/sci/ - Science & Math

Some do.

Some do.

Thanks for putting "not a troll" in your name field. For a moment I thought you were a troll.

especially mammals yes
especially mammals yes

My dog knows when it's fucked up, even when I haven't discovered it.

Cats don't have feelings or emotions.

Cats are cunts.

>>6249714
makes him extra sympathetic

"Consciousness" has not yet become a scientific term. There is no accepted definition of "consciousness". Everyone attempting to answer OP's question with a "yes" or "no" is an uneducated high school retard talking out of his ass.

>>6249723
Church of Science representative over here.

Yes and yes. Say what humans are special because of their language and lifelongterm thought replay and hold. Jesus Christ, the later is our heart and soul.

>>6249700
>Do animals have feelings and emotions?

yes, of course. my cat has both feelings and emotions. it's quite obvious to any pet owner.

>Can animals have a conciusness(sp)?

yes, of course. it's not even debatable at this point. it's a fact.

>>6249737
>it's not even debatable at this point. it's a fact.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop polluting this board with retardation.

>>6249711
>>6249716
>>6249732
>>6249737
I know this is a troll thread ... but holy fucking shit, so much dumbfuckery is truly disgusting.

>>6249744
>You have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop polluting this board with retardation.

Fucking stupid pleb.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/21/the-emotional-lives-of-animals/

>>6249723
>>6249748
samefag

What's going on? What's your opinion on the matter?

>>6249747
>emotions
>consciousness
>the same thing

Nope. This is what happens when a "self-employed freelance writer" without science education tries to interpret scientific results for a pop sci blog. Stop reading trash, kid.

>>6249754
You just quoted it, you illiterate cretin. Stop pretending to be even more retarded than you already are.

>>6249761
you're an idiot who's trolling.. it's as simple as that.

humans ARE animals

>>6249766
But it's a really stupid approach. You're basing this issue off of whether a keyword is scientific or not. Are you still being spoonfed?

>>6249776
Please go away. /sci/ is not the right board for your silly "troll" games.

>>6249779
Science requires rigorous terminology. You'll understand this once you actually learned how science is done.

Yes to both. All you need is some simple observation. There's too many stories about animals "mourning" their dead owner or something to that effect. Body language says a lot. Most dogs know if they've done something wrong. Their tails let us know what they're feeling to some extent. Wagging show happy or excited and between the legs shows fear or subordination.

So yes dogs feel and they have emotions. We can't really know the extent to which they feel but it should be clear to any logical normal person without needing some scientific article to tell you

>>6249782
>All you need is some simple observation

There is no possible observation proving "consciousness" because "consciousness" has no observable effects.

>>6249723
>"Consciousness" has not yet become a scientific term.
That means it doesn't exist.

>uneducated high school retard talking out of his ass
>Jesus Christ, the later is our heart and soul
>Fucking stupid pleb
>illiterate cretin
>Are you still being spoonfed
COME ON GUYS WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE WHAT IS THIS SOME /B/ OR WHAT

>>6249784
But I've converted to the Church already. What more do you want from me?

Fuck off, you euphoric asshole.

The idea that emotion is limited to humans is nothing but baseless anthropocentrism. It's a bit amusing that people would defend it on /sci/ of all boards, since this sort of "humans are special" thought is usually the realm of those who reject science.

>>6249797
Yeah but unfortunately we're stuck in this stage right now because certain words aren't in the Good Book of Science.

>>6249723
isn't "consciousness" being aware of yourself. So basically the same as "Self awareness"?
Well, even if my terminology is wrong here. Some animals are self aware.


Also a fun fact: Animals dream, at least cats and dogs do.
By disabling the part of the brain that paralyzes these animals during sleep. the scientists could for example see cats catching imaginary rodents while sleepwalking.

>>6249790
sorry I was only referring to feelings and emotions. I saw consciousness later but I have no input on that.

>>6249801
>Some animals are self aware.

This is a metaphysical claim and not scientifically testable. Please learn the difference between science and philosophy. On /sci/ we prefer facts over baseless beliefs.

>>6249804
What about that dolphin thing where they were obviously aware of drawn marks on their bodies? Or does that simply not count? Did you take Philosophy 101 as well?

>>6249804
Humans are animals.

>>6249809
>Did you take Philosophy 101 as well?
No, I prefer to take science and math classes.

>>6249811
So?

>>6249804
>mirror test asshole

>>6249812
There is no way you're being serious. Troll confirmed. The mirror test has been dismissed as unscientific for obvious reasons decades ago.

>>6249816
Birds[edit]
Marc Bekoff reported accounts of animal behaviour which he believed was evidence of animals being able to experience emotions in his book The Emotional Lives of Animals. The following is an excerpt from his book:
“ A few years ago my friend Rod and I were riding our bicycles around Boulder, Colorado, when we witnessed a very interesting encounter among five magpies. Magpies are corvids, a very intelligent family of birds. One magpie had obviously been hit by a car and was laying dead on the side of the road. The four other magpies were standing around him. One approached the corpse, gently pecked at it-just as an elephant noses the carcass of another elephant- and stepped back. Another magpie did the same thing. Next, one of the magpies flew off, brought back some grass, and laid it by the corpse. Another magpie did the same. Then, all four magpies stood vigil for a few seconds and one by one flew off.

