I can't believe you base your understanding of human psychology on Dr Who! I think humans over-rate/over-state the difference between themselves and animals. Which is not to say particularly I'd ascribe 'sadness' to a frog or anything but I think the facade of human 'superiority' or 'complexity of emotion' can break down pretty fast when we have to scrabble for survival which wild animals are doing.
I'm just a big kid I agree there is a lot of effort put in by society to separate us from being 'animals.' Of course we are just another taxon, and I love how the Wikipedia article (I know, I know) for humans is formatted in the same way it is for any other animal. It gives us our taxon place, breaking it down into kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species and even subspecies. We even have an IUCN listing Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think the human species has grown so advanced (religion/philosophy, technology, morality) that it is hard for some to see ourselves as animals sometimes - since animals are beasts without these intricacies. I've heard it cited many times that people have a phobia or just general dislike of apes 'because they're so like us' - of course they're so like us when we're all in the same family. I personally find apes fascinating in the most part (especially orangs) for this reason.
No you are right I hadn't. I missed it. I assume we are talking about the part where you now say you think some animals do feel emotions? Because I'm confused. Thats a flip on your behalf. Earlier you stated that a dog at the park did not equate to feeling "joy". This one of the most basic emotions. Should animals feel joy, it would explain why so many animals choose to play. Of course play is life training, but if not for joy, why do they do it? Wouldn't it be fair to assume that joy is natures payoff for baby animals to engage in such necessities? Anyhow, You evaded even acknowledging that the chimps, our nearest relative, may feel emotion. Now suddenly they do? This is worthy discussion because the debate about whether animals feel basic emotions, such as joy and depression is absolutely integral to this debate. If they don't, then we can justify keeping them in captive in virtually any environment as long as we don't cause them physical discomfort or pain. However should animals have even a shallow emotional rage we are obligated to provide more.
I don't think anything I have posted here is contradictory - I have stated that I believe at least some non-human animals experience some level of emotion but that I'm not convinced that a dog experiences 'enjoyment' in the way a human does, and as such I'm not sure if the word can be applied. I just don't think this is a black-and-white issue, so I'm neither 'pro-emotion' or 'anti-emotion'. Why would 'nature' be giving 'pay-offs'? To my mind, that's not how 'nature' works. The whole of Life is basically just a set of 'lucky' self-replicating molecules responding to stimuli - it doesn't give favours! As to whether animals play because they enjoy it, it's a possible explanation, but could it not also be that play is an instinct that has been selected for in the evolutionary history of the species concerned? As you say, play is also how young animals learn to survive - that's likely to mean a strong selective pressure in favour of individuals that play more, which will then leave more offspring. If other animals do feel what we'd call 'enjoyment', I don't see why we should assume it's the reason for play to appear - though it may be a reinforcing factor, growing more important in more emotionally complex animals. Where did I say they didn't? As other members will be aware great apes are the group of animals I have least interest in, so I'd always be unlikely to invoke them as examples - there are many, many people here more qualified to comment on chimps than me! I agree in principle. But I don't see how we're ever likely to be able to prove it either way. And I don't like making assumptions at any point in science, and certainly not assumptions about non-human animal behaviour based on human behaviour. If we're looking for a widespread emotion, incidentally, rather than 'joy' or 'depression' I would say look for 'fear' - something that all vertebrates seem to at least have a response analogous to - an animal that doesn't evade a threat isn't going to make much of an evolutionary impact!
