Can Animals Feel Emotions?

Aegeri · November 2003

I apologise for not responding to everyone, I simply have to pick and choose things that seem to overlap. I wasn't really expecting this many replies O_o.

Darkdude

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I mean, come on. Dogs DO mourn for the deaths of other pack members. (I have seen videos of this, a dog whimpering over the body of its dead mate) Why do they do this, it gains nothing for them, yet they still do it, just like human</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well not eactly true. A pack animal will seem to mourn over a dead packmate, but this behaviour probably has instinctive grounds. For example, when a member of the pack has died it is percieved as weakening the pack in general by the other members. The natural biological responce is to hang around a bit and 'guard' the body for a while. Most ideas point to the similar behaviour observed from wounded/sick animals, that are protected by the pack until they get better. This is to ensure they can recover and hence the pack remains strong. Mourning over their dead is a similar extension. If the animals express actual 'emotions' in the form of sadness or similar however is questionable.

This is why elephants are thought to do this too, only they have an even worse time because they invest even more energy into raising children than wolves. It is believed that mourning responces are the animals way of giving as much time as possible to allow for a recovery or similar. These are not directly seen as the animal being 'sad' however, but rather ensuring that its genes have the optimal chance of surviving.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>While I agree that animals don't feel <i>human</i> emotions, saying they don't feel emotions at all is nonsense. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But hold on, I've defined emotions deliberately in the first post AS those felt by humans. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. You can't just redefine the debates premise to suit your arguments!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The proof is there and so far no answer any of you skeptics have put forth has answered the REAL question, why? Why do dogs mourn over their fallen mates, why do elephants make sure predators don't defile they're dead friends,</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Actually, this is fairly obvious. One elephant is a lot of meat, and I mean, AN INCREDIBLE amount of meat. So much meat, that it is meaty goodness ++. By protecting fallen comrades they prevent the predator populations from fully exploiting the dead animal as a food source (a very LARGE food source), and hence prevent predators from either getting a taste for elephant, or from increasing their chances of reproducing. The flow on effects of this sort of behaviour is essentially checking predators from attacking the likes of their young (which are vulnerable to the likes of hyenas and lions).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>, and most of all, why CAN'T animals have emotions, where is your proof? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

It comes down to the definition of what an emotion is, and wether or not that responce is an 'emotion' or based off biological instinct. Animals do what is best for their genes in the wild,

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You've given all this science mumbo-jumbo but you have no real life situations that prove your point. (save the ants, <b>which aren't mammals</b> so why are you putting them into this conversation?) </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But the topic is if

ANIMALS

can feel emotion. You cannot simply redefine the paramaters of a debate to suit whatever you are arguing. By the same token, you have provided no definitive real life situations either that aren't biologically explainable. More importantly, nobody here has yet to provide a SINGLE example of animal emotion that is from wild populations. Animals that are around humans aren't exactly wild, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are capable of responding to you in what can be percieved in a 'human' way simply from being around humans. Now if that is simply a PROGRAMMED responce from being influenced by humans cannot be certain, and is not a legitimate example at all. Hence, wild examples are obviously going to be a lot better, but so far animals feeling true emotions in the wild has been rarely and conclusively observed.

If I wanted to argue about wether mammals can feel emotions, I would of said so in the topic title. However, as Poriferans, Protozoa, Cnidaria, Chordates, Arthropods and many others all make up kingdom animalia, it is ridiculous to restrict your argument to whatever is most convenient to argue for.

From my very first post in the thread:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Depends, according to vegetarians, animal rights activists etc I've ever argued with the only animals that exist are chordates :/ Insects are never considered, cephalopods unimportant and sponges don't exist.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You've done exactly that just now. Again, if I wanted to limit the discussion to Chordates, and importantly just mammals, I would of said so. Finally, in order to define emotions, we have to compare a wide range of animals to one another. For example, you agree with me that ants don't feel emotions, yet they do some things like desperately scrambling to rescue their fellows that 'higher' animals do. This isn't so much different than what wolves would do if one of the pack members was caught in a trap (and maybe died), yet you would label one as both a survival and emotional responce, and the other not?

Seems a bit weird.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Last of all, stop putting humans above all of these other animals</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Requoting from before:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>save the ants, <b>which aren't mammals</b> so why are you putting them into this conversation?) </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

One day Mr Pot and Mr Kettle were having a conversation.

"Don't you find it funny Mr Kettle...." Mr Pot said thinking about fine tea.
"What is that my old chum" Mr Kettle said, hoping Mr Pots pregnant pause would end.
"That your black!" Mr Pot exclaimed.
"Well it isn't as if you can talk" Mr Kettle snapped back.

And then they went back to being silent.

I guess I could wittily retort to stop putting mammals above the most important group of animals on the planet (arthropods) <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> The different with what I'm doing (and what you're MISTAKENLY) doing, is that I'm putting humans up above as the model for emotions. You're simply putting mammals up because you're arguments fall off the cliff without your limited examples from dogs and cats to start basing an argument on (from what I've seen of the 'animals have emotions' side).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>but when you say that love is for enhancing the genes of an animal and is it not an emotion, then you're saying the same for humans; that love isn't an emotion.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But this depends, for example the premise isn't that love is simply an instinctual responce alone, but if animals actually 'feel' love or not. For example, love is an abstract term used by humans to indicate a desire to pair bond with another human. If animals feel 'love' as an emotion then there must be something to indicate this, but there isn't.

For example, in pair breeding birds you see that females can 99% of the time, ALL THROUGHOUT these kinds of birds get a mate. Not all males breed. If we look at the basic reasons for this, we find that birds direct their breeding by a process of sexual selection. Females select males based on certain fitness characteristics that dictate they'll have good genes. Those males without these characteristics do not breed. Arguing that two pair bonded birds love eachother after this event is rather silly, because they usually do not stay with eachother afterwards and only get together again to breed. If the other bird doesn't show up they find a new mate. Hence, I would argue that birds pair bond not out of love (emotional reasons) but instead for the definite reason of increasing their ability to reproduce and hence survive.

Immacolata · November 2003

First! If you define emotions as "human emotions" then yes, the debate cannot even be held since human emotions are defined as being human. So no other beings than human can have them. Why did you make such a definition?

Now to your example:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Where exactly does the human mourning his or her lost child/wife/husband differ from the elephant's mourning? Ours is as instinctively as theirs. You must argue for the case of human emotions as NOT being instinctively for this distinction to have any validity.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually, this is fairly obvious. One elephant is a lot of meat, and I mean, AN INCREDIBLE amount of meat. So much meat, that it is meaty goodness ,+. By protecting fallen comrades they prevent the predator populations from fully exploiting the dead animal as a food source (a very LARGE food source), and hence prevent predators from either getting a taste for elephant, or from increasing their chances of reproducing. The flow on effects of this sort of behaviour is essentially checking predators from attacking the likes of their young (which are vulnerable to the likes of hyenas and lions).</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're way out in the utilitarian hemp fields here. It is pure speculation that any animal would have such a behaviour, or rather, is it rational? By wasting days doing this, the elephant risks itself to become ill and fatigued, thus ending up as another potential pile of hyena energy. It also neglects it's herd, which could have a much larger impact on the future of elephants than guarding a few tons of decomposing meat. It sounds as if the elephant is playing some sort of "Camp the medikit" Quake. Too abstract, can't use that argument. The argument, that the elpehant has emotional bonds attached to the dead elephant, is much more easy to swallow than this strange idea you just came up with.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It comes down to the definition of what an emotion is, and wether or not that responce is an 'emotion' or based off biological instinct. Animals do what is best for their genes in the wild,
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
And humans don't?
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You cannot simply redefine the paramaters of a debate to suit whatever you are arguing. By the same token, you have provided no definitive real life situations either that aren't biologically explainable. More importantly, nobody here has yet to provide a SINGLE example of animal emotion that is from wild populations. Animals that are around humans aren't exactly wild, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are capable of responding to you in what can be percieved in a 'human' way simply from being around humans. Now if that is simply a PROGRAMMED responce from being influenced by humans cannot be certain, and is not a legitimate example at all. Hence, wild examples are obviously going to be a lot better, but so far animals feeling true emotions in the wild has been rarely and conclusively observed.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Anything is biologically explainable. Everything you do, say, think is biologically explainable. Why are wild examples better than domesticated animals? It clearly shows that humans and other animals are capable of communicating on a very basic level, the field of emotion. This is the thing we have in common more than any thing else. The big question is rather, do animals know they have emotions? We cannot tell! But they have them. That is why my dog becomes angry when someone tries to steal his food. Or he thinks someome tries to. That is emotion, emotion guarding self perservation. That is present in humans too, what is your reaction if you find out that your neighbour is stealing from you? The reason you cannot observer "true emotions" in animals in the wild is not true, the elephant example is a clear indication.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But this depends, for example the premise isn't that love is simply an instinctual responce alone, but if animals actually 'feel' love or not. For example, love is an abstract term used by humans to indicate a desire to pair bond with another human. If animals feel 'love' as an emotion then there must be something to indicate this, but there isn't. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
How can you claim that there is nothing indicating this? On what basis? Just becuse you do not understand what is going on around you does not mean it isn't happening.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>For example, in pair breeding birds you see that females can 99% of the time, ALL THROUGHOUT these kinds of birds get a mate. Not all males breed. If we look at the basic reasons for this, we find that birds direct their breeding by a process of sexual selection. Females select males based on certain fitness characteristics that dictate they'll have good genes. Those males without these characteristics do not breed. Arguing that two pair bonded birds love eachother after this event is rather silly, because they usually do not stay with eachother afterwards and only get together again to breed. If the other bird doesn't show up they find a new mate. Hence, I would argue that birds pair bond not out of love (emotional reasons) but instead for the definite reason of increasing their ability to reproduce and hence </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You seem to misunderstand what emotion is about. Emotion is impulses we receive in our brains to act upon, created by our cognitive apparatus. There is no big difference in a man falling in love with a woman and a bird selecting it's partner. And many animals stay together for life when they have first mated.

