My Gf literally just told me earlier that every single animal is capable of having emotions. i won the argument but still do people actually think this. like yeah dogs have emotion but not shit like ants or frogs.
>>2090745
>implying artropods don't have emotions
Bugguy, is that you?
Why wouldn't a frog? I'm sure a frog can at least get angry or annoyed. I don't think it can love something, nor do I think it'd be sad over something but anger seems like a pretty universial thing.
>in b4 bugguy
Emotions are just derived instincts.
Almost every sentient creature can experience fear
Yes, coral and sponges especially are known for their complex emotional range.
by emotions i mean complex ones. like sadness or love
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhlHx5ivGGk
>>2090766
daily reminder that oysters literally create art.
>>2090753
Not the sloth. They don't give a fuck if they live or die.
>>2090766
Dwarf Fortress taught me that the only emotion sponges can feel is RAGE
>>2090784
They do give a fuck, it's just a quiet acceptance of their fate.
>Hello darkness, my old friend.
>>2090767
Both of those things and every other emotion you experience are effectively the release and reception of specific neurotransmitters in response to specific stimuli. They exist as a part of our decision making process.
In regard to what you actually asked -- are all or most animals capable of having emotions -- the answer would be yes; anything that makes or seems to make a decision has a good chance of having nervous system physiology in which certain conditions trigger the release of certain neurotransmitters accordingly, and those neurotransmitters make them "feel" something because that's what they're for and that's what they do.
What you seem to have meant to ask is, "do all or most animals experience the same emotions we do," to which the answer is probably no. The emotions of ants and frogs are probably far different from the emotions of dogs and gorillas, because the physiology of ants and frogs are starkly different. But they're still emotions by any reasonable definition; the alternative would be defining all emotion as the specific reactions humans experience and excluding reactions we don't experience as non-emotion, which is retarded.
As with everything, it's 5% substance and 95% semantic.
Basically you didn't win the argument, you just did a shit job of defining what your actual argument is because you're dumb and your girlfriend appeared to be making concessions as she realized you were misunderstanding the terms.
I don't think all animals can feel emotions that form as a result of a bond with another creature, but many can. I had a rabbit for over ten years, and for the first six of those years I also had a canary who would sing every morning. The canary up and died one day, and my rabbit(who I let freely roam around my house) spent every day for the next week pawing at the stand which the bird cage rested on. After I removed the now-empty cage and its stand from the corner it was in, my rabbit spent every day for the next three months sitting where the cage was.
Pic related, my beloved bun. He died a few months ago and it still hurts.
>>2090745
How can you even argue this, though? No one can tell you what another animal is feeling, if they have feelings, etc.
>>2090856
To a certain degree, neuroscience CAN tell us what kinds if cognition an animal brain is capable of. However, this doesn't prove anything about the cognition they actually have. The cognition itself is an unknown void where we can only speculate, although it's pretty safe to assume that an athropod is far simpler than a mammal.
That being said, it's best to be as nice as possible to all animals you encounter.
>>2090846
sorry for your losses, friendo
your bunny looks like a sweetiepie
>>2090846
That's... quite sad. Do you have a picture of the bird? Or a picture of them together?
>>2090845
Thank you for saying, much better than I would have, what I came into this thread to say.
>>2090750
people become angry when they feel that they are treated unfair.
Since frogs are not social animals, it makes no sense for them to have a concept of fairness and thus no reason to feel angry.
>>2090745
Every organism that relies on collaboration have emotions. Even ants potray aggression.
However if they are conscious of this is a totally different question.
>>2090745
>I won the argument
Dude you wasted a victory
You gotta use them wisely
>>2090745
Crustaceans are able to feel anxiety.And most people wouldn't even say they are able to feel.
I won't say that even sponges are able to experience some kind of emotion, but let researchers experiment and see what are the real limits.
>>2091159
He's not Gay. He could get a bf, however. If he liked Slavs.
>>2090860
Neuroscience can't tell you shit, the methods are far too rudimentary still for the complexity of the brain. Especially with animals as there is no way to assess what they actually feel. Having crude knowledge of elicited chemicals and electrical circuits firing alone really isn't very useful.
t. psychologist
>>2090745
>implying frogs don't feel emotions
>>2090845
Are thoughts and emotions even really different or separate at all?
I'd argue that they're not and therefore agree with you
>>2091297
>t. psychologist
HAH
No, but seriously you come at this problem from the perspective of a human or human-like brain, which is indeed very complex.
In something like C.elegans however this kind of crude knowledge becomes exponentially more useful and "absolute".
