[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/an/ - Animals & Nature



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1506266496481.webm (1.98 MB, 846x476)
1.98 MB
1.98 MB WEBM
Do you think animals feel emotion?
>>
>>2747435
Definitely ones like elephants, chimps, and dolphins, but definitely not invertebrates.
>>
>>2747435
it's trying to eat it
>>
Most of them no, in many cases it's just projection on our part. Things like reptiles for example outright lack the necessary parts of the brain for those kind of higher emotions.
>>
Yes, and I think only morons think otherwise. Emotions are reflex reactions and thus have a particularly strong evolutionary advantage, even just a few core emotions of fear, anxiety, contentedness and happiness are all significant drivers to invoke action. The range of emotion felt among different species and particularly their expression is however, harder to quantify simply because they're hard to empirically measure.

Often all we can go by is how animals act visually and it's up to us with how we interpret that, along with the stimuli and situation we observe it in. It's important to understand however that relaying emotional responses via expression is not necessarily evolutionary advantageous, particularly for animals that aren't gregarious. It's therefor ignorant to categorically state that animals don't feel say, sadness, just because they don't look (to us) sad - there might simply have never been an evolutionary advantage for this animal to express sadness visually.

Dogs are a good example of this. Due to their proximity to humans they have developed a much broader range of body language to express emotion in an exaggerated manner in comparison to wolves who never needed that range because they didn't communicate emotion predominantly visually. However I doubt this is because dogs have evolved more emotions, rather they've just evolved more ways of expressing them in ways we'd understand - which makes sense considering how core we've been to their development.
>>
File: Spede.jpg (9 KB, 293x200)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
Anyone who doesn't either has never had dogs or is some kind of complete mental defective. Or some kind of biologist or idiot teaching Western science materialist view of animals as being biological machines. I had a professor like that. He was an idiot. Or rather, he was intelligent in only one area while wholly incapable of grasping the simplest concepts elsewhere.

The thing is dogs just don't have a large amount of abstract thinking like they do, so the concept of "death", of permanence, doesn't even occur to them in some sense, although I suspect that it does on some level. Like when a dog dies, our dogs would all act extremely depressed. Some of them actually permanently changed, like losing their packmate broke them in the same way humans break. I am not sure if they understand or to what extent they understand that a person being gone is not permanent or rather they have the insight of a toddler. When a person is not there it's like they don't exist anymore, and then suddenly they exist again. But dogs also can clearly predict things like the expectation of you being home and knowing when you're going to be home, and enough thought to be able to read you or your intentions.

I am not sure if they are even able to process what being "dead" is, but they tended to act around our other dead dog as if it was just strangely silent, as if maybe it could eventually wake up again. I think that you, as a person, can empathize with that sense, especially if you have seen a dead person you knew. It is just so strange and surreal and I don't think dogs have the intellectual capacity to go beyond the surrealism.

However, they do understand that you're not there, been gone for a long time, and maybe will never find your way home again. They are like earlier humans burying stuff with their dead to take to the afterlife in that sense.
>>
>>2747512
>I had a professor like that.
all professors are like that because that's what all biologists believe.

rather than assuming every biologist in the universe is an idiot you might perhaps ask yourself if there's a reason they think that. Perhaps something YOU are overlooking that produces their belief.

just a thought. When you find yourself disagreeing the entirety of science perhaps it is you that's mistaken, not them.
>>
>>2747515
Not him, but I agree with what he said. It's idiotic to believe that animals don't feel emotions. A lot of these biologists, whether it's because of their method of thinking or arrogance fail to consider other possibilities. This lecture by Robert Sapolsky is very relevant and interesting: https://youtu.be/NNnIGh9g6fA
>>
>>2747515

>all biologists believe.
>entirety of science

What a fucking waste of a post.

t. biologist.
>>
>>2747534
>>2747543
It's an IQ test.

you don't understand what they're saying because you're not intelligent enough for biology. And that's fine, not everyone can understand or do science. It's not an insult. You simply don't understand. The funny part is you think it's them that are failing to understand. This is ironic since they understand your position exactly, but they know something you do not.
>>
>>2747435
Some do and some don't even feel pain. What pains me are the heartless spooks that don't stop for shit.
>>
File: 1529648787755.jpg (263 KB, 764x551)
263 KB
263 KB JPG
>>2747556
>It's an IQ test
>>
>>2747459
no it isn't
it is visibly distressed, body language labored breathing
>>
Man, screw you for ruining my night with that video.
>>
>>2747534
Speaking as a budding biologist, animal emotion has been historically met with skepticism, perhaps simply because such a notion is preposterously offensive to our egos as the superior species. As it stands, there is no official confirmation of animal emotion. But your average guy recognizes clear emotion in animals. I certainly believe animals have emotions, albeit not as complex as ours, and I know this by just watching my cat change her tone of voice depending on stimuli. How she can be pissy one hour and happy to play the next. Same with my dog. Even my fish are excited to see me.
>>
>>2747562
it is.