Aegeri · November 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>First! If you define emotions as "human emotions" then yes, the debate cannot even be held since human emotions are defined as being human. So no other beings than human can have them. Why did you make such a definition?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hmmm I seem to have worded that poorly. I possibly should of stated it as 'human-like' emotions, or responces that are generally done for no particular survival trait.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Where exactly does the human mourning his or her lost child/wife/husband differ from the elephant's mourning? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Until we had a lot of cultural evolution it didn't by much. Burying the dead was first done by humans not so much as any closure kind of thing, but to reduce the chances of the corpse attracting predators.

And it is extremely different, if you go to a funeral are you guarding the body from predators? So there is then an inherent difference.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ours is as instinctively as theirs. You must argue for the case of human emotions as NOT being instinctively for this distinction to have any validity. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Are adding flowers, putting toys, religious symbols and making a casqet natural instinctive behaviours? No these are not and I doubt it would be easy for anyone to argue these ARE. Burying the dead in an elaborate ceremony is a clear example of abstract thought by humans. It can however like many responces trace its routes right back to the cavemen who simply buried their dead to prevent attracting predators like wild dogs into their homes. Was there an emotional attachment back then when they buried their dead? Maybe, or maybe not.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're way out in the utilitarian hemp fields here. It is pure speculation that any animal would have such a behaviour, or rather, is it rational? By wasting days doing this, the elephant risks itself to become ill and fatigued, thus ending up as another potential pile of hyena energy.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No it doesn't, because the herd is usually around to protect it. In addition to this they often stay around a certain area of the corpse, but they do not stay permanently. Inevitably the elephants have to move on for other regions. However, it is an instinctive responce to naturally stand around even fallen members of the herd, this is not just unique to elephants incidently. This is seen in musk oxen and even occasionally in deer.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It also neglects it's herd, which could have a much larger impact on the future of elephants than guarding a few tons of decomposing meat.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This isn't correct, the herd supports IT at the same time as well. I don't believe I ever stated they did not.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It sounds as if the elephant is playing some sort of "Camp the medikit" Quake. Too abstract, can't use that argument. The argument, that the elpehant has emotional bonds attached to the dead elephant, is much more easy to swallow than this strange idea you just came up with</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Considering however that you got the basic biology wrong on your initial assumptions, I wouldn't be talking about swallowing anything <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> Attaching a human emotion onto an animal (as you are) isn't really that indicative because the biological responce appears programmed [Instinctive] and not spontaneous (as would be observed in humans for example). Again, this does have a basis in herd biology. Again, herd/pack animals that work together very often support eachother by guarding sick, young or wounded individuals. Funeral, or mourning behaviour is likely to be an extension of the above responces until they realise the animal is dead, and not an emotional responce.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And humans don't? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Are you breeding right now? Do humans not deliberately avoid having children? Do we not neuter ourselves, choose to abstain from 'sane' biological activities and the like? Comparing the abstract thought of humans who have too much ttime on their hands (as we are demonstrating right now) to an animal, which is thinking "where's dinner" is a bit different.

This is where the argument stems from, we've developed complex responces that aren't biologically very easy to explain. Although many things like rape and infanticide can be bought back to biology, the reasons behind them from a human perspective are very different from what you'd predict from an 'animal' for example.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Anything is biologically explainable.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Being a biologist I would love to think so, sadly this isn't actually true. We still have no idea how a lot of human psychology works, or for example how exactly the two sides of our brains merge to form a distinct personality.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Everything you do, say, think is biologically explainable. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

If this was the case we'd have cures (not just controlling drugs) for things like multiple personality disorder and the like. The biological causes of many things to do with the brain and then how these affect how someone reacts are unknown.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why are wild examples better than domesticated animals? It clearly shows that humans and other animals are capable of communicating on a very basic level, the field of emotion. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hold on, how is this on an emotive level? There is clearly the usual pack instincts still being present, the difference comes in the training the animal recieves. Are you saying that a dog being trained not to pee in the corner (by being whacked by a newspaper for example), is communicating at an *emotional* level? Rubbish. The dog is responding to the idea that if it pees here, it is going to recieve stimuli in the form of pain, which it will hence want to avoid. If you however, were to award the animal with food then you are affirming that this is a correct behaviour and the dog will do it again to try and get more food.

How that is in any way on an 'emotional' level is clearly incorrect. For another example, a cat does not react to your 'emotions' in the way that a human would expect. A person who likes cats will look at the cat, usually smile or say something (exposing teeth) and not narrow their eyes. The cat interprets this as disapproval of it. On the other hand someone who dislikes cats will narrow their eyes, which the cat sees as approving and hence jumps on them.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is the thing we have in common more than any thing else. The big question is rather, do animals know they have emotions? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But you haven't established if animals are responding via emotions or if these are simply hardwired instinctive responces (or training). You see, for something to have emotions it must be self aware by definition.

Again, an animal trained to go to its owner isn't responding with affection (or similar) it is responding to how it was trained. This has been observed with how animals 'communicate' with us. Dancing around, yapping or whatever are responces designed to attract attention and perhaps encourage play with their human pack member. A dog however that approaches its master with its head down and tail between its legs isn't sad or guilty. It is instead attempting to present itself as the least threatening target possible to avoid attack by the pack leader (the human).

This last point is clearly demonstrated between the average family dog and Hitlers dogs. The average family dog will do as I describe to other 'pack' members and depends on how the dog is trained to strangers (and breed). In one video tape of Hitler calling his dogs however it is immediately evident they have been beaten (regularly) or are afraid of his call. The two animals approach with their heads bowed and low to the ground, indicating a submissive pose.

These behaviours simply convey the animals method of communicating with you, but not any inherent true emotions.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> That is why my dog becomes angry when someone tries to steal his food.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But this is the problem (and why the entire field of animal behaviour was for years dismissed as waffle). The dog is *not* angry in the least, it is giving an agressive responce to assert that this is *my* piece of food. Wolves do this in the wild all the time, the difference is that these responces dictate which animals feed first and get the best portions. This is an INSTINCTUAL responce, and is NOT an emotional responce (anger).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That is emotion, emotion guarding self perservation.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well, no it actually isn't unless we're going to move to ants. Ants are interesting creatures that often herd aphids (for good reason). Upon seeing an attack on the aphids the ants will agressively attack the offending insect. Now the question for you is do you think this is ants being 'angry' or responding to stimuli appropriately to protect their aphids. If you do no think this is being 'angry' then you've defeated your own argument because there is little inherent biological difference between the two responces. They server the same purpose in slightly different ways.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That is present in humans too, what is your reaction if you find out that your neighbour is stealing from you?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I never said it was particularly different, but then if someone just simply calls you names. The feelings and similar that occur are definitely not really much to do with defending territory or genes now are they?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The reason you cannot observer "true emotions" in animals in the wild is not true, the elephant example is a clear indication.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But its not, and you've consistently failed to prove that this isn't an instinctive responce by other herd members. There IS strong evidence for this being this kind of responce because herd animals act in ways to attempt to protect/shield wounded members.

Remember also that you're not only making a mistake in ascribing emotive reasons to it, but the intelligence to realise that the animal is totally dead. Remember that a chimpanzee isn't overly daft animal wise, yet a mother chimp carried its dead child for more than 2 weeks until eventually figuring out it was dead.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is no big difference in a man falling in love with a woman and a bird selecting it's partner. And <b>many</b> animals stay together for life when they have first mated. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Really? Start naming them <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> Go ahead, name animals that stay together FOR life and do not simply breed at the same location with the same partner.

And there is a massive difference between the two. Again, read my above post AGAIN.

Immacolata · November 2003

This post is getting WAY WAY too long for me to handle. So instead I will show you the theory I operate from

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hmmm I seem to have worded that poorly. I possibly should of stated it as 'human-like' emotions, or responces that are generally done for no particular survival trait.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Aha, but the theory is, that we operate with one universal ethic: to procreate. That is the meaning of life, that is the one thing all living species share. Let us discuss mammals for sake of easyness first. We share almost all biological traits with other mammals. Some physiological differences are present, but it seems that our genetic template is in large parts the same.

Now, anything you do, think, talk takes a vector from this universal goal. Through evolution man has been developing a very large brain. I have read some scientist believe we developed an acute visual memory because of hunting and gathering. They also believe that our infants helplessness is due to our brains being very moldable. We can almost nothing when born, but spend, lets say 5 years, of our lives to develop a lot of skills and grow physically. Our very powerful cognitive system is combined with a - for lack of better words - great intellect. We can discern patterns and interpret them based on memory of prior experiences. We can even mentally triangulate to predict events based on clues, before the actual event occurs. Our great brains allow us to develop abstract thought as well.