Nature doesn't give pay offs?!!! nature is all about payoffs! I believe emotion is something certain animals have evolved to cause us/them to respond appropriately to a given situation. It makes no sense to say that animals play just because that gives them life lessons, since animals have not the intellect to know this. Natural selection has of course favoured animals that play, since its obviously advantageous to their species, but that doesn't explain what causes the individual to do so. What is the trigger? what is the reward? what is the pay off that gives that animal the desire to behave that way? I would argue an emotion - "joy". Just like sex evolved to feel good, Nature created emotions to trigger appropriate responses from us. That is how human brains work, all behaviours are triggered by an emotive response. Emotion is what drives us. Jealousy for example is what makes us want what others have, something that is advantageous to the individual. If we didn't have that emotion we would just sit there passively watching some other guy sleep with our wife. hardly productive to passing on our genes. Its what makes us try what we see other do. Emotion is the factor that drives the human brain to respond the way it does to almost everything it does. Why on earth would you feel its more logical or safer to assume that something so complicated and so integral to the functioning of our mammalian brains would be something that has evolved only in a particular lineage or our species, and that all other animals operate on a completely different system. If emotions do not drive their responses what does? seriously. what has evolution come up with those animals to make them behave that way? and more importantly why did humans need to evolve something different? intelligence and emotion are not the same thing. the two are not even particularly linked. people with extremely low intellect can still have high "emotional intelligence" animals don't understand their emotions because they don't have the intellect. Don't let the idea of emotions turn you off because you think i'm saying my dog is as smart as me. I don't think dolphins float in their tanks understanding why they are so depressed. I don't think develops jealously for some complicated reason like "the cat gets more expensive food than me". Its just a chemical release that makes them feel a certain way. And that feeling prompts an certain behavioural response. nature is all about payoffs. think about it. what gives incentive to the individual animal to display advantageous behaviours?
I think we're disputing semantics here - I don't like treating nature as some being (Gaia-style) giving rewards for good behaviour, but the species as a whole needs to benefit from individuals' behaviour if it is to survive and thrive. I'm not sure how you can be so sure animals have emotions and so sure they don't have intellect. They are not the same thing, as you say, but they are linked. I think it does. Natural selection acts on the population by acting on the individuals. I do not know if a tendency to play can be genetic, but I see no reason why not. And in animals like mammals with parental care, an animal that played as a youngster may encourage play in its offspring. I really don't see the situation in those terms. The 'reward' (if you like) is survival. Again we have 'Nature' presented as a deity, do you yourself have a theological bent? We experience 'jealousy' as an emotion, but it can only have started as an instinctive reaction, like moving your hand from a hot plate. Fence lizards defend their mates from intruders, are they experiencing what humans call 'jealousy'? I would contend that the emotion we feel (and possibly a chimp or a whale would feel) is a result of the same instinct running through a more complex brain. I don't - this is not what I've been saying. But I feel they operate on different versions of the system, like a Windows 98 PC can't do things Vista can (complete with the caveat that the more complex system comes with a whole set of new problems of its own!). There isn't a sudden tipping point from 'emotion' to 'no emotion' that I can see - it's a sliding scale and each species is likely different in its level of emotional reaction. As above, humans aren't different, just (arguably - not definitively) further down the road. Evolution acts on behaviour in all animals - if emotion is the driving force, what of woodlice - are they emotional? If a woodlouse does not seek out its cool dark places, it will dry out or be predated - do they respond emotionally to this need? I think this may be our major point of difference - if a given organism doesn't understand it as an emotion, can it be called one? I would say that in many cases there is no incentive - it's instinct - hard-wired from millions of years of evolution. In some cases, there is an emotional response as well - as a reinforcement or just as a side-effect.
...And so it was that the debate shifted to what constitutes an emotion. Or as you like to call it "since animals cant speak can they call their feeling 'emotions?". For the record I almost borderline take offence at the suggestion that I have some Gaia like misconception of evolution. Iv'e read far, far, far too many books on the subject and have far too deep an understanding of the process' involved to believe in that kinda horsesh!t. However this, i'm afraid, will go on forever. I will speak of bears and you will interpret it as woodlouse. and vice versa and so on. You no doubt see me as some anthropomorphic, animal lover, who reads books with titles like "Why Elephants Cry In Their Dreams" and makes statements like "look look, my rabbit is smiling! look!" and I will see you as that nerdy arrogant guy who naively loves his local zoo so much he would articulately try to justify them capturing the last of the javan rhinos - so long as they ended up at your local zoo. So till we cross swords next time.