I mean there are some valid criticisms to the concept, but to actually criticize it you first have to understand it.

neither of these anons understands what they're trying to criticize, so all they can do it insult people. They have no rational defense against an idea they aren't smart enough to grasp. They can't even recognize that the idea exists.
>>
>>2747565
Exactly. I don't believe animal emotions would be as complex as ours (albeit elephants might be the closest) but you can see a range of emotions in quite a few animals. For example a shameful, happy, or sad dog.
>>
>>2747577
not that anon, but I want to ask about octopus and cuttlefish. I know they are very smart in terms of ocean creatures(excluding the mammals). Do they have any nerves that give off the same emotions in humans? Do they have emotions?
>>
>>2747577
>you can see a range of emotions in quite a few animals
the problem is all of those supposed indicators of emotion evolved before conscious experience of emotions did, so not a single one of them actually indicates emotion.

the emotion doesn't cause the behavior, it's the other way around.

Dogs don't leap for joy. Dogs leap when excited, and excitement causes joy in humans. Which doesn't mean it causes joy in dogs. It causes leaping in both animals.
>>
>>2747582
I don't know, I don't interact with my pet cuttlefish everyday.
>>
>>2747515
Thinking they're just biological machines without an internal experience is something I could take as evidence that these primates in fact don't have Theory of Mind themselves.
> When you find yourself disagreeing the entirety of science perhaps it is you that's mistaken, not them.
If it's a scientific theory that dogs don't feel things like sadness then yes, that theory is fucking shit, and perhaps YOU are mistaken because you act like science is supposed to be some kind of unchanging dogma.

If this is what they all believe then their education and training is shit in that area. I'm obviously not uneducated either. I am saying it is idiotic thinking. I often suspect part of this also comes from doing animal testing and vivisection for everything from veterinary training to biology to medicine because it is easier lying to yourself and killing your own emotions than admitting that experimenting on and basically torturing and killing animals is innately emotionally repulsive to most normal people. "Oh, that rat I injected with Substance A and watched it breathing raggedly is just a machine with no real experience, I'm not hurting anything because it doesn't feel pain, it only flicks its tail because it is programmed to do so" that is kind of what I suspect a good number of people are doing. And it isn't all of the field either.

>>2747534
I don't think it's all biologists. I just think it's some biologists and I think it is probably based on some incredibly flawed earlier thinking. One of these ironically is the belief that humans are special snowflakes and animals don't have souls. Another is general anthropocentric arrogance mixed in with the cancer that is materialism. You can argue over whether idealist philosophy or materialist philosophy has more merit, but a certain strand of reddit tier secular materialism that goes "we're all just like random chemicals and shit, nothing is special bro you're like just a disgusting piece of talking meat"
>>
>>2747590
>I'm obviously not uneducated either.
you very clearly are though.

you don't even understand WHY they believe that. Which makes you slightly better educated than the average 10 year old.
>>
>>2747565
As I said it isn't just some threat to human ego I can scarcely understand, but it is also embedded within Western religion where according to Genesis only man has a soul, or rather only man was made in God's image. The general Christian belief is that humans are God's special snowflakes and nothing has a soul but us, depending on what a soul is.

I think that it actually applies a good deal based on what you believe a "soul" is. Is it the mind? or is it the strength of your emotions? Is it your creativity and inspiration, or ability to create art? and so on.

>Even my fish are excited to see me.
That's just anthropocentrism. It would appear that I am arguing against myself but the fact of the matter is this runs in degrees. Your fish are excited to see you because it means food. I doubt they have anything remotely like a human sense of affection and appreciation, or a dog's sense, depending on the fish. Some species are just plainly smarter and more curious. My cichlid and betta for instance. They appear to be genuinely curious and intelligent. Meanwhile my goldfish is dumb as a rock. Holy fucking shit that thing is dumb. Like, it is amazingly dumb.

So do fish feel emotions? Yeah, idk some probably do on the most basic level, and some species may even be capable of liking you but I'm not sure about that. They plainly do not have the same capacity as most mammals though.

The biggest problem I have with Western thought in general is it truncates things. It seems incapable of understanding things are not either/or but matters of degree. There aren't hard classifications many times.
>>
>>2747589
why not? they need a lot of metal stimulation
>>
>>2747435
Of course they do. You can make a cat cry by doing something bad to it. What is it? Emotion. You give a dog tasty food and it becomes friendly and happily. What is it if not emtions
This video is s a d .
>>
>>2747590
Everyone needs to keep in mind that the most concrete theory in biology is evolution. Other claims are weak shit comparatively.
>>
>>2747594

If you're attempting to suggest that science does not recognise emotion in animals or that all scientists think that animals are unable to feel emotions then you're a fucking retard and shouldn't be bandying about IQ any where in this thread. The 3rd hand perspective of the professor you're attempting to latch onto from that anecdote posted by >>2747512 is utterly meritless even for contrarianism, because unlike those professors you have nothing worthwhile to say.
>>
>>2747570
And yet you personally do not even begin to describe the idea itself. The idea that animals merely react as biological machines without any basic insight into their condition or any genuine expression of emotion is as plainly false and retarded as bloodletting or attributing things to bodily humours. In fact at this point I literally view you as some pompous jackass lecturing people about it as if this is the peak of human knowledge and infallible (which is again, contrary to the METHOD of science. Method. It is not a dogma you fedora possibly unwitting religious fundamentalist. Science is meant to be constantly tested and criticized.)