Now, our emotions are "hard coded", but our abstract thinking is something we learn by practice. You do not have to learn to feel fear, happiness, extasy, sorrow and distress in various forms. These emotions are there from birth, and we share this with other mammals. Our powerful brains allow us to contemplate these emotions, and to some extent focus or deflect them into other areas. WE are taught these skills through our societies, first by observing and mimicing our parents etc. Later we develop our own varations based on the input we have been given and the experiences we have contemplated upon.

Animals do this. A kitten that has not been taught how to hunt by it's mother will have it's basic hunting instinct, but be rather poor at hunting anything untill it has gotten sufficient practice doing it. Kittens play with each other to hone their skills. this trait of play is one that all mammals seem to share. I am not sure if it exists with fish or birds, it has not been observed with insects.

There is some circumstantial evidence and some hard evidence that all mammals have a "software" part of their brain that can be programmed. It's quite easy with dogs, but even the most seemingly dumb rodent has a capacity for learning in a small scale what we can. Humans have the largest capacity for this. Partos can learn to count and communicate, I saw this on a program. the scientist had learned her parrot a 200 word vocabulary. But our most basic emotions largely coincide, which is why you can attach yourself to a dog emotionally. It isn't that different from a human, except that you will never really ascend beyond the basic stage of mutual emotional communication.

When a dog feels sorrow for a lost member of it's social unit, it is the same basic stress that you would feel if you lost a loved one. You might THINK a lot in addition to the feeling of loss- but you cannot deny or debate that feeling, merely subdue it with your rationale and powerful mental powers. the emotion is hard coded into your being.

The reason a human being mates up with another for life might very well be a product of society, which is the great sum of human beings living together and mimicing each other, learning each other. The same patterns have been spotted in elephants. Not all flocks act the same, but largely they act like you expect elephants to do. (This I saw in some long forgotten Discovery docu I think). There are arguments pro et contra for this relationship. Ì know rabbits form couples for life. You would probably disregard this, but it is eerily similar to what humans do.

The big difference is that we are able to control the reactions that our emotions provoke. Our programmable brains can, as we have seen on computers, be programmed "badly". That is the disadvantage of not having a lot of stuff hardwired into your being. So my basic assumption is:

Emotions are basic, and similiar for mammals at least. The only emotion I can of that we have to ourselves is the urge to create something. But I am not sure this is an emotion as much as it is a rational projection of our basic procreational ethic into other fields, our intellect allow us to focus and shape. When a man decides to climb mount everest, you will be able to trace this desire back to The Meaning of Life - to procreate.

Now, you might ask yourself, how in heck's name can a death wish project like climbin Mt Everest connect with procreation? It seems to be the very antithesis of it. YEs, but this is where our dastardly brain comes into play. This person, I suspect, has been brought up under circumstances where he has been able to ignore doing what the "basic" emotions told him to do, and instead hung them up on other things. Like the desire to accomplish something - this could very well be from the instinct of hunting and gathtering. Gathering is instead made into a thrill ride up a mountain, which can yield great benefits in his society and land him in good fortune with the ladies. Or with great respect from his peers so that he migth command a better position in his social unit. This answers your question I hope: why humans can do something completely unrelated to survival. Well, we always do. When someone commits suicide, it is because their brains have been ill programmed, they have contracted a "pessimism" virus. Because any one should know that as long as you are alive, there is a chance to procreate.

I'll round this longe ramble off with a proven fact: Isolate a human being and it will go insane. Isolate a mammal and it will go insane. We are social animals, all of us, and emotions are the glue that society is made up of. A man that kills his wife, his childrend and then himself simply suffers from a misconception of the meaning of life. If he would be given proper counselling, and provided the man isn't pathologically insane, I am sure he would be "deprogrammed" to accept a new outlook on life and not retaliate against a world he believes he has lost. When you read about these sad incidents in the news, it turns out that they never appear from nowhere. They have been socially ostracized, they have in effect been isolated and therefore lost their marbles. Therefore, at least mammals have feelings that are compatible. Including humans. We just have a knack of using our minds to twist them somewhat <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> the brain is a dangerous ally like fire. Treat it well and it will serve you, ignore it and be nilly willy about it and it will burn your house down. Literraly as well as metaphorically.

DarkDude · November 2003

Well, if you define "emotions" as human emotions then no, no animal has human emotions, or at least EXACTLY human emotions. The title of this thread reads: "Can Animals Have Emotions?". I said yes, how is that changing anything? It seems like you are the one changing the premises here...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually, this is fairly obvious. One elephant is a lot of meat, and I mean, AN INCREDIBLE amount of meat. So much meat, that it is meaty goodness ++. By protecting fallen comrades they prevent the predator populations from fully exploiting the dead animal as a food source (a very LARGE food source), and hence prevent predators from either getting a taste for elephant, or from increasing their chances of reproducing. The flow on effects of this sort of behaviour is essentially checking predators from attacking the likes of their young (which are vulnerable to the likes of hyenas and lions).</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Now I'm sprry but this is a load on nonsense. If the elephants really wanted to save their own skins they would've let the lions have the body, giving them meat and possible saving some deaths in the herd. Lions already know that elephants are possible meat, it's instinct. Just because they don't taste the meat doesn't mean that they wont eat it.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>More importantly, nobody here has yet to provide a SINGLE example of animal emotion that is from wild populations.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

That's because it's almost impossible (and very expensive) to watch animals in the wild over a long period without having contact with them. I also consider wolves in the same group as dogs and like I said, dogs (dingos, wolves, other wild dogs) have been seen to mourn over dead pack mates in the wild. More importantly then that YOU have provided no examples for YOUR conclusion. You give us <i>unproven</i> science and expect us to believe crazy theories. (you know, the elephant thing)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You cannot simply redefine the paramaters of a debate to suit whatever you are arguing.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well then, I believe that higher level mammals have human-like emotions. Good enough for you? That's my opinion and I was arguing with zooby about mammals, not ants or birds because I believe they don't have human-like emotions just like how you seem to believe that no animals have human-like emotions.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If I wanted to argue about wether mammals can feel emotions.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Then you should've put in "Human-Like Emotions" also because you title mislead me into thinking this was about emotions in general. Also, you can't put every single animal that ever lived into one group, that's ludicrous! It's like taking everybody in the world and asking "Have they eaten a cheeseburger?". Some have and some haven't, the same goes for animals in my opinion, some have emotions, other don't.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You're simply putting mammals up because you're arguments fall off the cliff without your limited examples from dogs and cats to start basing an argument on (from what I've seen of the 'animals have emotions' side).</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I believe I've retorted everything from this quote in my paragraph above. You can't label every animal in the world as "Emotion Feeling" or "Non-Emotion Feeling". And our agruments "fall off the cliff"? It seems like the "animals don't have emotions" side has arguments falling off of the cliffs. (the bird-ball thing, elephants again)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If animals feel 'love' as an emotion then there must be something to indicate this, but there isn't.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well I feel we have provided alot of indications that animals are at least feeling SOME kind of emotion at some point in their lives. What have you provided besides your "logic" and "science"? No examples really, at least none that can either stand on their own or have more logic in them than ours. Why can't animals feel emotions, we ARE animals and we can feel them, so why wouldn't some of our closest relatives, mammals, be able to?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Females select males based on certain fitness characteristics that dictate they'll have good genes. Those males without these characteristics do not breed. Arguing that two pair bonded birds love eachother after this event is rather silly, because they usually do not stay with eachother afterwards and only get together again to breed. If the other bird doesn't show up they find a new mate. Hence, I would argue that birds pair bond not out of love (emotional reasons) but instead for the definite reason of increasing their ability to reproduce and hence survive.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't think all birds feel love. You are once again putting a big thing into a little boat. Some birds DO stay together F.Y.I. I don't know whether that is love but you can't say that no birds stay together because that is fiction.

After looking through your entire post and sorting through some messy tags (forum seems to be having a hiccup right now, tried to quote your post and ended getting every post on this page, bleck) I still have this one thing to say: Stop putting humans above animals (and more exactly, mammals) because we are strictly animal also.

DarkDude · November 2003

All those mistakes in my post and I can't fix them! Anybody know what's wrong with edit and quote?

Aegeri · November 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This post is getting WAY WAY too long for me to handle. So instead I will show you the theory I operate from </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Just wait until I've been to the library, then you'll see a 'long' post <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>seems that our genetic template is in large parts the same.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You're probably more similar to a banana actually <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> Everything at higher plant/animal levels really isn't that different in the end.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They also believe that our infants helplessness is due to our brains being very moldable.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Not exactly (but also correct at the same time, if this makes sense). Our infants are really vulnerable unlike other animals because they are born at an earlier stage of development than normal for other mammals (say a dolphin, elephant, deer whatever). The reason is about the head. You see, having a large brain needs a large skull. If you're going to push that skull through a narrow opening, you need to do it at a time when it's still soft and small enough to get through. There was undoubtably a lot of selection as to the biggest head size you could get out, compared to the size of the hole you had available. What we have today in modern babies and women, is the end result of that process.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>These emotions are there from birth, and we share this with other mammals.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Technically yes and no, from what you've said for example you are defining an 'emotion' simply as a series of biochemical and physiological reactions. The thing with this is that it doesn't really add in to what an emotion means for a human and what an equivalent reaction will mean to an animal. For example, we've covered the dog being angry or protective when someone tries to take its food. This isn't an emotive, but rather an instinctive responce that is what they would normally do in a pack to assert their position at a carcass. It is NOT displaying 'anger' however, because the animal really isn't angry to begin with by definition.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am not sure if it exists with fish or birds, it has not been observed with insects. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This is probably true (I can't think of bird examples myself).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But our most basic emotions largely coincide, which is why you can attach yourself to a dog emotionally. It isn't that different from a human, except that you will never really ascend beyond the basic stage of mutual emotional communication.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But this is the thing, the dog isn't responding to you emotionally, it is merely responding to you in a natural INSTINCTIVE fashion that it has. Without these responces the animal would not be effective in the wild and could not survive in a pack. What we percieve to be human like responces, are in fact the animals more instinctive natural responces that it has evolved.