>>2091618
he's talking about knowing how the animal feels.
using a simple brain that doesn't feel anything doesn't tell you anything about the complex processes of feeling.
>>2091707
but C. elegans does "feel", at least fear, anxiety and stuff.
Perhaps some more complex emotions require more complex brains, but that doesn't stop simple brains from feeling.
It's also pretty easy to tell what the basic emotional state of an animal is when you're used to working on test animals.
It's not because they can't tell you that you can't assess what a rat is feeling, or can't you roughly tell what someone who doesn't speak English is feeling?
>>2091743
you're working off a definition of "feel" that nobody else is using.
>>2091744
At least one other guy is.
What does it mean to feel feelings? When does an instinct become an emotion?
Those are definitely some tough-ass questions.
>>2091749
>At least one other guy is
most of /an/ is.
selection bias, if you don't anthropomorphize animals you're less likely to find them interesting and post here.
>Those are definitely some tough-ass questions.
they're both the same question and they're amazingly simple to answer.
emotion is just awareness of instinct.
Is a worm aware of its physiological reactions or does it have them without being aware of them?
and ultimately once you've answered that you'll see why imaging a worm's "brain" doesn't tell us anything about feelings.
>>2091752
>emotion is just awareness of instinct
Ok, but let's say a guy is cranky one morning but doesn't really notice it until someone says so. He's not aware that he is easily irritated today, but the people around him certainly notice that he's acting angry or irritated or whatever. Would this then just be an instinct until he realizes he's angry?
>and ultimately once you've answered that you'll see why imaging a worm's "brain" doesn't tell us anything about feelings.
It just becomes amazingly clear how it can. The brain needs to be aware of a state it's in once we characterize this state (worm) we can see how this state is detected in a higher brain and how those signals are processed
>>2091757
>Would this then just be an instinct until he realizes he's angry?
Probably.
>The brain needs to be aware of a state it's in
no.
you aren't aware of much of anything about your brain's state. Most human emotions originate in the belly or the balls.
>>2091763
>Most human emotions originate in the belly or the balls.
Adrenal glands and what exactly?
The definition of emotion as"awareness of instinct" also becomes entirely unusable then. The instinct would derive from whatever glands you're thinking of (even though most don't) and the emotion would then be your conscious mind somehow becoming aware of a signal that has been received unconsciously
>>2091767
>Adrenal glands and what exactly?
stomach, testicles, bladder, ovaries, genitals, pancreas, bowels. Signals from all of your organs affect your emotional state.
>the emotion would then be your conscious mind somehow becoming aware of a signal that has been received unconsciously
exactly correct.
your stomach doesn't know its empty when it sends a signal to the brain that it is. Your nerves that carry the signal don't consciously know what the signal is. Even your brain, which decodes the signal and responds to it, doesn't innately KNOW what it's processing.
the only reason you become aware of the signal is because you have a part of your brain that builds a model of the universe and your body, and that part examines what your body is doing. That is where consciousness is, in the part of the brain that watches the body and everything else.
worms don't have that part of the brain. In fact they don't really have a brain.
>>2090908
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qwU1LQZA5g
>I'M FUCKING PISSED LET ME GO FUCKER REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>2091769
1. Hungry, need to urinate, pepsinogens entering the ileum etc. are not emotions by any means. They can affect your emotional state but are by no means the sole cause for emotion
2. If you can't see how understanding what goes on in the worm and between worm neurons furthers our understanding of what our world building brain part does and how it can do that, you're just unwilling to see it
>>2091779
>They can affect your emotional state but are by no means the sole cause for emotion
there is no "sole cause" of an emergent, systemic property.
>If you can't see how understanding what goes on in the worm and between worm neurons furthers our understanding of what our world building brain part does and how it can do that, you're just unwilling to see it
the exact opposite is actually true.
Neurologists decoded the worm brain based on an understanding of human physiology. It tells us nothing except that our models of human neurology are correct.
it sheds no light on emotion whatsoever, since the worm lacks emotions and the neural connections that produce them.
>>2091783
>there is no "sole cause" of an emergent, systemic property.
Exactly which made your first statement even dumber.
There are aspects of the worm brain we haven't uncovered yet and can more easily study in worms to then try and see if we can carry over that knowledge back to humans.
>>2091796
>Exactly which made your first statement even dumber.
I said the emotion originated in organs other than the brain.
the point of origin isn't the sole cause.
if we want to seek further along that causality, the external stimulus is one cause deeper. But even that stimulus is caused by something else.
>There are aspects of the worm brain we haven't uncovered yet
lol
we've modeled it as a computer program and the model exactly simulates the real thing.