The idea that somehow animals do not feel things like terror or dread is observably false, and no I don't think this is just behaviorism fallacy. When you watch slaughter of animals for instance, they plainly see and know something horrible is happening to their kindred and are filled with apprehension. As a matter of fact the Arabs came up with the idea of halal slaughter specifically to address this fact because the animal fears the knife.

In fact our abused rescue dogs for the longest time freaked out when we were holding things in their hand, as if a human holding tools was the same as an animal baring its teeth. The oddest thing though is that while they were then okay with things that were say green, any black object they remained terrified of regardless of what it was if we were holding it. They clearly understood loss too. Like I said, they acted extremely mopey and depressed after a death. It is quite evident that animals including humans have a range of emotions on a gradual scale depending on the species. FFS I'd just call it common sense.
>>
>>2747594
This whole time you've been acting like those larping trolls on /x/. Okay, tell me why they believe that, according to you (PROTIP you're wrong anyway because they don't all believe that even in biology)
>>
>>2747612
I honestly don't even think this kid is an undergrad. I sincerely doubt he even knows what things like behaviorism, idealist philosophy, or theory of mind (ToM) means. I also find his bizarre effort of boxing all biologists with all scientists into one same thinking box rather suspect.
>>
>>2747512
It's easier to predict animal behavior assuming they have emotions and some mental faculty than ignoring that assumption.

For some people that flies over their head. I wanna say that the insistence that they don't is a coping mechanism because of all the horrible shit biologists do to animals. I mean, I get why animal testing is not going away but don't fucking play it down.
>>
>>2747617
It's no use holding a conversation with someone who is set in their opinions and is not willing to even consider possibilities inconsistent with their beliefs.
>>
File: argument is trash.png (347 KB, 454x600)
347 KB
347 KB PNG
>>2747639
You're just trolling at this point. You have not offered a single thing as counter evidence or any sort of counter argument. Literally all you have done is relied on a fallacy of authority which in and of itself maintains a tenuous presumption (because not all biologists believe that) while saying "no ur stupid". You have given no reasoning at all to the contrary. I have laid out some of my arguments and reasoning. You have yet to refute or engage a single one of them.
>>
File: fku.jpg (486 KB, 2592x1456)
486 KB
486 KB JPG
probaly the only legit biologist on this board here. the problem is that people just regard "human emotion" as something that it's not. shame in dogs has been brought up. but that's not proof for either side's position. when dogs display what people anthropomorphizingly interpret as shame after tearing their shoes to shit a very parsimonious explanation of what's ACTUALLY happening can be seen as: dogs that displayed a look and behaviour that people interpret as their own emotion of "shame" after doing something wrong were positively selected for and less likely to be punished. this trait, that randomly occured and was amplified through breeding, was fixed to an extent in the dog population eventually. wolves do not exhibit that, neither do foxes and even many dogs do not. "dog emotions" aren't proof of anything here. dogs ahve been selectively breed by people for too long, their behaviourisms are far to aligned with the expectations of humans for this reason.
>>
>>2747652
So they exhibit human emotion
>>
>>2747512
>Anyone who doesn't either has never had dogs or is some kind of complete mental defective.

can someone translate this sentence for me
>>
>>2747652
>>2747648
>not that anon, but I want to ask about octopus and cuttlefish. I know they are very smart in terms of ocean creatures(excluding the mammals). Do they have any nerves that give off the same emotions in humans? Do they have emotions? I know the latter is a very open ended question, but is there evidence to suggest they feel something we can label as emotions?
>>
Materialism and the existence of emotions, thoughts, and consciousness aren’t mutually exclusive concepts dumb dumb.
>>
>>2747590

We are biological machines. We and other animals also have internal experiences as well though. There isn’t a biologist in existence suggesting that. Feelings and thoughts definitely exist, they just exist as a very complex pattern inside the atoms of your brain, like a computer program exists as a pattern of code inside the circuits if a processor. They are still materially based. People that suggest out minds are so complex that they must be connected to a parallel dimensions are endlessly frustrating to me.
>>
>>2747653
They exhibit mimicry of human emotion in that instance. This is why I brought up loss instead of something dependent on punishment. And regarding loss, most people are extra affectionate to surviving dogs so it clearly isn't based on punishment/reward that they act depressed.

>>2747652
This is a solid point. Although
>probaly >no cap, misspelled
>are far to >to
Speellll cheeecccck

>>2747660
A certain strand of thinking seems to posit this, which supports the view of a deterministic universe and humans as nothing more than animated chemical soup then bizarrely claims we are somehow so special and unique from animals and that an internal experience with basic thoughts and emotions and sufferings is somehow unique to us alone.

>>2747655
Which part? If you mean the mental defective part, I mean idiots and psychopaths mainly or some kind of severe autist or something. Not being able to view another being as anything but a machine that doesn't feel genuine pain but just "reacts according to its programming" is a severely aberrant and defective trait (unless you wish to argue the speciousness and subjectivity of the term "defective" as applied to traits in living beings).

It is quite plainly an extremely deviant way of thinking about things and perceiving living things that only a person with a mental disorder would maintain unless they were somehow indoctrinated to believe such a thing from an utterly flawed and erroneous pedagogy or doctrine/ideology/faith etc. who then most likely internally punish themselves for straying from the party line. In which case the idea itself was almost certainly originating from a mental deviant in that case.