Again, we go back to your own example with the plate of food. There isn't any 'emotion' being expressed and instead the instinctual reaction of the animal is to not allow you to take it's place at the 'carcass'. This is no different a responce than in the wild for all intents and purposes. We are intelligent enough to interpret the dogs reaction appropriately too.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When a dog feels sorrow for a lost member of it's social unit, it is the same basic stress that you would feel if you lost a loved one.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But this is disagreeable because of two main reasons:

A: The first is that you can't actually prove that because an animal, afterall, cannot directly communicate exactly what it is feeling.

B: The second thing is that you can't establish that this is not simply an instinctive responce. Their 'emotions' again are just mechanisms that help them to survive conditions that with the loss of their packmate is about to get harder. Debating if dogs love eachother is foolhardy at best. The animals in the top positions that lose a battle for dominance are driven out seemingly with no worry by the rest of the pack. If your premise is correct then previous animals should surely be upset by this, but appear unworried and after the new leader fully asserts dominance there is nothing further.

Yet with such a responce in mind, you are trying to claim that when one dies suddenly they have the opposite effect and go into some longing mourning? No, I highly doubt that.

Take another example from a species of baboon in India (I think). If the current dominant male is defeated the usurper will slaughter the current crop of children. The females will then quickly breed with the new dominant male without much of a worry. If these animals were able to feel emotion, would the females not feel some sort of grief or regret, perhaps even hatred towards the new male usurper? From all indications it seems to indicate they do not. This is the crux of my argument largely as to the fact that animals are more instinctive, and do not *really* follow self expressed emotions on the level that humans do.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The reason a human being mates up with another for life might very well be a product of society, </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But this is probably a *modern* thing. I would like to bet that early humans probably seperated at the age of 5 or so, when the child was suitably old enough to fend for themselves without over much trouble. The odd thing is I even think this is roughly equivalent to match current divorce statistics too. Parents tend to split up around the time the child hits 5 or 6.

You see, before I go further on this line it is important to realise EXACTLY what pair bonding is meant to do.

From a female perspective it is to lessen the burden and energy expenditure from child rearing. It shouldn't come as any surprise to learn that it's massively demanding metabolically. Having a male around also helps to protect your investment because four hands are better than 2.

Males actually get *punished* for pair bonding however, but they also do gain from it. You see, the thing with being male is that you never 100% know if your offspring is actually yours (particularly if you shag a lot). Pair bonding sort of removes this problem from the equation.

Now to carry on:

Elephants, rabbits and other animals do not exhibit pair bonding at all. Elephants are herd animals, with a bull and usually a few females. Younger males challenge the older males for the right to breed with the females. So they are irrelevant to this. Rabbits maintain territories with a few females, or will share the same warren. However, male rabbits are more like mormons and will bugger any female rabbit given the chance=but so will any male really (especially in some humans!). They just breed as much and as fast as possible, they die pretty fast to predation, us shooting them, starvation or many other causes, but I doubt rabbits are intelligent enough to really worry or mourn over other rabbits. They probably have other better things to do like eat grass or run away.

Saying rabbits are similar to humans however is silly, because they really aren't. They are basically high throughput breeders, and have many children for the deliberate reason that tons are going to be lost. This doesn't really seem very similar to the modern human, except in developing nations/history. It is true that humans compensated for massive mortality rates by having tons of children ASAP. The difference comes in where rabbits aren't concerned about losing a few babies, you can already guess how humans do react to losing children (being one yourself <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Isolate a human being and it will go insane.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well, not exactly true but for the most part humans are instinctively compelled to remain together.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Isolate a mammal and it will go insane.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This is only true for some mammals. Some whales do it alone quite happily, an ard wolf like the quiet life and quite a few other mammals remain solitary (one of which are in fact certain wolves). So this isn't really that much of a general rule.

Darkdude:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, if you define "emotions" as human emotions then no, no animal has human emotions, or at least EXACTLY human emotions. The title of this thread reads: "Can Animals Have Emotions?". I said yes, how is that changing anything? It seems like you are the one changing the premises here...</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well considering I made the thread, I think I know my own premises <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now I'm sprry but this is a load on nonsense. If the elephants really wanted to save their own skins they would've let the lions have the body, giving them meat and possible saving some deaths in the herd. Lions already know that elephants are possible meat, it's instinct. Just because they don't taste the meat doesn't mean that they wont eat it.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Lions rarely attack people however, the wolves of Europe are afraid to attack people today and the reason for that is being attacked themselves for attacking humans. Defending a corpse is not a new thing, and even certain species of insects will even defend their dead young (and valiantly too it might add for this particular little beetle).

Again, going back to a later point, you ignore insect examples because you cannot easily argue that they respond in anything other than instinct (being nowhere near us), yet claim the SAME responces in mammals are emotions?

That is a VERY weird attitude.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That's because it's almost impossible (and very expensive) to watch animals in the wild over a long period without having contact with them.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But it actually has been done before, otherwise the field wouldn't exist <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I also consider wolves in the same group as dogs and like I said, dogs (dingos, wolves, other wild dogs) have been seen to mourn over dead pack mates in the wild.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't think it has been observed in Hyenas, Dingos and some other species. I believe it only occurs a lot in closer knit units like that of the true wolf.

Incidently, I never said they weren't, but they aren't all so lovely and directly linked with a straight line from dog to wolf!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>More importantly then that YOU have provided no examples for YOUR conclusion. You give us unproven science and expect us to believe crazy theories. (you know, the elephant thing)</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But I have, or are we again going to modify the definition of animal to not include ants or similar? Then it is YOU who aren't arguing with the debate (once again) and I have provided many more examples than just dogs and elephants.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well then, I believe that higher level mammals have human-like emotions. Good enough for you? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This isn't the point, you argue that behaviours such as a dog 'mourning' or 'guarding' are emotively linked, I bring up ant rescue responces and you dismiss that. However, they are THE SAME KIND OF RESPONCE. Yet you only ever attack any mammalian examples I give while ignoring the supporting contrast from insects.

Hence, you are redefining the debate and deliberately ignoring my evidence.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That's my opinion and I was arguing with zooby about mammals, not ants or birds because I believe they don't have human-like emotions just like how you seem to believe that no animals have human-like emotions.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Perhaps you should read that again. It says "Animals". Animals is a plural word, which I am using to define creatures from the kingdom animalia. The kingdom Animalia contains the following groups of animals:

Protozoa (Single celled animals)
Porifera (Sponges!)
Cnidaria (Jellyfish)
Nematodes (Trashing worms)
Annelida (Wiggly worms)
Arthropoda (Spiders)
Mollusca (Squid)
Chordates (that's us)
Enchinoderms (Starfish and stuff)

That is a massively diverse group of which you define that only mammals to argue about. The range of behaviours and such more than make a discussion on how all animals behave. But you've just proven my point in any event. You don't accept insects doing the SAME behaviours equivalently have emotions, yet stick it in a chordate grouping and suddenly it's an emotion? That's plain contradictory.

In addition, you just stuffed yourself: Think about Squid, you've suddenly dumped them into an emotionless group, yet they display more complex responces than Wolves or even Elephants! They even seem to 'speak' a language! If they cannot provoke emotions (and I do not believe so obviously), then neither can a wolf or elephant, by your OWN argument!

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Then you should've put in "Human-Like Emotions" also because you title mislead me into thinking this was about emotions in general.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I can't see how this occured, because I did say "ANIMALS" and it occurs in TWO places in the topic title. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

Then again, you would be correct because we do have to define what an emotion is anyway.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also, you can't put every single animal that ever lived into one group, that's ludicrous! It's like taking everybody in the world and asking "Have they eaten a cheeseburger?". Some have and some haven't, the same goes for animals in my opinion, some have emotions, other don't.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But the point is to argue WHY that is and use that to determine what/what isn't an emotive responce based on what we know for certain isn't. I'm using ants and many other insects for exactly this reason. You are ignoring these examples however because you don't want to contradict yourself by moving into insect territory. Responces of more primitive animals that have parallels in higher animals either mean that these animals bear emotions, or higher animals are going by non emotive instincts.

