
You're welcome!
>>1999544
>for dogs
You cats just need one curious cat lover to train one cat to sit still for the MRI. Then you can get validated too. The huge crush of volunteers comes when they realize it can be done.
Watching this thread with the full knowledge of what it would be, I feel like it's been a lot more successful at educating /an/ons about the current state of animal brain science than trolling for christian kicks. The MRI stuff is cool. If I lived near Emory I'd take Friar to see if he could do it.
>>1999343
This is absolute fact. Anything else is lies.
>>1999521
Nociception is literally pseudo-science.
>>1999531
I don't cite clickbait based on 'I think so' and psychology.
>>1999537
>has based on the nervous system
subjectivity isn't based on the nervous system.
>These are automatic rewards and punishments
you're confusing emotion with instinct.
emotion is the subjective experience of an instinct, without the subjective experience it's just instinct.
>THIS is consciousness.
no this is nociception and it's components.
no consciousness required, robot status.
>>1999573
>I don't cite clickbait based on 'I think so' and psychology.
you cite google
>>1999573
Spouting assertions with the "i believe" left out is even worse when you do it because no evidence. Denial is the quintessential human emotion.
>>1999579
there are no assertions, this is basic college level ethology.
>>1999603
>this is basic college level ethology
>saying it like you've been to college
>>1999606
He says that as if ethology is taught in college. I fucking wish it was.
>>1999608
It is in some places. Or at least neuroethology.
>>1999617
>arguing with me like you've even been to highschool.
being a gardener is not a college degree (nor is smoking pot)
>>1999617
>arguing
>considering stating facts arguing
what a retard
>>1999617
>>1999451
No, he's the real bugguy, the other one is a fake who stole the tripcode a while back.
>>1999620
being a botanist is.
meanwhile you're sitting on that PhD in dunning kruger sippin' russell's tea at lake wobegon.
>>1999627
>being a botanist is.
always makes me laugh.
>meanwhile you're sitting on that PhD in dunning kruger sippin' russell's tea at lake wobegon.
I have no idea what you're talking about. But then again, I don't know why I expect a pothead to make sense.
>>1999627
>botanist
nice euphemism you have there once again
>>1999627
>being a botanist is.
you misspelled
>nociceptist
>>1992328
>admitting your autism
that's the way to do it
Can bugguy feel pain, or is he merely subject to nociception?
Can anyone confirm whether he's passed the mirror test?
>>1999645
he probably jerks in front of the mirror while telling himself he has a botany degree of some kind
Do you call that passing it?
>>1999634
pls post the non-shopped image. it's fun enough without going overboard
>>1999646
Only if we can confirm that he's actually aware of his own reflection. Otherwise it might just be that he's confusing it for a rival or something.
>>1999647
Looks real enough to me
>>1999651
Then I don't think he passes it. He compulsively repeats that "botany degree" in order to impress the other - very similar looking faggot.
>>1989452
No, because animals are all fishes and fishes can only feel wetness.
/thread
>>1999652
thats not bugguy is it?
>>1999656
fuck off
In the past decade, we have learned more about how dogs think than in the last century. Breakthroughs in cognitive science, pioneered by Brian Hare have proven dogs have a kind of genius for getting along with people that is unique in the animal kingdom.
Brian Hare's stunning discovery is that when dogs domesticated themselves as early as 40,000 years ago they became far more like human infants than their wolf ancestors. Domestication gave dogs a whole new kind of social intelligence. This finding will change the way we think about dogs and dog training—indeed, the revolution has already begun
>>1999720
any authors have tried to anecdotally capture the emotional bond between humans and dogs. Here at last is a book that digs deep into cognitive science to unravel the mysteries of the canine brain. Thoroughly researched and written in the likable voice of a brainy scientist sitting at your kitchen table, The Genius of Dogs is a fascinating look at what goes on between the ears of the animals we share our lives with. I found it entertaining, fast-moving, and filled with gee-whiz insights that gave me a new appreciation for the complex social intelligence of man’s best friend.”
—John Grogan, author of Marley & Me and The Longest Trip Home
>we have German stone form sex toys older than fundy thumpers say the Earth is old.
>>1999581
AWESOME!!
>>1999729
You shouldn't let things get to you like that. I suggest you take a break, man, I'm genuinely worried about you.
