Do dogs have feelings?
>>2016412
Yes
/thread
>>2016413
Actually they don't.
>>2016467
Fun fact: they do.
>>2016467
>thinks it's a cat thread
Dogs have feelings, humans do not.
>>2016412
I'm a professional dogologist. I can confirm that they do indeed have feelings.
>>2016412
Definitely, just not all the ones we have.
>>2016412
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqqbgyssefs
:(
>>2016491
I knew this would upset me but I watched it anyway, dammit!
>>2016491
Cant stop the tears
>>2016491
>inb4 nociceptionguy
>>2016491
That is so fucking sad. I wonder if they have any understanding of the concept of death
>>2016491
Goddamn, poor Brutus.
Off-topic, but I ended up watching other videos from the same guy and what the fuck is up with the pekingese's eyes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1DjolDYJZQ
>>2016569
Even if they don't, they no doubt realise that they can't communicate anymore, and inability to communicate always has an inherent element of grief to it. Non-humans(or humans, for that matter), don't need to "understand" death in order to grieve.
They have feelings but they don't have souls they can't go heaven
>>2016577
That's not what Pope Francis says.
>>2016577
Dogs go to heaven.
If I get to heaven and my dog isn't there, clearly heaven sucks ball, isn't heaven at all, and I'll go complain to management, even if I have to talk to the big boss.
>>2016577
But if dogs didnt eat from the tree of knowledge and dont know good from evil, isnt it impossible for dogs to be bad? Why would a living thing that cant be bad be permanently destroyed? Or do you think that they'll come back, but not necessarily in heaven?
http://youtu.be/ygGxg0kB46o
>>2016412
>somehow humans are the only animals with feelings and thoughts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9KeyKVuLHU
>>2016412
Yes, but only nociceptive ones; a dog may be able to love a human, but this love can only be nociceptive love, that is, love as conceived objectively(dogs, like all other non-human animals, can only percieve things objectively, not subjectively).
>>2016491
wtf, I'm literally crying 2 seconds into the video. Evening ruined
>>2019084
>in your opinion
>>2019084
>nociceptive
I'm new to /an/.
Is this a meme?
>>2016577
NUH UH I SAW A MOVIE THEY GO TO HEAVEN
;_;
>>2019268
just wait til bugguy returns from his exile to the anne frank museum
>>2019268
it's not really a meme.
/an/ loves to anthropomorphize and /an/ loves to talk about animal abuse.
the upshot of this is they're usually shocked to learn that scientists have a word for the fact that most animals can't feel pain.
they like to make fun of the word and pretend it means something other than what it does, as if this will somehow change science or the minds of scientists.
of course it doesn't.
Only RAGE followed by guilt and sadness...
>>2021343
>most animals can't feel pain.
I'm pretty confident that anything with a nervous system feels pain in a similar way to humans.
Unless you mean emotional pain, which is a different kettle of fish.
>>2021369
Fish don't.
>>2019084
>all other non-human animals
That's incredibly narrow-minded. There are other species can be reasonably certain also experience subjectivity (consciousness, self-awareness, whatever you want to call it.)
And assuming that all others do not is still ignorant in my opinion.. Considering such similar biology, I think it makes more sense to assume they do.
>>2021369
>I'm pretty confident that anything with a nervous system feels pain in a similar way to humans
it really doesn't matter what you're confident about.
>>2021372
>Considering such similar biology, I think it makes more sense to assume they do.
that would be the fallacy of anthropomorphization.
it happens a lot here.
>>2021375
No, that would be common sense.
Unless you imply that consciousness originates from some mystical force instead of the physiology of the brain.
>>2021375
Fallacy fallacy.
I can play this game, too.
Animals experience pain in the sense that they respond to sensory stimulus which is damaging (or perceived as damaging) to their tissues by developing protective reactions. This is well documented in modern studies.
There is a much better argument for whether or not animals experience emotional stress associated with that pain.
>>2021379
Which they do since they cower and abused animals have a higher propensity to be fuck ups. Like humans. Who would have thought!
>>2021383
I agree anon, but some people see any argument by analogy as being anthropomorphising.