Now which is it, are you going to make up your mind to argue either way?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I believe I've retorted everything from this quote in my paragraph above. You can't label every animal in the world as "Emotion Feeling" or "Non-Emotion Feeling".</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But hold on I haven't actually done that anyhere. I'm arguing that emotions are something that humans have basically evolved, an ontapomorph of the brain so to speak. The discussion is partly based on a common debate as to if animals have emotions, or if we simply ascribe 'human' emotions onto the behaviours and actions of animals. I used the word anthropomorphism earlier, which really hasn't come up enough since then.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And our agruments "fall off the cliff"?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Yeah, there is a squid at the end of it <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well I feel we have provided alot of indications that animals are at least feeling SOME kind of emotion at some point in their lives. What have you provided besides your "logic" and "science"? No examples really,</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No examples that you are willing to argue about more like it :/

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>at least none that can either stand on their own or have more logic in them than ours. Why can't animals feel emotions, we ARE animals and we can feel them, so why wouldn't some of our closest relatives, mammals, be able to?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Why can't mammals speak a large complex language like us? More importantly, why can cuttlefish (emotionless according to you <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>) communicate in complex 'words' while other cephalopods aren't able to? Why are termites able to build massive structures out of the earth like us, yet no other mammals can.

What you have said

<b>MAKES UTTERLY NO BIOLOGICAL SENSE</b>.

It's like saying why don't gastropods have eight tentacles when they are related to cephalopods :/

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't think all birds feel love. You are once again putting a big thing into a little boat. Some birds DO stay together F.Y.I.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Care to name them?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't know whether that is love but you can't say that no birds stay together because that is fiction.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But you have no named examples.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Stop putting humans above animals (and more exactly, mammals) because we are strictly animal also. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But you are merely the pot calling the kettle black. You sloppily put mammals as the only things that can feel emotions, yet ignore that there is another equally as advanced animal to social mammals in cuttlefish.

However, out of curiosity, in the phylum Mollusca, I would put Cephalopods, more precisely squid, on the top of that group. Would, after studying squid would you actually disagree with that statement?

I think I'm more justified to put Humans above other mammals, than you are to put Squid below them too don't you think? Considering that most mammals barely achieve the range of complex colourmetric based signals that cuttlefish alone use to communicate, and for their brains (compared to mammals) are truely amazing. Cuttlefish seem to display things like affection (put your hand in a tank with them, they'll soon poke you) yet you YOURSELF have stated this isn't an emotive responce. Yet, you, YOURSELF maintain the same responce is an emotion from a dog?

Again, either you are massively digging yourself into a contradictory hole, or you've not done the following:

A: Properly defined a responce that is based on 'emotion'

B: Argued why other animals like ants aren't displaying an emotion.

You have done neither, and this is what is invalidating your arguments. Your only thing you've so far come up with that's conclusive at all is you believe emotions are confined solely to mammals, and not animals. Yet you've failed to display why mammals only display emotions, yet equivalent responces in other lesser animals is NOT an emotion.

You then criticise me for placing some animals higher than others, when you do it youself <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> Classic.

Immacolata · November 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Nov 26 2003, 11:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This post is getting WAY WAY too long for me to handle. So instead I will show you the theory I operate from </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Just wait until I've been to the library, then you'll see a 'long' post <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

[ </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
For god's sake, please break it up into more posts then! Im gonna cut the part where I do not have anything to add further. This does not mean that I disagree with what you say.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>These emotions are there from birth, and we share this with other mammals.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Technically yes and no, from what you've said for example you are defining an 'emotion' simply as a series of biochemical and physiological reactions. The thing with this is that it doesn't really add in to what an emotion means for a human and what an equivalent reaction will mean to an animal. For example, we've covered the dog being angry or protective when someone tries to take its food. This isn't an emotive, but rather an instinctive responce that is what they would normally do in a pack to assert their position at a carcass. It is NOT displaying 'anger' however, because the animal really isn't angry to begin with by definition.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

We are going to need a definition of emotion. I will operate from a cognitive psychological definition. I am working with Torben Kragh Grodahls theory on this. The actual theory I use here is from narrative theory, but the man is a professor in psychology and the text is a synthesis of his works previously. He focuses on perceptions, emotions, cognitions and actions. Humans act on motivation, and motivation can come from emotions, which in turn can be kicked into play by perception (of a tragic accident, which make you emotionally motivated to help someone). It's called emotional-motivational reaction patterns. He gives this example of how our basic way of understanding the world is ordered in narrative style. This passage is a psychological description of how we play computer games:

<i>"The basic story experience consists of a continous interaction between perceptions (I see a monster approaching), emotions (I feel fear, because I know or <b>feel</b> that monsters are dangerous), cognitions (I think that I better shoot the monster), and an action (the actual motor act of shooting that changes the motivational emotion fear into relaxation)" </i>

He postulates that this model is basic for our way to interact with the world, not just games. On that condition, you can then see that emotion is a very basic, motivating factor in a human. It is what you might call instinct. If you experience an eathquake you might feel fear or anxiety, even though you have no prior experience with earthquakes. It just feels unsafe when the ground shakes with a deep, load groand and things start to move about on their own all around you. Now this pattern describe is similiar to any other mammal in a similiar situation - ie, on that causes fear in the first place. Where we have the upper hand is in our cognitive department - we have more choices if we are experienced humans. But the last leg of the mental journey, the action, is the same. That is something we do based on our cognitive operations.
On this premise I see no reason to doubt that animals have feelings, and they are no worse or better than yours, they are simply mentally motivating impulses that are very much FUNDAMENTAL for our survival and interaction with our world in general. Instinct, as you call it, can easily be described as the sum of perception->emotion->cognition->action. In what sense does this differ from a human's pattern? We do not know if an animal makes any thought before reacting "instinctively". It makes choices based on what information it has, and if it cannot understand what the heck that thing is, it just reacts in the default way for dealing with what ever got it's emotion of fear running in the first place. For a horse, that is to RUN first and ask questions later.

Example: I can startle my dog by shaking an umbrella violently at it. I did this once, absent mindedly coming home from a rainy walk and I wanted to shake the rain drops off. The dog, who came to greet me, was instead shocked by this flapping monstrosity that I held, and she was cowering in the corner of the room, taken by surprise. Perhaps fearing this never-seen-before phenomenon that was VERY big and loud. I of course stopped shaking the umbrella, and immedately she came over to me wagging her tail a bit while eyeing the big evil umbrella somehat warily - and making sure I was between her and the umbrella. I then presented her to this umbrella, slowly, now that it was prostrate and lifeless on the ground. She gave it a cautions sniff untill I picked it up again, the cruel tormentor I am, and shook it another time to see how she reacted. She jumped about half a yard away from me, just enough to to get out of harms way of this monstrosity, just in case it should decide to come after her. But there was no fear this time, the ears were upright, she stood **** but ready to dart away at least. It was more of a calculated wariness. Today she has no problems with the umbrella. In other words, my dog changed action patterns based on new emotional-cognitive patterns just learned.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But this is the thing, the dog isn't responding to you emotionally, it is merely responding to you in a natural INSTINCTIVE fashion that it has. Without these responces the animal would not be effective in the wild and could not survive in a pack. What we percieve to be human like responces, are in fact the animals more instinctive natural responces that it has evolved.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

As I have tried to argue towards: Instinct is merely a convenient category we use to label animal behaviour, disregarding the mental patterns running through their heads. How insects work, I have no idea. They might have a similiar pattern but much simpler emotions and cognitions, we do not know.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When a dog feels sorrow for a lost member of it's social unit, it is the same basic stress that you would feel if you lost a loved one.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But this is disagreeable because of two main reasons:

A: The first is that you can't actually prove that because an animal, afterall, cannot directly communicate exactly what it is feeling.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No, this is entirely something that is conjecture, I shall confess to that. I have made observations though, and nothing has CONTRADICTED my theory so far.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>B: The second thing is that you can't establish that this is not simply an instinctive responce. Their 'emotions' again are just mechanisms that help them to survive conditions that with the loss of their packmate is about to get harder. Debating if dogs love eachother is foolhardy at best. The animals in the top positions that lose a battle for dominance are driven out seemingly with no worry by the rest of the pack. If your premise is correct then previous animals should surely be upset by this, but appear unworried and after the new leader fully asserts dominance there is nothing further.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

As the model above describes, our emotions are as well an instinctive "routine call" performed by our brains that we act upon. They help us to survive conditions. We both share a mechanical view on life, but you seem to be unwilling to accept my premise that emotion is a very basic mental pattern in mammals. And that our emotions somehow are peerless and nothing like animals. Well I beg to differ, that should be obvious by now <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Take another example from a species of baboon in India (I think). If the current dominant male is defeated the usurper will slaughter the current crop of children. The females will then quickly breed with the new dominant male without much of a worry. If these animals were able to feel emotion, would the females not feel some sort of grief or regret, perhaps even hatred towards the new male usurper? From all indications it seems to indicate they do not. This is the crux of my argument largely as to the fact that animals are more instinctive, and do not *really* follow self expressed emotions on the level that humans do.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You forget what human mothers are capable of. We know that monkies of various kinds, including baboons, are social animals. Their behaviour might very well be conditioned socially, not hardwired into some subconscious bloodthirst. Also you disregard that these baboon mothers, through their perceptions emotes sorrow or fear, then cognizices and realize that it was like that when they were young ones too, and they barely survived getting murdered because the new baboon king decided they were frugal. So they end up acting in the best interest for themselves and perhaps the flock.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You see, before I go further on this line it is important to realise EXACTLY what pair bonding is meant to do.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I cannot right now comment too much on the following statements you make (I cut a lot), except that you COMPLETELY lack to take social circumstances into account! But I must elaborate a bit on my isolation examples, which you misunderstood.

I meant that if you isolate a human, literally put a man in a dark box and shut the door, turn off the lights, he will go insane quite fast. There has been made psychological experiments with students. After about a day in complete sensorial isolation they were very afraid and deperate, screaming out loud to make sure they still existed since there was no external confirmation of their existence.