This is not even to say I have something against mental deviation mind you, just that to take something as indisputable fact particularly from a clearly aberrant mind is the sign of an inferior intellect. Ergo, I would not regard them as authoritative voices regardless.
>>
>>2747652
I never really thought about how being selected to express emotion could be a totally seperate than actually having them. I wonder if people have tried to measure that connection in dogs. How am I currently being emotionally manipulated by my pets.
>>
>>2747669

They do and they are

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/19/dogs-have-pet-facial-expressions-to-use-on-humans-study-finds

It turns out being cute means you're more likely to be fed.
>>
>>2747656
>Do they have any nerves that give off the same emotions in humans?

no. Octopus intelligence is one of those rare instances that demonstrate that evolution is always coevultion even withing the individual and not just between different species (flowers and bees) or conspecifics (bees and bees). the octopus has a manipulator tool in it's arms. manipulator and brain start primitive but they advance each other's evolution in a synergistic way beyond what one would expect. any improvement in the brain can immediately be put to use with the manipulator and any improvement in the manipulator feeds back to learned behaviours and long-term potentiation which explain why they have such dramatic memory.
>>
>>2747435
Emotion is the human conceptualization of the instincts that occur by stimuli. Animals in that regard have emotion, dogs certainly recognize humans as parts of their packs or consider themselves part of our packs, with pack obedience being conflated with the idea that the animal loves us. It just so happens we anthropomorphize the animal's instincts and actions in regards that instinct with our own.
>>
File: (you).jpg (57 KB, 1080x608)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>2747666
>>
>>2747660
>deterministic universe and humans as nothing more than animated chemical soup
Exactly. We’re really not as different from the little automiton creatures that surround us as anyone wants to think. There is a big grey area between alive and dead, conscious and unconscious. I think biologists have a specifically focused view on it by studying things like bacteria and insects.
We aren’t special except that we get to define the grey atomic soup ourselves and decide how it tastes. I think it’s pretty delicious.
>>
>>2747478
Shut up faggot, I hate you so much. You ruin /an/ with your constant posts that animal brains are completely alien to ours. You must be an autist for the books.
>>
>>2747600
For me the soul is the mind, but there’s some other thing in the brain that we can call a soul. A spirit, I suppose, in the most firgurafive of terms, is the best way to describe it. I don’t know if animals have this spirit, but if it’s connected to emotion and animals display clear emotion without human influence, then they probably have it too.

It is true that my fish, a school of livebearers, are responding to the prospect of food and they know me as foodgiver. But is that terribly different from a baby recognizing his mother as the food giver, and so becomes excited whenever he sees her? It’s deeper than that for humans, of course, but the bonding process is similar.
>>
>>2747669

There's also this, they can lie and display dishonesty.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124087-dogs-use-deception-to-get-what-they-want-from-humans-a-sausage/
>>
>>2747666
>We are biological machines.
most people have no concept of how true that is. on a molecular level, life is just a bunch or spinning motors, ratchets and knee joints... gif related.
>>
>>2747677
Fuck, meant to reply to
>>2747668
not my own fucking post.
>>
>>2747676
Yes, logical thinking that goes against what you already believe is the truest evil. You already have it all figured out, changing your mind is bad.
>>
>>2747676
>File: (you).jpg (57 KB, 1080x608)

that movie/book had no point at all.
>>
>>2747685
Exactly. There’s a level of complexity inside cellular mechanisms that just looks like a perfect machine that had to have been made by a conscious entity. So many people get stuck there and stop looking. If you go down another level and look at how it all works on an atomic level you realise that there’s no need for it to be designed because it’s just a result of how physics work and given billions of gears, this was bound to happen somewhere in the universe.
>>
>>2747691
simulate reality confirmed?
>>
>>2747435
>valuable and coveted red husky allowed to die in the street
the absolute state of bugpeople
>>
>>2747435
is the doggo mourning his dead friend or just hungry?
>>
That animals have emotions is obvious. Let's stop wanking about that and get to what we all know is the real situation here. Whether animal emotions have "depth" or are just mechanical in a way that our evolved selves are not. Humans and animals are different. We have more complex emotions and more complex reflections on said emotions than they do. We are conscious of ourselves being conscious and have greater awareness and dimensions to our thoughts, we are not just experiencing emotions. Lesser animals will continually act in robotically repetitive or "illogical" ways that suggest a lack of awareness to the degree we humans have. They can also be "controlled" for a lack of a better word easier and more viscerally than humans. These things manifest in us through some effects of classical conditioning and disorders like PTSD, but we are complex enough to see past and get over these things while also thinking about them more complexly.
>>
>>2747687
Check your digits you dingus
>>
they definitely feel gay LOL
>>
>>2747459
>whining
>pawing
>head butting
>nudging
>gentle attempts at dragging

Yes these are definitely how a dog eats.
>>
>>2747623
>Okay, tell me why they believe that, according to you
because the response to stimulus evolved billions of years before the awareness of the response, so the response isn't evidence of awareness.

this is a fact and no biologist disputes it. All we disagree on is when that awareness evolved. Some say in mammals, some say in a small handful of animals that are mostly primates.

but if X evolved before X(Y), then X doesn't prove the presence of Y.

this is a set problem that retards like yourself aren't intelligent enough to understand. If crying when injured evolved before the awareness of pain then crying isn't proof of awareness of pain. Just like if jumping around in excitement evolved before awareness of excitement then jumping around isn't evidence of awareness of excitement.

the awareness is what makes it an emotion, not the behavioral response. Because EVERY biologist agrees that the behavior evolved long before the awareness (emotion) did.
>>
>>2747685
how the hell did that thing learn to walk? It's pretty cartoonish
>>
>>2747486
This is my own personal belief, as well.
>>
>>2747779
My first post in this thread.