We cannot directly measure these subjective experiences. (However, by that line of thought I also cannot be sure that any other humans experience pain the same way I do and may infer that you are all automata - but that would be silly and absurd of me).
But we can support the analogy by observing similar inflammation and the release of the same stress-related hormones as humans experiencing pain (the ones related to the mental/emotional effect of pain, no the initial shock i.e. nociception).
>>2016579
Journalists' lie actually. Francis never said that.
>>2017970
Damn right. Nothing would be heaven to me if my departed buddy weren't there to greet me.
>>2021379
>Fallacy fallacy.
your fallacy can actually be found in dictionaries and encyclopedias.
>This is well documented in modern studies.
it's well documented in old studies too.
we call that behavior nociception.
it isn't pain.
>>2021559
The problem with many "logical fallacies" are that they aren't necessarily fallacies at all. Perhaps in the context of formal logic, but not in other contexts.
For example, if we made sure to NEVER use the so called "slippery slope fallacy", we'd have to renounce all belief in causality, since the notion of cause and effect requires one to believe that one thing can lead to another.
In politics, "logical fallacies" are mainly invoked by status quo apologists in order to quickly and easily silence their opponents. "Fallacy fallacy" is definitly a proper term.
>>2021562
you haven't studied logic so you mistakenly assume a fallacy implies that the argument is untrue.
this isn't the case. Identifying a fallacy says nothing about the truth of the argument, it only says the argument isn't valid.
the reason the anthropomorphic argument as presented by anon isn't valid is because it's not true in all cases.
it is possible that, e.g., dogs are similar enough to humans that they experience pain like humans do. However for every single example where the argument MIGHT hold true there are thousands of examples where it does not.
so there is a question, "HOW SIMILAR?"
there's also the problem that similarity in physiology doesn't indicate similar use.
these problems are presumably well above the understanding of the plebs on /an/, such as yourself.
but that's why bugguy trolled you guys so successfully with it. You're too stupid to grasp the problem but he offered ample evidence it exists.
>>2021568
>you haven't studied logic so you mistakenly assume a fallacy implies that the argument is untrue.
Hence:
>Perhaps in the context of formal logic, but not in other contexts.
Logic is a fun language game, but when it's applied to actual political/ethical debates, it turns outright totalitarian.
>>2021577
>when it's applied to actual political/ethical debates, it turns outright totalitarian.
yes, that's another mistake on your part.
you're arguing ethics while I'm explaining science. Science is based entirely in logic. It doesn't actually give a fuck about your ethics.
thus the actual rage at "nociception." it implies that your ethics are flawed, and we can't have that, can we?
the problem being that neither reality nor logic is going to budge solely because it makes you angry.
>>2021579
>thus the actual rage at "nociception." it implies that your ethics are flawed, and we can't have that, can we?
But Anon, why would nociception cause any controversy by itself? Nociceptors don't refute the notion of "pain". Rather, they are a prerequisite for being able to feel any pain at all.
>>2021577
you have stumbled on the secret to immunity to nociception trolls though.
a person that understands that ethics isn't couched in logic or based in our understanding of nature will quickly realize it doesn't matter if animals feel pain, that has nothing to do with why we don't allow animal abuse.
the idea that ethical positions are logical and derived from nature is just an extension of the religious view that's held sway for the last few thousand years.
it's easy enough to reject. Just admitting as you have that logic has no place in ethics, and then science can't affect your ethical construct. Ethics are arbitrary and determined by the majority. Science and nature have nothing to do with that. It simply doesn't matter if dogs feel pain or only experience nociception, you can't abuse them either way.
>>2021585
>why would nociception cause any controversy by itself?
if pain and nociception were the same thing then we'd have just one word for it (as most anons here do).
the fact that a second word is needed indicates that they aren't the same thing. A quick look at the definitions shows the difference between the things.
the underlying assumptions (not all animals feel pain, pain is an emotion, feeling pain requires consciousness) are deeply offensive to people that anthropomorphize their pets.
which is of course most of /an/.
honestly the concept and the word aren't offensive to much of anyone else. Most people wouldn't be at all shocked if you told them their cat doesn't have feelings.