If you do the same to any mammal, it will also go completely bananas. This is not isolation as the migration bull whale or hermit living in a cave (they do tend to lose their marbles dont they). This is the complete isolation, and we just cannot tolerate it. Our cognitive apparatus almost ceases to work under such conditions and we are struck with some primordial fear of being undone. Another indication of a similarity between human emotions and animals.

[edit] The article I refer to is from the book The Video Game Theory Reader, edited by Mark J.P. Wolf (Routledge 2003)

Immacolata · November 2003

I decide to comment on the latter part of your post separately, I get lost in humongously large posts <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again, either you are massively digging yourself into a contradictory hole, or you've not done the following:

A: Properly defined a responce that is based on 'emotion'

B: Argued why other animals like ants aren't displaying an emotion.

You have done neither, and this is what is invalidating your arguments. Your only thing you've so far come up with that's conclusive at all is you believe emotions are confined solely to mammals, and not animals. Yet you've failed to display why mammals only display emotions, yet equivalent responces in other lesser animals is NOT an emotion.

You then criticise me for placing some animals higher than others, when you do it youself Classic.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

If the mental pattern described in my earlier post can be accepted, one could argue that if said patterns take place in, say, an ant, it is indeed capable of feeling, acting on emotion. However, we are not sure. We can be sure that they do posses

Perception. They have various sensorial organs at least.
|
|
Action. (as the last leg of the mental journey, before the "actual action" sorry to say it like that) They act upon their perceptions. An ant sensing an enemy will attack it. An ant sensing food will grab it and drag it home.

There is a connection between perception and action then - the motivation. Question we should ask ourselves is then: Does the perception call forth an emotion? And is this emotion treated cognitively, matching patterns with experience to produce the action? If the ant is able to learn, and conclude differently upon the same perception if it has new, cognitive patterns to chose from, then it MUST possess an emotioal phase in the mental proces. Actually I don't know if ants have brains as such. Perhaps they are so simple beings that their actions are "hard coded" into their beings. They do act upon motivation at least. They have a finited, limited set of patterns to match with, and ants alone are very stupid, but if you put them together they are as a collective capable of quite marvellous things. A complexity that in it self is responsive almost as it it was cognizant without the individual being it. But thats way beyond my field, it sounds as science fiction to me. I doubt that ants do have emotions like mammals.

Perhaps ants are like this:
Perception->Motivation->Action. No cognizance, just pure predefined templates of motivation and action that are matched to the perception taken from the surroundings. Which would also lead to the case of an ant being in a situation where it "cannot compute!" and just default to the best fit it can make of it's hard coded actions. Very interesting topic for it's own seperate discussion! I think perhaps that ants can be so small because they dont need a big computer with lots of memory to process a lot of conditional data, they merely have a "ROM-chip" they read from. If they cannot match their perceptions with any meaning full action - they just default to running. Put an ant in a glass and you shall see for your self.

But I will agree to that cuttlefish at least could seem to match the human emotion-motivational reaction patterns.

DarkDude · November 2003

screwed up

DarkDude · November 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But this is disagreeable because of two main reasons:

A: The first is that you can't actually prove that because an animal, afterall, cannot directly communicate exactly what it is feeling.

B: The second thing is that you can't establish that this is not simply an instinctive responce. Their 'emotions' again are just mechanisms that help them to survive conditions that with the loss of their packmate is about to get harder. Debating if dogs love eachother is foolhardy at best. The animals in the top positions that lose a battle for dominance are driven out seemingly with no worry by the rest of the pack. If your premise is correct then previous animals should surely be upset by this, but appear unworried and after the new leader fully asserts dominance there is nothing further.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Maybe, there's no way to tell for sure, like you say they could be feeling emotions when they cuddle with us or maybe that is instinctual. This brings up another post though, how do we know that <i>any</i> emotions isn't instinctual?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What we percieve to be human like responces, are in fact the animals more instinctive natural responces that it has evolved.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Once again, how can we positivly say that any reaction that we have isn't an instinctive natural responce that <i>we</i> have evolved?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again, we go back to your own example with the plate of food. There isn't any 'emotion' being expressed and instead the instinctual reaction of the animal is to not allow you to take it's place at the 'carcass'.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well, my dog allows me (or at least my hand) to take its place at the bowl or "carcass". Sure we've trained her but aren't instincts suppose to stay with an animal no matter what happens?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But this is disagreeable because of two main reasons:

A: The first is that you can't actually prove that because an animal, afterall, cannot directly communicate exactly what it is feeling.

B: The second thing is that you can't establish that this is not simply an instinctive responce. Their 'emotions' again are just mechanisms that help them to survive conditions that with the loss of their packmate is about to get harder. Debating if dogs love eachother is foolhardy at best. The animals in the top positions that lose a battle for dominance are driven out seemingly with no worry by the rest of the pack. If your premise is correct then previous animals should surely be upset by this, but appear unworried and after the new leader fully asserts dominance there is nothing further.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well, we can't establish that it <i>is</i> an instinctive response either so on this subject at least, it's a draw.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yet with such a responce in mind, you are trying to claim that when one dies suddenly they have the opposite effect and go into some longing mourning? No, I highly doubt that.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Simple fact of life there, and the same thing can be found with humans back in the ages of kings and queens.
The leader gets knocked out of power, he was usually killed or sent out into the country without ranking or power. In fact, dogs doing that makes them even more human but maybe back in the 1200's as far as emotions go, that is if they have emotions at all of course.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Take another example from a species of baboon in India (I think). If the current dominant male is defeated the usurper will slaughter the current crop of children. The females will then quickly breed with the new dominant male without much of a worry. If these animals were able to feel emotion, would the females not feel some sort of grief or regret, perhaps even hatred towards the new male usurper? From all indications it seems to indicate they do not. This is the crux of my argument largely as to the fact that animals are more instinctive, and do not *really* follow self expressed emotions on the level that humans do.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Now this sounds VERY much like medieval times. The winning family, and more exactly man, would either order the death of the male children or do it themselves. After that is done they would... make love with the other (good looking) women of the defeated family. You're also contradicting yourself a little there, how do you know the female baboon mates "without much of a worry"? She could care but doesn't want to get killed by the male if she doesn't cooperate. You never know...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Males actually get *punished* for pair bonding however, but they also do gain from it. You see, the thing with being male is that you never 100% know if your offspring is actually yours <b>(particularly if you shag a lot)</b>. Pair bonding sort of removes this problem from the equation.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Shag, lol <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> . But how do you know that the woman pairing with you did it because you're acctually the father? She could just be in it for the money you know...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, not exactly true but for the most part humans are instinctively compelled to remain together.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well, unless the man is already crazy yes, he will go insane.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well considering I made the thread, I think I know my own premises <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I dearly hope so but that wasn't the point. If you wanted to talk about "human-like emotions" then your title should've indicated so but instead it just said "emotions". Small detail but if you were talking about the former then no animals would qualify.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Lions rarely attack people however, the wolves of Europe are afraid to attack people today and the reason for that is being attacked themselves for attacking humans. Defending a corpse is not a new thing, and even certain species of insects will even defend their dead young (and valiantly too it might add for this particular little beetle). </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Huh? What did lions rarely attacking humans have to do with anything I said there? I'm confused...

Of course defending a corpse isn't a new thing, I never said it was, but as far as insects defending the corpse, the mother or father of that insect can't really know that the baby insect is dead because many like to die then come back again. Then again, maybe insects really do have emotions. Brain size would play a factor though, insects really use all of their brains unlike us, humans, and the other larger mammals.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again, going back to a later point, you ignore insect examples because you cannot easily argue that they respond in anything other than instinct (being nowhere near us), yet claim the SAME responces in mammals are emotions?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You want to know the reason I don't think insects, squid, and other lifeforms that aren't mammals don't have emotions? Brain size, like I said above, us humans have ALOT of free space and the same goes for other large mammals.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That is a VERY weird attitude.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

It goes with the territory. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But it actually has been done before, otherwise the field wouldn't exist <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I'm talking about YEARS of observations of 1 group of animals. This is very expesive and very demanding on the person doing it. Almost impossible may have been a little strong, very hard is proabably a better phrase to use but none-the-less it's not very likely that we could do this without in some way contact with them.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't think it has been observed in Hyenas, Dingos and some other species. I believe it only occurs a lot in closer knit units like that of the true wolf.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Then the Discovery Channel lies! LIES!! Well, a picture says more then a thousand words and you don't quite have a thousand yet, though you are getting there with the length of your posts, my eyes are starting to ache now. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Incidently, I never said they weren't, but they aren't all so lovely and directly linked with a straight line from dog to wolf!</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Bleh, don't twist my words around please. I was simply stating that I was lumping dogs, wolves, and dingos under the word dog. It's not exactly scientific but hell, I'm lazy.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But I have, or are we again going to modify the definition of animal to not include ants or similar? Then it is YOU who aren't arguing with the debate (once again) and I have provided many more examples than just dogs and elephants.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No, the definiton animal stands, that's really not the point though. The point is (god forbid if we ever get back on topic) whether animals have emotions or not. My answer? Yes and no, some do some don't, if you want to lump them into one group that's your prob, not mine. I gave you the reason I believe insects don't have emotions so chew on it for a little, retort it, and lets get back on topic.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This isn't the point, you argue that behaviours such as a dog 'mourning' or 'guarding' are emotively linked, I bring up ant rescue responces and you dismiss that. However, they are THE SAME KIND OF RESPONCE. Yet you only ever attack any mammalian examples I give while ignoring the supporting contrast from insects.