Your problem is on how you (biologists) define an emotion, as the awareness of the stimulus. That's just olain retarded. The stimulus itself is more than enough to constitute emotion. Human babies have emotions, ask any psychiatrist.

t. physicist and applied mathematician, ie not an actual brainlet like you behavioural biologists with your pseudo science
>>
>>2747691
No one has ever yet figured out how or why the Big Bang happened though.

Just saying.
>>
>>2747846
Are human babies aware though? Can we actually say they have any mind or actual emotion? How do we know anything a baby or infant displays is not just a programmed reaction from a machine? I would posit that babies don't have real emotions or awareness and are on the same level as mice, except mice can at least solve a maze puzzle, ergo mice are smarter and have more awareness than babies.
>>
>>2747928
That is exactly what I talking about in my post, and the fact that it went over your head further proves that you are an idiot incapable of the minimum reading comprehension.

Here, let me make it very clear for your idiotic mind:

Pedopsychiatrists agree that babies DO have emotions,

And we know that babies are NOT self aware,

So, if pedopsychiatrists, who are more apt to define what an emotion is than stupid behavioural biologists, suggest that a being without awareness is able to have emotions, that means that the stupid interpretation that biologists have of what constitutes an emotion is wrong, thus desteoying their argument.

tldr behavioural biologists arr hacks, and everyone knows that true biology nowadays is basically biochemistry
>>
>>2747959
Who do you think you're arguing with? I'm parodying the illogical and moronic idea that animals don't have emotions, such as fear. Fear serves a clear evolutionary purpose. We can witness it in animals. It isn't just scientific, it is plain common sense. To say otherwise is flatly retarded and I don't care how much sophistry one uses to try and make their argument sound valid.
>>
>>2748004
Then we are on the same page. I thought you were the other idiot defending the trend of behavioural biologists. My apologies.
>>
why wouldn't animals have emotions? emotions are just hormone fluctuations and excitatory states. dogs don't know feel fear? sadness? happiness? anxiety?

emotions are baked into the brain of all mammals, to claim only humans experience emotions is just anthropocentric mysticism.

what is the precise moment in man's evolution that he began to be separated from animals who supposedly do not? homo erectus? homo habilis? an earlier precursor species, but not before it?

it's a silly question desu
>>
>>2748016
read the thread moron.
>>
>>2747435
Poor doggos :(
>>
File: 1506309035883.jpg (38 KB, 436x413)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
Anyone got the webm where the guy shows a budgie its dead mate wrapped in tissue paper and the budgie keeps unwrapping it and biting the guy whenever he tries to take the dead budgie away? Shit fucked me up.
>>
Poor doggo :(
>>
>>2747486
>emotions are simple reflex reactions because i say so
no
actual complex emotions like sadness require high cognitive ability, they are not the same as say fear which requires little to no perception of the self and world around you
>emotion have evolutionary advantage because i say so, therefore animals that evolved must have them!
no, that's just stupid fucking circular reasoning
>>
>>2748048
https://youtu.be/xmumGHX3tHA
Close enough
>>
>>2747435
No one else going to mention the dog has an erection? Looks like it was just trying to move it's fuckbuddy off the road. I don't think the dog is "sad", just distressed about being stuck in traffic because its mate won't move. Same with the cat version where the cat is kneading a dead cat in traffic. It's looking to mate, not mourn.

That said, dog/cats do get depressed and stop eating if separated from a person or animal they were closely bonded with. After my mother died, our family cat paced the halls yowling and slept on the floor of her empty room for about a month before giving up and sleeping in my room.
>>
File: it ain't bee.webm (817 KB, 640x348)
817 KB
817 KB WEBM
this webm literally changed my life
>>
>>2748082
yes. literally bugs are more compassionate than the bug-"men" we call the chinese.

>>2748079
dogs fuck inanimate objects just fine by humping them actually. no humping here. it's trying to wake to other dog up. dogs have an array of non-wolf-like behaviours that are the result of a human-dog coevolution process es outlined in >>2747652
(many) dogs have been selectively bred to receive pleasure from pleasuring us through their actions/work.
>>
>>2747435
The smart ones do
Your pet snake for example doesn't and would eat you if given the chance since it does not love you
>>
>>2747435
yes, depending on how social the animal is.