>>6249816
Humans are self-aware.

>>6249816
I can feel you squirming right about now.

>>6249819
A further series of experiments showed that, similar to humans, under conditions of long-term intense psychological stress, around one third of dogs do not develop learned helplessness or long term depression.[55][56] Instead these animals somehow managed to find a way to handle the unpleasant situation in spite of their past experience. The corresponding characteristic in humans has been found to correlate highly with an explanatory style and optimistic attitude that views the situation as other than personal, pervasive, or permanent.

>>6249817
So? How is this related to the ongoing discussion? Emotions are physiological responses characterized by behaviour and biochemistry. Obviously animals can have them. I don't see what this has to do with my post. Please learn to read / to quote the right post.

>>6249818
I will apply Hitchens' razor to this claim. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>6249824
Telepathy belongs on >>>/x/

>>6249827
Why are you spamming copypasta from wikipedia? It's not even related to my post.

>>6249828
Mmmm your ass is so tight

This is ridiculous.

Any claims made about consciousness are purely speculations at this point.

But the nature of the question itself is flawed. You have to define consciousness.

How do I even know if anyone in this thread is conscious? All I can be aware of is my own consciousness. Anyone, or anything else's consciousness must be postulated.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." -Max Planck

>>6249828
It follows by etymology. If you are not self aware, then you are not a human.

>>6249842
Humans are biological machines, like every other living organism. We evolved and our bodies obey the laws of physics. No place for magical souls. Please keep your trolling out of /sci/.

>>6249837
>You have to define consciousness.

Hahhaah… the troll is back! Always the same idiotic statement.

>How do I even know if anyone in this thread is conscious?

You're clearly not. I'm pretty sure that trolls and other retards have no consciousness.

>>6249847
Please, define consciousness then, turdsquad.
Is it simply self-awareness/knowledge of existence?

Is it some higher level intellectual function?

>>6249847
0/10

>>6249846
Please stay out of /sci/ if you are unable to understand simple etymology and partial definition. None of your statements are incompatible with the fact of self-awareness in all humans.

>>6249860
The burden of proof is on you, asshole. And your claim of etymology is demonstrably false. The etymology of "human" can be googled easily and it has nothing to do with your metaphysical garbage.

>>6249860
>None of your statements are incompatible

Physics and metaphysics are incompatible. Everything in physics has to have observable effects. Unobservable phenomena without effects are to be considered non-existent by application of Hitchens' razor.

>>6249870
>>6249875
>zero reading comprehension

>>6249884
You're using greentext wrong. When making a statement about your own person, you shouldn't use greentext. Fucking newfag.

Animals equipped with le limbic brain (mammals) have emotions, but if this functionality translated into specific feelings for specific things is ??? Mammals with cortex/neo-cortex have reasoning abilities, dunno what dauphins have, but if 'we' do in fact have consciousness perhaps other high order primates do as well. Would the fuck could know?

>>6249899
>perhaps other high order primates do as well. Would the fuck could know?
The primates, presumably.

>>6249857
How about, it has it if it knows it's going to die, understanding the finite nature of it's existence, and realizing how meaningless it's own existence likely is.

>>6249700
Not really. Having "feelings" and "emotions" involves finer transitions between different affective states, which are also modulated by cognition.

Elephants mourning is not an example of emotions or feelings. Nobody hurt elephants' feelings ever, and they never really thought how would humans living in a village feel if they took their food. They got hungry, they took the food, that was it, no theory of mind, no mirroring of intentional thoughts, nothing which is so typical of a being endowed with consciousness.

>>6249916
Not testable.

inb4 "ask it"

Is it safe to say that insects arthropods, and all bugs alike are not conscious?

>>6249925
>Elephants mourning is not an example of emotions or feelings.
I'm pretty sure it is.

>and they never really thought how would humans living in a village feel if they took their food.
People don't tend to spend long thinking about the elephant's feelings when the kill them for ivory either.

>>6249955
Fairly safe.

>>6249784
biologist detected

>>6249723
>which implies it can't exist
m-muh hitchens razor

>>6249828
>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

it is still worthwhile to at least entertain the argument,for the sake of discussion which could lead to something.

>>6249967
ehh probably are
look at hymenopterans
they have complex behaviors
unless we're going to debate consciousness itself

I'd say animals do have emotions.

Does anyone have that pictures of that bird that looks overjoyed from being in that chocolate fountain?

I'm pretty sure it is actually in shock and terror (drowning)

>1:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7PAMgNEtSY


Watch this video. Watch this video and tell me animals do not have emotions.

God dammit /sci/ they're so much like us.

>>6249719
>Cats don't have feelings or emotions.