Well, you seem to have brought an interesting scientific and philosophical debate down in most unpleasant fashion, but just to tie up my half: Well, what an emotion actually is is rather key to this debate, is it not? I hope that last sentence is not intended to be a quotation of my position, as it is not. I did not say anything about speech - read it again. It's a question of awareness. You still invoked 'Nature' (your capital 'N') as a creator, which gave me the chance to return your 'divine' comment. I keep coming back to non-mammals because still you decline to comment on where they fit in your view. Are they emotional or not? If you don't know, that's not a problem - I don't either, at the end of the day. But you seem unwilling to even consider them. Wow, so you know me well enough to read my mind? Up to now I thought you rather intelligent but given that this is how you choose to end the debate I'm now not so sure. I'm not one who takes offence easily (as that's a major problem in the world at the moment), but I most definitely take offence at the use of the word 'arrogant', as I have not been arrogant. I have just been debating. This is a discussion board and that is what it's for. I take EXTREME offence at the Javan Rhino accusation - that I'd be happy for the species' existence to be compromised for me to be able to see it - a completely unprompted and unwarranted attack on my character. May I ask which of my comments here you are basing this on? And if not, how on Earth you come to make this ludricrous accusation? Frankly, after the final turn in this debate I would be unlikely to engage with you again, as there seems little point if the debate cannot proceed without petty insults and if you are unwilling to respond to my arguments. It appears quite simply that you do not wish your views to be debated and if that is the case you should not be putting them on a discussion board. Goodbye, peacock.
Relax Marguari, what your feeling right now isn't frustration. It's simply a hard-wired response to external stimuli.
If I can chip in with a bird owner's point of view... I hope it's not too presumptuously anthropomorphic to say that the magpie I share a house with has distinct facial expressions (you have to know a bird very well to read expressions without the usual facial features though), language and emotions. Expressions can be read from position of feathering, raised or lowered eyebrow feathers, angle of head, shape of eye etc. Language: Pie uses magpie noises, but also human noises he's appropriated (*kiss* and *sniff* noises in particular) which he uses in definable, repeatable situations. The *kiss* is only used in one to one chat when Pie is relaxed. The *sniff* is used as disapproval: "I don't wanna!", "But I wanna!" or if you're eating something not deemed good enough to steal. Emotions: If you've ever engaged in play with a magpie, you'll know that the curved back, tail in the air, fuzzed-up head, waving wings and mad squeaking denote pleased-with-himself happiness. Magpies are also capable of feeling guilt. They know damn well that "NO!" means "please stop pecking the wallpaper immediately" but choose not to obey, casting backward glances before daring to peck it anyway. There's a totally different set of squeaks and wing-waves that denote "caught red-handed"! Pie is also capable of some spectacular bad moods, meaning that any attempt to touch him or to ask him to step up will be met with huffing, honking and a warning beak in your direction. If you can read the signs of a flapping beak and "wiiich"ing noises, you'll know not to try. These emotions and behaviours do have an evolutionary advantage. Intelligent scavenging flock birds need to have a good team-oriented working relationship with each other as well as good interpersonal bonds to keep the flock together. But it's also to your advantage when times are hard if you can keep your own cache safe, realise when someone else is watching, and even pretend to hide something (as observed in jays, for example) but in reality put it somewhere else. That demands a lot of intelligence and the ability to not exactly empathise, but to put yourself in someone else's shoes and view a situation from their point of view. Other birds of mine, the starling and the sparrow for example, I would class as being less intelligent. They interact on a different level and in a less complex way, but still show individual personality traits. While the starling has a vast repertoire of human speech he can mimic, there is a less definable correlation between situation and sound (although that could be because 95% of the time a starling's sound can be categorised simply as "too bloody loud!"). The sparrow's repertoire is more limited, comprising the usual cheeps, but also some more complex song, and an angry ear-splitting chatter reserved for "put me down immediately", "No, I will not come down from the curtain rail", and "Take off that green fleece!" Not sure what evolutionary advantage an aversion to green fleeces has, but the ability to let someone know in uncertain terms that you're pretty damn angry is useful. I know this is all very much subjective and nothing scientific that would stand up to scrutiny if you tried to make a study out of it, but I do find it strange that humankind finds it so hard to accept that any other creature with a brain could not feel emotion or have intelligence. I've often wondered if the lack of spoken language and (in many cases) familiar facial features means that we have difficulty relating to animals and therefore underestimate their ability to communicate and consciously get the best from their environment. I'll stop rambling at this point and let you all get back to arguing about semantics
The “Cove” is a biased movie not a documentary. The dolphin “Cathy” was alive and well when that nonsense came out