humans are extremely social so having strong emotions is beneficial to the group dynamic. same goes for wolves/dogs and most other pack animals. intelligence probably plays part in it as well.
>>
>>2747459

it knows where their bones are buried.
>>
File: rip.jpg (52 KB, 1280x720)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>
Of course. How is this even a debate?
>>
>>2748059
Thanks man.
>>
Do animals understand that death is a state that you can't come back from? In all these videos they seem to be trying to revive their dead friend as if they expect it to come back. I mean they must understand once the body has started decaying and shit, but what about before that?
>>
>>2748245
>Do animals understand
no
>inby le sign language chimp
learned from humans
>>
>>2748227
this
>>
Thinking that a lizard will mourn it's dead because you saw a webm of a dog trying to wake up a dead dog is fucking pathetic
>>
File: F.webm (2.91 MB, 480x360)
2.91 MB
2.91 MB WEBM
>>
>>2747435
Anyone who owns a dog/cat know this
>>
Why do people hate Chinese and Japanese people itt? What makes them "not feel emotion"?
>>
>>2748372
are you new to the internet?
>>
>>2748373
Yes, tell me
>>
My elderly dog died three months ago and my lab was pretty upset.
He died in his sleep and I found him in his bed, my lab was whining, nudging him with his nose, licking his face and pawing him.
After we buried him my Lab spent two days lying in bed, would only leave to eat or use the toilet.
He wouldn't even come on walkies.
>>
>>2747435
yeah, emotions are extremely animalistic.
>>
>>2747435
The more advanced ones generally do, although they way they feel is probably somewhat different than ours and no one should assume that any other animal is just a tiny person. I don't see why people think emotions are so special and unique to humans, though. It's just a way for a body to automatically give a grade for the environment around them and steer them towards an action (eating, cooperating with others, guarding territory, etc.)
>>
>>2747740
i think at the start he wants to get his friendo to get up and get off the street. well until he realises that his friend isnt going anywhere anymore
>>
>>2748458
>I don't see why people think emotions are so special and unique to humans
We don't. We recognize that human emotional experience has greater depth than in animals.
>>
>>2748342
>If it had sound
SHHHHAUUUUUUNNNNNNN!!!!!
>>
>>2748535
The problem is some people make it sound like animals experience next to nothing at all. This is demonstrably false. In fact some may experience things more deeply in some areas than humans. At the very minimum, they certainly experience certain sights and sound more than we ever will, and in some cases things like earth's magnetic fields or the electrical fields emitted by living beings. I just find it funny how certain biologists will hold fedora beliefs then act like a religious fundamentalist when it comes to "humans are special snowflakes"
>>
>>2748603
It's the level of awareness in humans that makes it deep. An animal may experience sound in a more complex way physically, but do they respond to it how we do to music?
>>
>>2747435
Dogs can.
Multiple studies done.
After leaving the house the dog had increase anxiety until the thirty minute mark. At which anxiety peaked.
From thirty minutes until however many hours later anxiety stayed roughly at this same level.
Monitored by both brain scans and stress hormones in the dogs body.

Upon seeing their owner dog felt instant relief and either insane levels of excitement or a sudden tiredness and desire to just lay with their owner.
So a dog can understand stress, excitement, desire, and content-ness.
Things like happy, sad, fear, etc are a bit harder to pinpoint as these are more complex emotions.

I personally believe fear is shown regularly in dogs, but people have argued otherwise since the reactions between being afraid and stress were roughly exactly the same in the dogs brain and chemical processes.
Happiness when "measured" had almost the same result as content.

So really either your dog is stressed or content.
In most cases at least.

Obviously other animals can feel more complex emotions. Certain birds, elephants, dolphins I believe can show almost human ranges of emotion.

While animals like cats can barely show emotion at all outside of baser instincts like "i'm stressed because i'm hungry."
People think cats missed them while they were gone, but when the same test was done on cats. Most cats didn't give two shits about their owner leaving until the hour they were usually given food had come and gone.
Some cats that are very pack driven like the Cornish Rex. Showed stress when owner or other family animals were not present.
>>
It's threads like these where I miss bugguy the most. He would've BTFO every shitter in here while euthanizing some cats on the side.
>>
>>2748255
So it's not actually grief, they're just confused why the dead animal won't get up?
>>
>>2748344
>smart animal that is known to be extremely protective of it's offspring mourns them
>WOW DUDES THAT MEANS MY GOLDFISH WILL MISS ME
>>
>>2748646
>WOW DUDES THAT MEANS MY GOLDFISH WILL MISS ME

actually yes. I understand you are strawmanning and being facetious but if you train your fishes with food they will be conditioned thusly and will in fact have a negative reaction to your/the food's absense that very well can be considered a form of missing something/one. who do you miss? do you miss total strangers that present no benefit to you? no, you miss people who you get shit from one way or the other and that's exactly what's happening to the fish.
>>
>>2748646
Ad absurdum fallacy. We already said it's a gradient you retard.

>>2748775
I wouldn't say my goldfish particularly likes me he just goes nuts when I walk past because he wants to be fed (no matter how much I feed him either). He's stupid as fuck. My electric blue acara is actually intelligent enough to seem to recognize me, but I don't think I play enough with him to care. What I want to do is get my bettas to like me.
>>
>>2747435
Probably

>>2747486
Except that stuff like depression doesn't invoke actions.