>>2021589
>if pain and nociception were the same thing then we'd have just one word for it (as most anons here do).
Nociception is part of pain, though. If we humans didn't have nociceptors, and didn't experience nociception, we could never experience any "pain" either. Just because words mean different things it doesn't make them antonyms.
>>2021595
>Nociception is part of pain,
yes.
pain is not a part of nociception though.
>it doesn't make them antonyms.
I didn't say they are.
your mind immediately leapt to the false dichotomy.
this sort of thinking is why /an/ is so easy to troll. You ladies honestly aren't very bright.
>>2021597
>I didn't say they are.
You heavily implied it:
>thus the actual rage at "nociception." it implies that your ethics are flawed, and we can't have that, can we?
>>2021598
>You heavily implied it
no, you just failed to comprehend is all.
we don't have to have pain without nociception for the existence of nociception without pain to piss people off.
a thing does not imply its opposite, even if you could figure out what its opposite is.
subtlety of thought is probably beyond you though. If you were capable of nuance we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I gotta run.
>>2016412
I am pretty sure humans and many other animals show reactions which indicate the neurological mechanism of feelings, but dont actually experience them.
however, I , as a member of the ṛ̵͎͙̲͙̭̎͛̃̔ͮ͐̓ͥ͞ṭ̴̞̮̟̱͎͎̓̈́̆͑̊͑̚͢r̤̥͉͈͈ͦͤ͗͐̆z̲̤͕͉̜͆̍͌̕-ians from ṛ̵͎͙̲͙̭̎͛̃̔ͮ͐̓ͥ͞ṭ̴̞̮̟̱͎͎̓̈́̆͑̊͑̚͢r̤̥͉͈͈ͦͤ͗͐̆z̲̤͕͉̜͆̍͌̕ can confirm that our species does show signs of an actual consciousness , unlike you stupid animals.
>>2022082
This
>>2017970
But sure you've had alot of dogs, they all can't be there
>>2022091
Well, if they aren't all there, it's not Heaven.
>>2021492
Animals don't have souls. They are completely beings of base matter that live, then cease to exist. Only humans have souls that go 'somewhere' after death.
Alright /an/ I can't seem to find the answer on a standard internet search. Does anyone know an estimate for how many calories a typical rawhide chew contains? I have two Brittanys and I'm worried about whether chews add too much to their daily caloric intake.
here's a pretty good video that's relevant. The guy seems really cool too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9KeyKVuLHU
>>2016412
hmm, well, every mammal has feelings
>>2022948
there are plenty of humans without feelings (flat affect).
so being a mammal doesn't mean you automatically have feelings. Once you start in reading about why some people have feelings and others don't, you'll quickly see why most mammals don't have them.
>>2022211
Exactly correct. If you remove the last sentence.
>>2022211
how do u know they dont have souls u moronic simpleton
do you not see animals showing love and care ofr their babies and human owners, do u not see the anxiety and fear and sadness and all the other feelings they clearly show in certain situations... all u morons in this thread trying to sound intellectual when you're really dead on the inside no heart , you're the ones without feelings
>>2022958
exactly corect, how do you know that for certain? please use the brain you have in your head
>>2021343
most animals cannot feel pain?...do you know how retarded that sounds?, becuase a sicentist said so.. you regurgitate that obviously incorrect garbage here?...are you seriously braindead....use your brain
>>2022976
the usual argument against the idea that your mind is your soul is mind altering drugs.
drugs only affect the body, so if your soul is distinct from your body it shouldn't be affected by mind altering drugs. Or by brain damage.
since we can use drugs or surgery or injury to completely change who you are, that indicates your soul is really just a property of your body.
you don't have a soul. Nobody does. You have a mind, which is a property of your brain. Most animals don't even have that.
>>2022979
>do you know how retarded that sounds?,
yes, that's exactly why I say it.
it pisses off the less educated, like yourself.
but because you're less educated you can't actually refute the argument and must resort to insults. Which is funny. Your cognitive dissonance amuses me.