Unless you're talking about worm souls or something, you're clearly incorrect.
>>2090745
>every single animal is capable of having emotions
sponges
>>2091800
>I said the emotion originated in organs other than the brain.
That's not true for every emotion. Some emotions that do (somewhat arguably) originate in other organs exist in organisms that don't have these organs or even produce similar endocrine signals.
We could concievably learn what's going on in the steps between the endocrine system and the consciousness from them
>we've modeled it as a computer program and the model exactly simulates the real thing.
Neural born aging factors. I'm not that familiar with the computer model but there: an example of something that's, as far as I know, completely omitted by the model.
>>2091809
>That's not true for every emotion.
that's why I said "most."
>Neural born aging factors.
do worms have those?
seems unlikely but I don't know.
>>2091811
>do worms have those?
>seems unlikely but I don't know.
yes (in fact some guy I know is researching them)
>>2091817
interesting.
I suppose that'll be the next thing they'll model then.
though again I doubt modeling specific pathologies in a non-sentient nerve bundle is going to tell us anything about conscious emotions any more than designing computer viruses does.
>>2091818
>I doubt modeling specific pathologies in a non-sentient nerve bundle is going to tell us anything about conscious emotions
Directly? No
Indirectly? Maybe, depends on what the findings are. I'll readily admit that C. elegans likely doesn't hold much potential for breakthroughs when it comes to understanding emotion. I just picked it as an example to point out neuroscience can tell you a lot more than some would give it credit for
>>2091821
a fair enough point, but neurologists tend to take an empirical, reductionist approach.
under that paradigm emotions don't actually exist. A social construct perhaps. Or an artifact. Noise in the signal.
>>2091826
I admit to thinking the distinction between instinct and emotion is basically arbitrary. This thread has done very little to convince me otherwise
>>2091829
from a biological standpoint you'd have to ask what the selective advantage of thinking you're conscious would be compared to actually being conscious.
People that go into hard sciences often do so because they're unable to wrap their brains around complexity so they find a corner to sit in and deny it.
So wait a minute, I'm trying to do research to answer this question, but I can't seem to find a definite answer if frogs even have an amygdala or not. Does anyone here know much about the evolution of the amygdala?
>>2091834
wouldn't there also be the instinct unconsciously affecting a person, or does this fall under the person thinking they are conscious of lacking instinctual stimulus?
At any rate, if emotion is being aware of the instinct, would it be fair to say that anything that happens before becoming conscious is still instinct?
We can be certain that the relevant signals are not directly perceived by the conscious mind. So the process of an instinct becoming an emotion is likely to be one of neurons interacting.
So understanding of simpler neural interactions could lead towards understanding this transition.
>>2091842
google "frog amygdala."
the search turns up tons of research on the frog amygdala.
>>2091842
I think it starts showing up in some teleosts but I am pretty damn tired and it's been quite a while since I've read anything on evolution of the brain
>>2090745
>" i won the argument"
This phrase will never fail to make me laugh.
>>2091845
instinct regularly affects people without them being aware of it. In some cases consciousness appears to justify this behavior in retrospect. i.e. we pretend we meant to do something we actually had no control over or even awareness of.
afaik the current view is that consciousness is a side-effect of the useful ability to model reality. Mental constructs of the external world evolve to include the internal world and you've got consciousness.
if that's the case then it's just a normal side effect of intelligence. It probably evolved at the same time as novel tool use.
/an/ isn't going to like that interpretation though, because it means their cows and dogs and horses probably don't experience emotions.
though whether or not those animals feel emotions has nothing to do with how /an/ or anyone else feels about the subject.
>>2091857
Ok, I get what you're saying. That it probably evolved around the same time as novel tool use is a pretty big leap to me but in no way unreasonable.
I'm assuming your definition of emotion is widespread in psychology but it does feel arbitrary to me. My reasoning is that by this definition instinct seems to be much more influential on human behavior and interaction than emotion. Most of what is called emotion in everyday life being instinct that is later rationalized.
The original question actually becomes "What are emotions?" because instinct is definitely present in animals.
I can not offer a working definition of emotion and the one being offered in the thread leads me to believe humans don't have that many emotions either.
As a side note the only real knowledge of psychology I have came from a psych 101 class I took as an elective. It instilled a deep disrespect of the field in me.
>>2091873
>It instilled a deep disrespect of the field in me.
kek
seems like a perfectly rational response to me.
ultimately it only matters in understanding human behavior. Whether or not other animals experience emotions wouldn't seem to change a thing.