Dawkins dwelled on this issue as well, such as why anyone feels pain at all instead of just a signal that "This is a bad idea".
>>
File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (95 KB, 800x517)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>2747652
You're a German, you are not an appropriate arbiter of emotion
>>
File: 210.jpg (44 KB, 512x384)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
Yes they have emotions, but the dog in OP's gif is trying to fuck the dead one. You can even see its dick out. That seems to be the case with 99% of "dog trying to revive dead friend" videos
>>
>>2748775
>animal associates man's presence with food since it cannot provide for itself as it's stuck in a fish bowl
>THAT MEANS HE LOVE ME
i know you faggots are lonely fucks who want to pretend your animal with the intelligence of a rock cares about you in a way that isn't food but this is sad, if you want something that will give a shit get a dog
>>
>>2748775
>animal associates man's presence with food since it cannot provide for itself as it's stuck in a fish bowl
>THAT MEANS HE LOVE ME
i know you faggots are lonely fucks who want to pretend your animal with the intelligence of a rock cares about you in a way that isn't food but this is sad, if you want something that will give a shit get a dog
>>
>>2747435
of course animals feel emotion were animals and we feel emotions
>>
>>2749108
>>2749112
>wtf is reading comprehension
>>
>>2748981
ethnically I'm russian. my passports say Austria and Germany. fuck you.
>>
>>2747750
>if I believe what I say it'll be true
K den
>>
>>2747486
>muh feels
>muh bill nye logic
>no real explanations
.
.
.
>Dat spacing
Tits of gtfo
>>
>>2747435
He's obviously trying to hump it, I mean his nasty dog dick is halfway out his sheath almost like a doggy half-chub.

Nasty necronine
>>
Do humans feel emotions?
>>
>>2749275
not the chinese
but thats because they evolved from insects not mammals
>>
>>2747486
>Yes, and I think only morons think otherwise.

This is correct.

I'm not sure they feel "love" as we know it, but I think they do experience affection for others of their own kind and for individual humans who are kind to them. But they don't have the full range of emotions we have. Like, they don't find anything funny, for example.
>>
>>2747486
>Dogs are a good example of this. Due to their proximity to humans they have developed a much broader range of body language to express emotion in an exaggerated manner in comparison to wolves who never needed that range because they didn't communicate emotion predominantly visually. However I doubt this is because dogs have evolved more emotions, rather they've just evolved more ways of expressing them in ways we'd understand - which makes sense considering how core we've been to their development.

THAT, my friends, may be the wisest thing I ever read on 4chan. And I mean that. EXCELLENT post.
>>
>>2747534
This guy is epic. Just finished his book behave. Worth every 500 pages or whatever and gives you a perspective into hominid behaviour (among other species) that changes your outlook.

Tldr; contemporary biologists definitely don't believe like old mates teacher. Or better yet, yes animals are biological algorithmic systems, but so are humans - and with that comes more sophisticated outputs of emotion etc. Animals (all or most) experience it to a degree, we just have a more developed sense.

Other books people will like on this matter :

Other minds - Peter Godfrey Smith
Sapiens / homo deus - yuval Harari
Anything by Frances dewaal, Jane Goodall.
>>
>>2747565
But there is heaps of evidence of animals showing emotion.

Also when did emotion begin? With the first homo sapien? Just appeared out of nowhere with speciation?
>>
File: 9780374537197.jpg (29 KB, 259x377)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>2747582
Do yourself a favour anon.
>>
>>2747435
Looks like he's trying to hump it. My dog does the same pawing and snuffling of his fuzzy blanket.
>>
>>2749308
Be sure to share on all your favorite social media channels, and click that subscribe button :^)
>>
>>2747556
Biology isn't really full of complex and abstract concepts, I'm sure he's capable of understanding these things you arrogant prick.
Science isn't based on popular academic consensus, and what we know today could be laughed at in the future.
>>
>>2747594
Wow what a compelling argument.
>>
>>2747668
>They exhibit mimicry of human emotion
You exhibit mimicry of human emotion.
>>
>>2747685
Then where do your thoughts come from?
>>
>>2749342
sorry, I got bored with the stupid people and wandered off for a couple days.

I see you're still here. I'll check back in a week.
>>
>>2749127
>Russian
like that makes it any better
>>
>>2749287
There is nothing wrong with the chinese
>>
File: 1479328527828.png (189 KB, 406x564)
189 KB
189 KB PNG
>>2748876
>Except that stuff like depression doesn't invoke actions.
It invokes inaction because you've fucked up so much that your subconscious has simply concluded you'll just be a net drag on resources if you try anymore. I'm completely pulling this out of my ass, but I tend to think the individual prioritizes itself because that's simplest and most efficient, but still has an underlying consideration for the species and life otherwise. When the individual fucks up so greatly and so frequently, there comes a point where the self stops prioritizing itself over the species/other life and just waits to die.
>>
File: WINNER.webm (2.91 MB, 1280x720)
2.91 MB
2.91 MB WEBM
>>
>>2749436
Yeah I agree
>drives into people crossing the street
chinese people are completely normal
>drives over the people that got hit again just to make sure they are dead because apparently money is more important than human lifes
>>
>>2747681
He isnt wrong though
>>
>>2749746
Nice bullshit hero propaganda you got going there. Fact is there are too many of us for human life to still be considered precious.
>>
>>2749753
>hero propaganda
what is this?
>>
>>2749753
>bullshit hero propaganda
>tons of videos that show exactly what was described in the post

Hm.
>>
>>2749746
>>2749753
went to asia once to visit a friend whose mother had died. I went to a cremotmaroim with him and it was basically a lunch line. You put in the body, wait a bit, and then pick up the ashes of a tray. You then pour the ashes off the tray thing and return the tray. Just a bunch of trays of ash constantly being pumped out all day. Much like a lunchline. quite a experience
>>
>>2749753
>there are too many of us