>>2022981
again, how do you know that animals dont have it... no sanely intelligent person can make such bold statements. the truth is you DONT know for sure.. so dont make statements that pose as facts
>>2022983
thats what's really funny, you think your intelligent wit your intellectual bullshit, but the reality is you are not... education does not equal intelligence. yea I dont mind insulting pompous pricks like you who sprout bullshit which is clearly moronic to anyone with a brain
>>2022985
russel's teapot.
just because you can come up with a silly idea that can't be proven false doesn't mean it's true.
there is no evidence for souls, so logically they don't exist.
>>2022987
>I dont mind insulting pompous pricks like you who sprout bullshit
and I thank you for it.
my life would be dull and boring if it weren't for folks like you. I have very little to feel good about, but things could be worse. I could be you.
>>2022983
i wont sink to your level and debate in a maze of words and pseudo intellectual bullshit thats designed to make idiots appear intelligent. people get lost in the maze of bullshit that they miss thw whole point and dont see how amazingly simple something is if oyu just THINK about it and feel...( use your mind AND use your heart).. thats true intelligence
>>2022993
>thats true intelligence
it's funny when people that hate science and knowledge use the internet.
why don't you just stand back and THINK AND FEEL things at me and see how well the message gets through?
Stop getting your feathers ruffled by the memer. Shit, he's using exactly the same rethoric as buggfagg used to(enlightenment platitudes, analytic philosophy castles in the air, le ebin logical fallacy meme, et cetera).
The number of people in the thread actually taking him seriously makes me think we're actually dealing with a samefag, here.
>>2023037
>projecting this hard
>>2023037
>The number of people in the thread actually taking him seriously makes me think we're actually dealing with a samefag, here.
or perhaps I'm right, as can easily be checked with minimal research into the topic.
all scientists agree consciousness or sentience is required to feel pain or any other emotion.
the only thing they disagree on is which animals are sentient and which ones aren't.
>>2023041
they're too busy trying to demonstrate self-awareness in dogs that they forget to do it with other animals.
ofcourse even if they manage to demonstrate it that doesn't mean much as they might just mimic self-aware behaviour and not actually have it due to interacting with a self-aware species like humans for so long.
>>2023043
the current fad is arguing sentience by analogy.
this isn't a scientifically valid method, but it really doesn't matter since animal behavior studies have abandoned all semblance of rigor.
If humanity survives another century we'll see this crap tossed in the garbage along with GMO hate, the fluoride mythology, anti-vaccine crap and all the other silly shit liberal luddites believe. Anti-nukes, anti-pesticides, all that silly bleeding-heart mythology.
>>2023051
>If humanity survives another century we'll see this crap tossed in the garbage
my bet is that we'll end up like this suprisingly good movie.
>>2023054
part of the problem is the people smart enough to see the problems with sociology, ethology, psychology, evo-devo, etc. are also too smart to be interested in working in those fields.
So the thing turns into this echo chamber where wrong ideas are passed back and forth for decades without opposition.
Ultimately technology will kill this problem and destroy these fields of study.
We're probably only a decade or two away from digitally synthesizing a dog's brain so a person can actually experience what a dog does.
At that point ethology won't matter.
Hey, my retriever tore her acl. I don't want her to lose the leg. She's also significantly overweight. 28 pounds to be exact.
she has to both lose weight and be kenneled for 6 to 8 weeks. Is kennelling the best way to go about this?
I just want the best acl recovery for her. She's 4 years old, weighs 88 pounds.
>>2023096
Nothing?
>>2023096
1. this probably isn't the right thread to post in.
2. threads are free, go ahead and start a new one if you like
3. we're just going to tell you to take her to the vet and do what they say.
>>2023096
I don't wanna be that guy but ask your vet.
Also, this isn't dog general.
>>2016412
Do human sociopaths, narcissists, psychopaths and borderlines have any true feelings besides anger, desire and paranoia?
>>2023901
you forgot the autistic, depressed, psychotics, depersonized, and many with brain damage
the answer is no. Many of them don't have any feelings at all.
it's weird that you realize not all humans have feelings, but think all mammals do.
>>2023907
that's kind of weird don't you think.
how can you be depressed if you don't have feelings to begin with.