Hence, you are redefining the debate and deliberately ignoring my evidence.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Yea, I just noticed I have been ignoring your evidence but that was because I wish to discuss whether animals, mammal or not, have emotions. Not the reason why insects can't have emotions and large mammals can.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Perhaps you should read that again. It says "Animals". Animals is a plural word, which I am using to define creatures from the kingdom animalia.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well if I group dogs and elephants together they are both plural and from the kingdom animalia. What was your argument there? That I had to argue about one whole group instead of a part of a group? Didn't I say something earlier about lumping big groups into small boats...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That is a massively diverse group of which you define that only mammals to argue about. The range of behaviours and such more than make a discussion on how all animals behave. But you've just proven my point in any event. You don't accept insects doing the SAME behaviours equivalently have emotions, yet stick it in a chordate grouping and suddenly it's an emotion? That's plain contradictory.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't accept insects doing the same thing as mammals because I don't feel that they connect any emotions to it. They have tiny brains and if you think about, most have little space to work with, emotions would just be a hassle for them so they are given insticts. I'm starting to believe now that emotions don't exist but rather that emotions are a thing attached to instincts as we get more intelligent. I mean, if we didn't find sex pleasurable why would we do it? Our insticts aren't powerful by themselves now because I believe we can override them with our free will, but when emotions are attached we WANT to do what our insticts tell us because it seems right. I dunno, this <b>is</b> just some crazy theory but it's what I'm starting to believe, debunk it as much as you want, I'll stand behind it.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In addition, you just stuffed yourself: Think about Squid, you've suddenly dumped them into an emotionless group, yet they display more complex responces than Wolves or even Elephants! They even seem to 'speak' a language! If they cannot provoke emotions (and I do not believe so obviously), then neither can a wolf or elephant, by your OWN argument!</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well then, dogs seem to speak a language (barking among other things), cats do the same (meows, hisses), apes also, so I guess that means they have emotions doesn't it? No, it really doesn't and squid display as much as chameleons, so they aren't really unique.

More complex? I beg to differ, the response of squid to stimuli is the change of the color of their "skin". This can of course make thousands of different possibilities, especially to us humans with our decent eyesight, dogs on the other hand can communicate with sight, smell, hearing, and touch making their communication far more complex, it's just not as easy to understand like squid "speech" because of all the senses used that aren't really honed in humans.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Responces of more primitive animals that have parallels in higher animals either mean that these animals bear emotions, or higher animals are going by non emotive instincts.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Ugg, you've done it again, is it always one way or the other for you? The world isn't black and white or 2d, see it in full color and 3d, kinda like what HL2 will be like. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> (sorry, had to bring HL2 up) One action can show two things, 2 things can shed an infinite amount of other results. If I feel that certain animals have emotions does that mean that they all do? If an animal does a certain thing and another does the same does that mean they are thinking and feeling the same thing? The answer to both of these is NO! An insect may defend its young because of genes and instinct and an elephant, dog, or ape may defend it because the emotions that are attached to his instincts tell him/her to. Once again, theories, but they are my beliefs.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But hold on I haven't actually done that anyhere.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well you just did that above. Once again, you have confused me with multiple layers of contradictivness. Oh god, my aching head, gotta get some asprin...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I used the word anthropomorphism earlier, which really hasn't come up enough since then.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Anthropomorphism, anthropomorphism, anthropomorphism. That should keep this thread filled with plenty of anthropomorphism for awhile. Not many people use it because it's so big, and we're afraid of big stuff. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yeah, there is a squid at the end of it <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I can already feel its beak tearing apart my intestines... *gulp*

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why can't mammals speak a large complex language like us? More importantly, why can cuttlefish (emotionless according to you <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>) communicate in complex 'words' while other cephalopods aren't able to? Why are termites able to build massive structures out of the earth like us, yet no other mammals can.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Intelligence had nothing to do with emotions last time I checked. Also, termites building those structures could be considered and proven to be instinct under your logic.

Like I said before, dogs and apes DO communicate with "words". Dogs use scent, sight, hearing, and touch to communicate and it's hard for humans to understand this with our... less then average smelling and hearing. Apes also have very complex languages that <i>are</i> spoken in every sense of the word.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What you have said

<b>MAKES UTTERLY NO BIOLOGICAL SENSE</b>.

It's like saying why don't gastropods have eight tentacles when they are related to cephalopods :/</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Why? Why doesn't it make sense? They are some of our closest relatives so logic dictates that they have very similar brains and, therefore, similar instincts and similar emotions as a result. I'm also talking about stuff much more basic then legs, I'm talking about the brain and instincts. Physical differences don't apply to the mental side of things except for, of course, brain size.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Care to name them?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'> Yes, I will name some.

1.Owls, or at least some of them <a href='http://www.cardinalcorner.com/chatter/feb03chatter.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.cardinalcorner.com/chatter/feb03chatter.htm</a>

2.Blue Headed Vireos- </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The cooperative nesting behavior of Blue-headed Vireo pairs is unusual among migratory birds. Male vireos build nests and incubate eggs as much or more than their mates. Although only males sing, both sexes are highly vocal and continually give soft whinneys, squeaks, and ?chir? calls to one another as they forage together. Also unusual among migratory birds is the fact that females do not accept or attempt to gain extra-pair fertilizations, even though males do not guard females against other males (most species of migratory birds are quite promiscuous). There is the intriguing possibility that like a few other species of tropical migrant songbirds, male and female Blue-headed Viroes stay together on wintering territories. The nature of these associations is unknown and the frequency of their occurrence needs further documentation.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

That's really all I need to prove to you that some birds DO stick together. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But you have no named examples.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh, but I do. Care to name <i>your</i> examples now?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think I'm more justified to put Humans above other mammals, than you are to put Squid below them too don't you think?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No, not really.

Well, my damn sister is making me get off. So that means I couldn't respond to many of your last paragraphs, but I'll get them later. Sorry for any mistakes, I have a bad headache, <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'>

*Edit* Fixed some of the many mistakes, have fun sloshing your way through my messy post now. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

DarkDude · November 2003

Messed up again

Immacolata · November 2003

I am hoping that this concluded the argument, but I fear aaegaeri is slaving away at his library and will present us with a 10000 line dissertation tonight <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Aegeri · November 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Nov 27 2003, 07:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I am hoping that this concluded the argument, but I fear aaegaeri is slaving away at his library and will present us with a 10000 line dissertation tonight <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Tuesday next week <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

pikey · November 2003

Hmm... people like to use the "bore-you-to-death" arguement here eh?\

There're several ways to look at emotion. One such way is that emotion is what we interpret from bio-chemical processes in our bodies, and our surroundings. If this were true, we are no different from animals, and therefore, animals also have what we'd interpret as emotions, therefore, animals also have emotions.

DarkDude · November 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (vP-|Pikey @ Nov 27 2003, 11:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Hmm... people like to use the "bore-you-to-death" arguement here eh?\

There're several ways to look at emotion. One such way is that emotion is what we interpret from bio-chemical processes in our bodies, and our surroundings. If this were true, we are no different from animals, and therefore, animals also have what we'd interpret as emotions, therefore, animals also have emotions. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Well everything that we humans do is strictly bio-chemical, me typing this right now is a result of bio-chemical reactions just like you said. The thing is, not all animals have the same chemical reactions, and therefore, emotions.

Do I believe that some animals have human-like emotions? Yes, I do, but can we conclude that they do yet? No we can't, we can only argue endlessly and boringly about who's right, who's wrong, and who is being a hypocrite. It's so much fun. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

DarkDude · November 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Nov 27 2003, 07:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Tuesday next week <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Tuesday, December 2nd. A day that the NS forums will never forget, the longest post ever made on any forums ever created. I think we can all agree on one thing... *gulp*

I just hope my poor little old P3 can handle all the words that will be showing up, I'm in dire need of upgrade, thank god for X-mas, no pun intended. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

notalentassclown · November 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)

Or just good biological science.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I didn't realize that scientists can read the mind of animals. Seriously, how is that good science? Science is based on fact, not on groundless assumptions.

spidermonkey · November 2003

Its really interesting how someone can actually think that animals dont have emotions. Its rediculous, humans think they are the sh*t, that all species should bow to humans because we are oh so special. Please:

Humans ARE animals, biologically and emotionally

Think about what 'emotions' are for. They protect us, they help us survive. When you start running at say a cat with a stick, it puts its ears back and runs the hell away. This is FEAR and it is an emotion. It protects the animal from harm, if a knife wielding maniac runs at you, your first urge is to RUN and with good reason. Whilst the body language/complexity of the emotion can differ from species to species it is definately the same thing. We cannot always understand animal emotions because we cannot read animal's body language like our emotions, why would we need to? Love is one of those fickle things, and in the many forms it comes in one can say that we struggle to define it. But you cannot say animals dont feel it, anyone with a pet knows. Our emotions are neurochemical signals like all animals have, our emotions dont make us special.

DarkDude · November 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (null011011 @ Nov 28 2003, 11:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)

Or just good biological science.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I didn't realize that scientists can read the mind of animals. Seriously, how is that good science? Science is based on fact, not on groundless assumptions.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Wrong, science is based on assumptions, you then prove those assumptions wrong or right.

