• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do animals feel?

Rob Lister said:
Yes, but your definition has no logical basis. The definition you quote does.
Click to expand...

I submit that yours doesn't seem to have a logical basis too. Why is it morally wrong if society and everyone in it goes belly up?

All I'm doing is extending the same rights I claim for myself to others because I can see no logical reason not to. In other words, if I had to kill a bunch of people (who are not endangering my life by any choice they made) in order to live, I'd probably not do that even though it is clearly in my best interest to do so. The void has a much lower chance of making me happy than living, even if I do have to live with the guilt.
 
Last edited:
JustGeoff said:
But not based upon a moral/idealogical right/wrong decision, he doesn't. He just decides whether or not he's hungry and it's good to eat.
Click to expand...

In our old house, we had a doggie door in the garage leading out into the yard. I was out playing with our dog one day, and we were going back into the house. I opened the door to go into the garage. The dog was by my feet. He stopped, looked at the doggie door, and looked at the open door, and then decided to go through the open door.

Nothing instinctive there, it was a purely arbitrary decision to make. He chose the open door, although he could have easily gone the other way.

Why'd he go through the open door? Maybe he thought it looked easier, I don't know.

Regardless, this was a real-time decision that he made. Not a survival instinct or anything, just a choice.
 
When our old tom cat nuzzles my neck, purring at a great rate of decibels, the question doesn't arise.

M.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Two falacies. First, we are animals, ergo, anthropomorphize animals is an oximoron.

And its not that "animals are not humans"! you see, "animal" is a broader category than "human".

Animals are not giraffes. Yes, that makes sense too. :)
Click to expand...

While we're at it though, let's not confuse careless speech with careless thought. If you put the missing "other" before animals in Dogdoctor's statements, do they not make sense?
 
Anyone who has a dog or cat would not have to ask this question. Those with fish, well.....
 
Interesting Ian said:
Cats and dogs are the same as us. If we are souls then presumably so are they.
Click to expand...

Yes, to be consistent, your model should allow this. Still, questions arise. If Im not mistaken you think that souls are a "transmission" of some sort. Is it not strange to believe there is a real world full of this souls that trasmit their signals to animate animals in this (also real) world?
 
A while back I read When Elephants Weep : The Emotional Lives of Animals by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy. I'm offering the title more than the substance of the book because I'm remembering a few anecdotes, and that's it - it was THAT long ago. Perhaps there are answers there or in related books?

Carry on...
 
chriswl said:
Why would recognising the object in the mirror as "you" require too much intelligence (whatever that means), for an animal that is highly skilled at recognising all sorts of objects in a diverse range of environments? If that was all there was to it most animals should be plenty smart enough for that kind of thing, even if it took them some time playing around before they "got it" (obviously its a very unfamiliar experience)
Click to expand...

You don't even know what "intelligence" means and you expect me to explain to you why it's needed to recognize yourself in the mirror?


chriswl said:
Why do you think animals must have a sense of themselves appearing for others in the same way that other animals appear to them? Why would this be necessary for survival, unless they needed to master skills like empathy, which most animals can't (chimps can, but then chimps can recognise themselves in mirrors).
Click to expand...


If animals have no sense of "self" then they wouldn't even care to survive. They wouldn't distinguish themselves from others.

If my dog has no sense of "self" why does he protect his food from my other dog? If he had no sense of self he wouldn't care if he got the food or not.
 
Interesting Ian said:
The same reason they deny that human beings were conscious before we acquired language. They think consciousness is impossible without language. They think consciousness is just an algorithmic process, as symbol manipulation. Not all materialists of course. But the reductive materialists tend to think like this.



It most certainly is not. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with materialism.
Click to expand...


Materialism has frequently been understood to designate an entire scientific, rationalistic world view, particularly by religious thinkers opposed to it, who regard it as a spiritually empty religion.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
 
pgwenthold said:
In our old house, we had a doggie door in the garage leading out into the yard. I was out playing with our dog one day, and we were going back into the house. I opened the door to go into the garage. The dog was by my feet. He stopped, looked at the doggie door, and looked at the open door, and then decided to go through the open door.

Nothing instinctive there, it was a purely arbitrary decision to make. He chose the open door, although he could have easily gone the other way.