>>2023912
pretty simple, clinical depression isn't a feeling.
>>2023916
you need a whole lot of subjectivity for it so it might as well be.
>>2023917
subjectivity doesn't necessarily imply feelings.
feelings DO necessarily imply subjectivity.
not everything that requires subjectivity is a feeling.
>>2023918
it often does.
you can't exclude it from those patients with certainty.
>>2023907
I never said that all mammals do, let alone did I imply that in my post.
>>2023920
so you agree that almost no mammals do?
>>2023921
Most mammals don't, but that shouldn't include all mammals. Same reason why some humans don't.
>>2023923
it's always excluded to individuals of species.
but if they're demonstrated to be capable of it as a species, we should be cautious.
>>2023925
they just pretend they do to act tough for all we know.
we're talking about humans, they can put up complex displays, we're not talking about turtles.
if you can't say it with certainty that individuals of a species that's demonstrated to have feelings don't have them, it's still best to treat them as if they do.
>>2023932
>for all we know.
you're saying either you've never been depressed or you've never analyzed your own depression.
I can guess which is true, you don't seem the type for navel-gazing.
>>2023938
we both have the same disorder and don't know what normal people feel during it.
>>2023941
That "disorder" doesn't affect all people the same way.
but if that's the case, you can still read about what you're missing, even if you can't imagine it. A blind person can often lecture quite eloquently on what color means to someone else.
>>2023944
because it's largely a steaming heap of bullshit summed together and we both know that, we're summed together with the mentally retarded.
>A blind person can often lecture quite eloquently on what color means to someone else.
oh please, they're just pretending they understand so people shut up about it.
>>2023947
>w-w-why would they sum us together with them.
because without us they'd be giving free abortions to them.
keep in mind only 3% of us is normal or above average.
they're using us so they can pretend to be 'good parents' and you know it.
>>2023947
>we're summed together with the mentally retarded.
you were mentally retarded. You're still emotionally retarded and probably socially retarded as well.
that doesn't mean you can't be advanced in other respects.
>they're just pretending they understand so people shut up about it.
yes. You don't have to understand what other people feel to learn what they say about it.
>>2023951
I'm fine in all aspects.
> You don't have to understand what other people feel to learn what they say about it.
that's usually what it means.
I feel as if this is harder for you than it is for me.
>>2023954
>I'm fine in all aspects
you constantly display antisocial behaviors.
you're not as fine as you pretend.
>I feel as if this is harder for you than it is for me
that's because you have no particular frame of reference for what my life is like.
and for the sake of civility I try not to compare you to me in an unkind light.
>>2023956
I don't care much for this himalayan salt collector bulletin board.
>that's because you have no particular frame of reference for what my life is like.
oh please, I know you're trying hard to be as average as possible.
why do you think I was gone for 2 weeks?
>>2023958
>you're trying hard to be as average as possible.
hardly.
there's no point in bragging here, nobody believes anything I say anyways. Nor should they.
>why do you think I was gone for 2 weeks?
I didn't really speculate. I figured you were banned, but it's just as likely you were busy or just taking a break.
>>2023972
im busy with building fences and planting new shit in my garden.
>>2023975
I like your arch. I've been wanting to build an ivy-covered gazebo in my yard. I just don't know any ivy that grows at 3500 meters.
>>2023980
any, ivy is invasive as fuck.
I use Parthenocissus, it requires less maintenance, it's a whole lot more compact.
>>2023975
Where do you bury the dead cats?
>>2023988
>you can take cuttings of ivy.
there's none growing outdoors anywhere near my town. Hops grow here though, and they form vines it seems. Just not very thick or bushy.
>>2023992
what's the temperature and humidity there?
>>2023993
average temp is 1 C
humidity average less than 10%
about a foot of precipitation a year.
>>2023996
I have no idea what to grow in that climate.
but if hops grow, ivy should grow as well.
>>2023998
ok, I'll try it. I can start some indoors easily enough. Just needs to be able to tolerate about nine months of winter.
>>2023999
do you live on the north pole?
>>2024001
on top of a mountain.