I can't tell what side you're on exactly, pro-emotions or against-emotions. Are you respoding to the above quote or the below quote?

Since you brought that quote back up, I would also like to add that yes, it is good biological sense that animals would have emotions. After all, like spidermonkey said, we're animals too, what makes you think we can have them and other animals can't?

Fire_Eel · November 2003

Animals have emotions.

I saw this on Discovery Channel. At China, the WWF people found a pet shop owner secretly hiding a baby panda. Apparently, he had kept it for a long time in a old smelly cage with little food and chained it up. The moment they released the baby panda, what did it do? It ran to a slope, rolled down, ran up again, rolled down again. It then leaped around HAPPILY and went back to the WWF people, looked at them 1 final time, then rolled itself down the slope again and ran away. It was happy. Happiness is an emotion.

Why do cats purr?

Why do Rabbits leap around happily?

Why does my snake affectionately coil around my neck?

Why does my mouse lick my fingers?

Why does all this happen when I stroke them?

Epidemic · December 2003

First off! I disagree with Aegeri regarding love.
My interprention of it is that love is bond, strenght may vary but it's a bond not an emotion. It comes for sharing, thrusting and sex, or more precisely from the feelings triggered by these events. Those birds system might make more sense for them than the way humans does it, after all, females do look after attractive qualities in males (insuring your genes).

Humans are the surpreme animals. Wanna know why? We can destroy every god damned living things on earth (if that doesnt make us the top of the foodchain then please explain HOW??), we got complex brain centres that can help us reach infinite knowledge. And I believe the word animal is a term for all non-human animals
Even though human did evolve from animals.

And as Pearl jam sang once, </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There's no right or wrong, but I know there's good and bad</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

Beast · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>umans are the surpreme animals. Wanna know why? We can destroy every god damned living things on earth (if that doesnt make us the top of the foodchain then please explain HOW??), </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
So you judge superiority by destruction? Shows a lot about you, and humans in general. (don't even go there if you are trying to say anything about me. Please. IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE). Oh, and lions can eat humans, sharks can eat humans too. Wait, doesnt that make them ontop of the foodchain too? oh but humans can kill the sharks and the lions, hell humans could nuke the planet, but if humans nuke the planet, there will be nothing left to compare to, except maybe some bacteria. Doesn't that make bacteria the superior species then? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>we got complex brain centres that can help us reach infinite knowledge.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Infinite knowledge is impossible <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And I believe the word animal is a term for all non-human animals </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
As Ebon no-doubt told you <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>, this is speciesism, many feel it is acceptable, I feel otherwise; by it's own definition it is incorrect; humans are animals too, so, why must an "animal" be non-human?
Here is a link to an article on specieism, by the way, if you care to read:
<a href='http://www.wolfrivals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=295' target='_blank'>http://www.wolfrivals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=295</a>
(this is on the wolfrivals forums, yes, and posted by Ebon, whatever)

Back ontopic, sid/bob raised an interesting point related to this on the wolfrivals forums - link:
<a href='http://www.wolfrivals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=245' target='_blank'>http://www.wolfrivals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=245</a> - yes there is some bias here, but there is also some important points. Instead of going "IT IS BIASED HENSE RUBBISH" try to read it for what it is worth.

Disclaimer: all things written above have been written with the intent of adding the argument and maybe a little laugh. Take it too seriously and start flaming me and youve just proven a lot about yourself. I do not intend to offend anyone.

Epidemic · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Beast @ Dec 1 2003, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>umans are the surpreme animals. Wanna know why? We can destroy every god damned living things on earth (if that doesnt make us the top of the foodchain then please explain HOW??), </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
So you judge superiority by destruction? Shows a lot about you, and humans in general. (don't even go there if you are trying to say anything about me. Please. IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE). Oh, and lions can eat humans, sharks can eat humans too. Wait, doesnt that make them ontop of the foodchain too? oh but humans can kill the sharks and the lions, hell humans could nuke the planet, but if humans nuke the planet, there will be nothing left to compare to, except maybe some bacteria. Doesn't that make bacteria the superior species then? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>we got complex brain centres that can help us reach infinite knowledge.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Infinite knowledge is impossible <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And I believe the word animal is a term for all non-human animals </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
As Ebon no-doubt told you <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>, this is speciesism, many feel it is acceptable, I feel otherwise; by it's own definition it is incorrect; humans are animals too, so, why must an "animal" be non-human?
Here is a link to an article on specieism, by the way, if you care to read:
<a href='http://www.wolfrivals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=295' target='_blank'>http://www.wolfrivals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=295</a>
(this is on the wolfrivals forums, yes, and posted by Ebon, whatever)

Back ontopic, sid/bob raised an interesting point related to this on the wolfrivals forums - link:
<a href='http://www.wolfrivals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=245' target='_blank'>http://www.wolfrivals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=245</a> - yes there is some bias here, but there is also some important points. Instead of going "IT IS BIASED HENSE RUBBISH" try to read it for what it is worth.

Disclaimer: all things written above have been written with the intent of adding the argument and maybe a little laugh. Take it too seriously and start flaming me and youve just proven a lot about yourself. I do not intend to offend anyone.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
So you can basically tell us how horrible we are we cant say anything back?
We got the ability to determine the faith of all animals, that's what makes us superior. I'm sure wolves only care about them selves too

Words are generally just symbols with a rule set and values assigned to them, when we talk about animals we generally dont talk about ourself, but if the criteria for the value of the word is non-human then it is non-human. (<---- period.)

uranium_235 · December 2003

Can animals feel emotions? You'd have to define more on emotions...

It can almost completely be agreed that animals feel emotions like fear, happiness, etc. Fear is something all animals need to survive. Happiness in animals is more primitive then the human emotion, but you can pretty much witness this emotion when you reward a dog with a treat, coming home after a long trip, purring, etc. Thusly you can train an animal with the reward system: they like rewards, they learn what they need to do to get one. Note, however, that by more primitive, I mean that animals can, but not actively entertain themselves. They seem to have a sort of... short term emotion swing: They might have been sad 20 minutes ago, but then they can be happy as hell later.

I don't think animals can feel love in the human sense of the term. Animals obviously can share a bond with a human, but is it love? Beast brought this up to me with wolves, and mating for life: Other animals do it as well (I believe beavers do). It's a simple matter of survival: all creatures have a natural instinct to mate. That's the meaning of life: The expand your genes. Some animals eat their young to survive, and thusly produce more offspring. Other animals keep together to ensure survival of their young. Dolphins teach their young to burrow for food (Something dolphins in captivity never learn how to do).

DarkDude · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Dec 1 2003, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Words are generally just symbols with a rule set and values assigned to them, when we talk about animals we generally dont talk about ourself, but if the criteria for the value of the word is non-human then it is non-human. (<---- period.)  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
But the criteria of the word ISN'T non-human. An animal is a living thing with a living and moving body, we fall under this criteria as you will see below.

Definition: [n] a living organism characterized by voluntary movement

<a href='http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?Dict=&define=animal&search.x=24&search.y=18' target='_blank'>http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx...=24&search.y=18</a>

There you have it, we ARE animals, and if you feel that just because we can decide the fate of a species makes us better, well... I hope you change your mind. I can kill you if I wanted to, I could decide your fate. Does that make me better? No, it doesn't. That's all I've got to say about that.

Fire_Eel · December 2003

We cannot destroy all living things on the planet. We are not the Supreme beings on Earth. If we could destroy all living things on the planet, we 'd have done it a long time ago. If we harm Earth, Earth harms us. We can certainly kill off many animals but we can never wipe them out, theres bound to be a survivor. If we fire all our nukes everywhere, animals go extinct and WE go extinct.

Life will find a way. If we pollute the environment, destroy the ozone layer, fire nukes everywhere. Life will find a way. Do you know that UV Rays promote mutation and evolution and change? Do you know that Oxygen is a deadly waste produced by organisms of the past?

No matter what we do, we cannot prevent, delay or stop Evolution. We are at the mercy of Earth and we think Earth is at the mercy of us.

Think again.

Epidemic · December 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fire Eel @ Dec 1 2003, 10:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> We cannot destroy all living things on the planet. We are not the Supreme beings on Earth. If we could destroy all living things on the planet, we 'd have done it a long time ago. If we harm Earth, Earth harms us. We can certainly kill off many animals but we can never wipe them out, theres bound to be a survivor. If we fire all our nukes everywhere, animals go extinct and WE go extinct.

Life will find a way. If we pollute the environment, destroy the ozone layer, fire nukes everywhere. Life will find a way. Do you know that UV Rays promote mutation and evolution and change? Do you know that Oxygen is a deadly waste produced by organisms of the past?

No matter what we do, we cannot prevent, delay or stop Evolution. We are at the mercy of Earth and we think Earth is at the mercy of us.

Think again. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Oh my sparky little d2 friend [Hells there]

Now, I dont know whether some radiation resistent bacteria will survive or if we can blow the earth the pieces (dont know how far the technology researching in nukes are but..)

Science today have gone along way, some of the natures task can now be replaced by machines, but not all though
We could perhaps travel to another planet or something but the option still exists and that makes us superior in that aspect to other species

Darkdude, I dont think it makes us "better" (false term since it relevant)
But basicly everything can be divided into groups when we have a common denominator (sp? wrong word?)

Can Animals Feel Emotions?

Comments