I hear this shit a lot from people whol like to virtue signal for the environment being an edgelord I always tell them to feel free to kill themselves and their immediate families for the benefit of the planet. they then get all uppity and I tell them to shut their filthy "good for thee, not for me" whore mouths. usually you get applause by coworkers because these cunts are vile and obnoxious about this shit and few people have the energy to stand up to them. my point is, when you hear regressive talking points being voiced feel free to speak up - very few people around agree with them, they are just silent to keep the peace and avoid conflict.
>>
>>2749778
absolutely based.
>>
>>2749778

There are too many of you simpleton. You know how many cities are running out of fresh water? Killing ourselves isnt the answer because we'd just leave retards lile you to keep over populating. Having no kids is the answer, or killing retards like you sounds better imo.
>>
File: images.png (3 KB, 327x154)
3 KB
3 KB PNG
>>2749790
>killing retards like you sounds better imo

well come and get some then....
>>
>>2749780
these people are just self important bullies. the second you stand up for yourself and tell them to STFU they usally are stunned...
>>
>>2749746
That doesn't actually happen you retard.
One anecdote does not make a nation.
>>
>>2749937
do you even rekt thread bro
>>
>>2748608
Considering various animals actually develop complex mating songs (most notable birds, but also things like spiders and crickets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-tXJmXQ6Is) I would say the answer is yes.

In fact if you actually analyze music a good amount of it is just replication of the sound of a heartbeat and sexual rhythm. The crescendo is basically just the climax and the coda or denoument is just the post-climax phase of human mating acts. Humans just happen to create more mechanically complex things out of it like symphonies. It wouldn't surprise me if you could create species specific songs but then again how would you know? How could we measure how they experience it? Brainwave scans is one way I guess, although composing it would also be difficult and I doubt much research has gone into creating music for bugs and sparrows.
>>
>>2749964
Those are mating dances and calls that fulfill a specific purpose in a more mechanical life cycle of the animal. Not necessarily the same thing as having an individual emotional experience listening to music related to your ability to form complex abstract thoughts and introspections.
>>
>>2749980
Hence why I noted things like symphonies. But a large part of music is just another form of showing off and attracting a mate. As for things like war dances and easy listening, again, the tempo is based on biological rhythms such as your heartbeat. So I would argue that our music, much like everything else, is merely another layer of complexity and abstraction on top of the lizard brain, much like it is in any animal.
>>
>>2750089
But this reductionism does nothing to counter the idea that the human experience is of a greater depth and complexity than the lesser animal. Unlike "any animal", we ponder things, and can ponder the very idea of pondering things itself. Our enjoyment of sounds is inherently tied into more complex emotions due to greater experiences of thought and introspection and more complex responses to these thoughts. And human enjoyment of music is also not limited to this idea of biological rhythms, as there are non percussive genres of music, and even astructural genres of music.
>>
>>2750106
>as there are non percussive genres of music, and even astructural genres of music.
Some of which is completely terrible. You know, there are experiments indicating even plants respond differently to different sounds. I've heard it regarded as pseudoscience but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKQ-CIX9afA

Honestly to some extent the idea of downplaying the degree to which other beings feel and experience things strikes me as being anthropocentric conjecture just as much as projecting humanity on them or anthropomorphizing them.

Nor did I imply that humans are not likely more complex, however a great deal of things are quite simply outside our range of experience even just within sights and sounds. We cannot see UV light. We cannot hear outside of a certain range thus cannot detect without instruments things like spiders vibrating, elephants communicating through feet thumping, some mouse squeeking, dolphins etc. I don't think there's much on earth that has our level of abstraction however I see no reason not to believe that certain species may be capable of a greater depth than us.

One thing for instance is mating. Humans like to pretend we're faithful but the fact of the matter is humans do not mate for life. Apes are hyper sexual sluts that suck their own dicks. They tend to mate a lot when they're younger, and in humans tend to mate with others sometimes even during child rearing, and may divorce and find other mates.

Some animals like birds just don't do this. How are we to say, then, that the sheer depth of feeling of even a bird isn't on a level greater than our own when it literally never leaves its mate? Just in terms of affection, what if there are those lifetime mate animals who know it deeper than us?
>>
>>2750381
If they're completely terrible, why are there devoted scenes and fanbases? It's silly to imply that literally every one of them is pretending to enjoy the experiences they provide.

I'm sorry if you feel bad about downgrading lesser animals, but it's observable. You dangle something of instinctual interest in front of a human, they aren't going to mindlessly pounce onto it. Their instincts are not going to so easily overwrite their level of consciousness about the situation. They comprehend the situation in a more abstract way.

Again, it doesn't matter that animals physically experience things differently if there is nothing to suggest that they REFLECT on these experiences in the complex ways we do, or when it's observable that these animals act in repetitive ways suggestive of living just to live, or when they demonstrate a lack of whole awareness to portions of the environment they are in, or when they can be so easily manipulated through classical conditioning in ways that human beings cannot.
>>
>>2747478
I read some about Argentine Black and White Tegu's being able to show affection for their owners as well as being among the few partially warm blooded reptiles known to exist, albeit it's only during their reproductive. Still though video's like >https://youtu.be/BwEbPZvhE_o make you think about it.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.