Why'd he go through the open door? Maybe he thought it looked easier, I don't know.

Regardless, this was a real-time decision that he made. Not a survival instinct or anything, just a choice.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it had nothing to do with morality, right/wrong, or issues of self-interest. So why is it relevant? All creatures are faced with decisions. The only ones that matter are the ones that involve a moral dilemma or a right/wrong choice combined with a self-interest/altruism choice.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Do animals have emotions?
Click to expand...
I would say, definately! The bonding that happens between a human and a pet is real. Why do my cats greet me at the door when I come home? It's not because they're expecting food - they have food available all the time. I greet them, they greet me, and then they go do cat things. Why do they greet me? Maybe because they get pleasure from my presence, a sense of security. Isn't pleasure an emotion? Maybe it's not the equivalence of human love, but there is certainly bonding going on.

I once had three cats and a dog. One of the cats bonded with the dog rather than the other cats. She loved to hang around the dog. The dog didn't provide her with food, he didn't pet her but they were constant companions. When the dog died, the cat wandered around the house meowing and looking for her friend. The cat experienced loss -- a change in her environment. Surely she wouldn't have done that unless she had a relationship with the dog.

When my cat or dog lays in my lap, completely limp and sleeping, I think that I could kill this animal in an instence and I am amazed at the trust they put in me. We're complete different species and yet they trust me implicitly.
 
Dustin said:
You don't even know what "intelligence" means and you expect me to explain to you why it's needed to recognize yourself in the mirror?
Click to expand...
I don't have a good definition of intelligence. It's a slippery concept. You are the one who used the word so perhaps you can explain what you meant?

If animals have no sense of "self" then they wouldn't even care to survive. They wouldn't distinguish themselves from others.
Click to expand...
The question of distinguishing themselves from others wouldn't arise because they are not even aware of themselves - they would be aware of others and they would be aware of their feelings and sensations, and desires and would act on them. But they would be unable to mentally put themsleves in the position of an other animal and imagine how they would appear to it. In other words they are conscious but not self-conscious.

If you think that's outrageous, let me point out that there are people who have seriously suggested that medieval humans lacked self-consciousness, and that it is a modern invention. This is of course totally nuts, but the idea that it could apply to animals (except for some primates) does not seem unreasonable to me.

If my dog has no sense of "self" why does he protect his food from my other dog? If he had no sense of self he wouldn't care if he got the food or not.
Click to expand...
Because he feels hungry.
 
chriswl said:
I don't have a good definition of intelligence. It's a slippery concept. You are the one who used the word so perhaps you can explain what you meant?


The question of distinguishing themselves from others wouldn't arise because they are not even aware of themselves - they would be aware of others and they would be aware of their feelings and sensations, and desires and would act on them. But they would be unable to mentally put themsleves in the position of an other animal and imagine how they would appear to it. In other words they are conscious but not self-conscious.

If you think that's outrageous, let me point out that there are people who have seriously suggested that medieval humans lacked self-consciousness, and that it is a modern invention. This is of course totally nuts, but the idea that it could apply to animals (except for some primates) does not seem unreasonable to me.


Because he feels hungry.
Click to expand...



Again...Putting yourself in the situation of another is about intelligence.

Many HUMANS never think to put themselves into the shoes of another to think of how they may feel. Do these people lack "self consciousness"? THAT is of course outrageous. As is your argument.


Because he feels hungry? Of course. But if he has no "self consciousness" then why would he associate this feeling with his personal hunger? If he doesn't have an idea of "self" then he wouldn't ever see the need to do anything for himself..Including eat or fight for himself.
 
JustGeoff said:
Yes, but it had nothing to do with morality, right/wrong, or issues of self-interest. So why is it relevant? All creatures are faced with decisions. The only ones that matter are the ones that involve a moral dilemma or a right/wrong choice combined with a self-interest/altruism choice.
Click to expand...

[doggie]He wants me to go through the small door??? That immoral specist!!! I will show him, I will just use the large door.[/doggie]
 
I don't think that having self-consciousness can be seen as yes or no. Its all about degrees and kinds.

I think that the amount of self-consciousness among a lot of mammals is quite high. It is sad that many humans don't use their potential and rely too much on emotional (instinctive) decision making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom