[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 40 KB, 300x281, YorkshireTerrier1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1864682 No.1864682 [Reply] [Original]

do animals have feelings?

my chemistry teacher tried to tell use animals don't have feelings at all. He used the example - when a dog jumps on you when you walk home it isn't because it's glad to see you, its because you're the pack leader and instinct is telling them that that means it can survive another day. Nobody in the class questioned him, as he's a wildlife expert of some sort. Nobody except me.

I raised my hand and told him he was wrong basically. I said we don't know what exactly an animal thinks or feels, but it has emotions of some sort. I said animals are driven by instinct and aren't necessarily conscious beings, but they still feel emotions and feelings just like humans do, and people aren't special.

He then brought up consciousness and how it's impossible for something that isn't aware of itself to be aware of pain, pleasure, ect. and their brains are no more feeling than a rock falling off a cliff. I made the argument that when your dreaming you're unconscious but you still feel things.

He told me to shut up and that I was just the product of being raised by walt disney anthropomorphic propoganda. So I ask you /sci/, do animals feelings?

>> No.1864687

You don't need to be conscious to feel emotions... just self-consciousness creates the ability to have much more complex emotions...

>> No.1864690

bawww

>> No.1864704

Why didn't you punch that faggot in the dick? O ya, cause your a dumb bitch.

>> No.1864718

seriously? I thought /sci/ of all places would be up for a complex philosophical debate

>> No.1864729

Your arguments are weak. They aren't based on logic or evidence.

The teacher was probably calling you a faggot in his head.

>> No.1864735

Your teacher sounds like a complete idiot, and I don't think you should take anything he says seriously except for hard chemistry.

>> No.1864754

The teacher was a dumbass and probably wrong, but neither of you made a convincing argument for your respective cases.

>> No.1864770

>>1864729

>Although many animals are self-aware to an extent, they aren't as intelligent or self-aware as humans.
>Therefore they cannot feel any emotion or pain or anything similar.

>Based on logic and evidence.

Nigga are you stupid?

>> No.1864785

>>1864770

That's his argument, it is also poor.

>> No.1864789

>>1864785

OP here, what's wrong with my argument? From my POV I just owned my teacher hard in front of the whole class, but I'm wondering what your opinion is

>> No.1864795

I don't know if pride is a complex emotion or not, but my cat sure seems to play it off when ever he jacks something up and lands on his ass.

>> No.1864806

i own a small dog and when i leave town, he quits eating, loses weight and his health goes to shit.
ask your teacher how instincts play into that.

>> No.1864809

>>1864682
Teacher sounds like a fucking idiot. Of course animals have feelings.

>> No.1864814

>>1864682
Humans are animals so humans don't have feelings amirite.

>> No.1864818

>>1864806

you forgot to get someone to feed your dog while you were away?

>> No.1864823

>>1864818
only bif it were that simple, he stays with friends

>> No.1864827

>>1864789

You should have used examples to back up your point, like the fact that some pack animals care for injured members. This would indicate some measure of compassion since the injured one is a liability to the pack's survival.

>I made the argument that when your dreaming you're unconscious but you still feel things.

Is a terrible example because the brain hardly makes a distinction between dreams and reality. We are conscious in dreams, we just aren't aware we are dreaming (usually).

>> No.1864831

>>1864806

BCUS U RNT THER 2 FED HIM DUH

>> No.1864842

Animals are capable of emotion because emotion is a tool of instinct. Humans are capable of emotion because emotion is a tool of instinct. Humans feel love in order to help them reproduce and protect their young. Humans feel fear to help keep them alive. These are very simple concepts and you're right to say that "people aren't special" while we might be able to comment on the depth of our emotion or observe and explain it better, it's still the same base emotion with an instinctual purpose. He basically said "animals don't have emotions; animals have emotion that is triggered by instinct." So not only did he contradict himself, but he also failed to apply that logic to the human spectrum of emotion. You might as well say "When a person smiles at you, it isn't because they're glad to see you, it's because social interaction is very key to human survival." but that isn't true, we're glad to see them BECAUSE social interaction is integral to survival and evolutionarily it is beneficial for us to be happy to see other humans that we recognize.

Overall, the dog IS happy to see you, your chemistry teacher just stated the underlying instinct that causes the dog to be happy to see you.

>> No.1864845

>>1864827
>We are conscious in dreams, we just aren't aware we are dreaming (usually).
>we are conscious
>we just aren't aware and can't control our actions

DERP lolol. Also that was just to counter his whole "must be self-aware to feel things" argument. Goddamn your argument is even worse than mine. And yeah, I'm going to come up with specific examples on the spot because I totally memorized wikipedia in the off chance that I would have to debae this shit,

>> No.1864853

According to simple biology, yes. There's really no argument against this.

Dogs have brains, which share some functionality with human brains. As far as science knows, a dog can't feel joy or despair to the full degree that a human can, but to SOME degree, yes, they can feel emotions.

It also really bothers me when people talk about "instinct" as if all animals are born with an instruction booklet in their head that they just refer to from time to time. That's not how it fucking works.

This idiot who's supposed to be some sort of wildlife expert or whatever fails the most basic level of caring for animals, which is to treat them as living beings, not objects. Yes, animals are fucking conscious, and yes they have feelings. Even toddlers are aware of this at an early age. Saying an animal isn't conscious or doesn't have feelings justifies animal cruelty.

>> No.1864854

>>1864842
This is why we look down on pseudoscience.
It lacks any quantifiable evidence. You guys can talk out of your ass as much as you want, as long as you sound professional and don't say anything too ridiculous.

Was the professor wrong? Possibly.
Do I give a shit? Not at all.
Are you a self-important fuck? Yes.

>> No.1864858

>>1864845

I don't think you understand.

>> No.1864862

>>1864853
This has become even more true as we breed the instinct out of the animals. Please show me a chihuaha that could survive a day outside.

>> No.1864865

>>1864854

u a fagat

>> No.1864867

>>1864858

which just goes to show how bad you are at explaining things.

>> No.1864868

>>1864854
Calm down, sir. I was just giving my hypothesis on the matter. Honestly I don't think I said anything too out of bounds. Why are you so upset? does this conflict with another set of ideals you've built up? The primary point of my statement is just because something happens instinctually doesn't discredit how that action manifests in the consciousness of the being experiencing it. Animals might get happy as a result of instinct but that doesn't mean the happiness isn't real.

>> No.1864871

Whenever I watch a dog or a cat or something inquisitively observe its surroundings and look at things it makes me entire certain that they must be self-aware, and hence, to some degree, experience emotions.

I doubt smaller mammals, or insects or fish or anything work in the same way, but I don't think humans are the cut-off point for consciousness. I'm entire certain that relatively large mammals are probably conscious.

>> No.1864876

>>1864871
Dolphins and whales for example.

>> No.1864879

>>1864858

I don't think you know how to argue. You could bring all the evidence you wanted to the table and that still won't change his mind. You have to break down your opponent's core arguments and refute them. For example bringing up "like the fact that some pack animals care for injured members" would just cause the teacher to cry "instinct for pack survival LOL!" That would do nothing to help OP's argument

>> No.1864890

>>1864876

Exactly. Or, like I already mentioned, dogs and cats.

>> No.1864892

BRB, going to pet my cat.

>> No.1864895

Both of you had terrible arguments.

The much more fundamental question to this debate can't even be agreed upon: what are emotions, that is, what are they, in some sense, made of?

Is it simply a chemical process; is it based on complex functions restricted to humans; is it an imaginary product of naive psychology applied to oneself; or is it a socio-linguist phenomenon, a meme?

Depending on what's the answer, you'll get different results to the question "can animals have feelings?"

>> No.1864896

>>1864892
Daww.

>> No.1864898

definition of fear - Fear is an emotional response to a perceived threat.
>emotional.
have you ever held a rolled up newspaper to a small dog or cat? they show signs of fear -> emotion

>> No.1864899

>>1864895

I thought both arguments were solid (except OP's)

>> No.1864907

Also OP if he directly said pain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
>Society recognizes animals can feel pain as is demonstrated by the criminalization of animal cruelty

>> No.1864910

Guys.

Arguments like "my dog looks pretty emotional to me" or "what about animals who care for the others?" are completely invalid, since they can all be reinterpreted in terms of you observing them through naive psychology.

Consider this experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKdThJ-eGwE

>> No.1864911

>>1864895
Why is all of fuck would it be a strictly human thing if it has so much consequence on the success of reproduction.

>> No.1864920

>>1864895
If emotions can only be observed (from a third party) in reaction, and we see humans and animals react in exceptionally similar manners to certain things. . . Honestly, I don't even know why I'm arguing this, we've all seen animals express emotion to some extent or another. This seems dumb to think that an obviously frightened dog isn't frightened.

>> No.1864924

>>1864899

The prof's argument was

>He then brought up consciousness and how it's impossible for something that isn't aware of itself to be aware of pain, pleasure, ect

That's an assumption all the way.

And OP's argument was:

>said animals are driven by instinct and aren't necessarily conscious beings, but they still feel emotions and feelings just like humans do.

So in short, he just stated his conclusion.

We're dealing with a very complex question, and the debate will necessarilly suffer from 1) vague definitions and emotional bias.

>> No.1864925

>>1864682
your teach is a bad chemist if he doesn't know about neurotransmitters, like those shared by nearly all mammals for feeling (eg, pain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_p))
demand he cite proof or admit his incompetence and resign science forever

>> No.1864927

>>1864910
so observations aren't going to work? that is pretty much all there is to go by bro.

>> No.1864933

Qualia.

Your teacher is unfamiliar with the term.

>> No.1864937

>>1864924
>So in short, he just stated his conclusion.

are you fucking retarded? I just summed it up to keep my post short. The OP isn't a copypasta of the exact conversation you dipshit

>> No.1864942

>>1864925

I would say he knows of them, he just chooses to believe that there is nothing at the other end "feeling" the chemical reaction. To him, it the reaction in a dog's brain is no different than any chemical reaction you could recreate in a lab. Which is fucking stupid, but doesn't mean he's a bad chemist

>> No.1864960

>>1864937
This went quite a while before turning into a flamefest.

>> No.1864967

>>1864937

Of course, whatever you say. I'm sure your argument involed a sociolinguistic analysis of emotions accross cultures and languages, as well as a solid framework of the wide abstrations involved in the domain of emotions when put side to side with their chemical correlate. I'm also sure that you were able to cite studies of the zones of the brain involved in every emotion and comparisons with animals put in similar context.

Oh wait, no: I bet you're argument was rather "hurr but my dog looks all happy when I feed it and all sad when I kick it".

>> No.1864969

>>1864925
follow up
serotonin (mood elevation), dopamine (motivation, pleasure)
all mammals share them
substance P is specifically for pain, AN EMOTION
since he can never enter another animal's mind directly, and the neural similarities between all mammals are indisputably objective from physical considerations, his argument has nothing to rest on but maybe an appeal to ignorance, which is fallacy
by strong analogy, since humans and other mammals share the relevant neural hardware, the simplest conclusions is they share emotion

>> No.1864973

>>1864967

and I'm sure it took you a full 10 minutes to reply to this because you had to keep looking up words in thesaurus.com to make yourself sound smart because you literally have no argument at this point and are just hurling insults to make yourself feel like you're winning an argument about fucking nothing on the internet

>> No.1864977

first you have to know what your definition of an emotion is. otherwise shit wont work and people can talk past each other forever.

my working assumption:
first you have an input, like pain. the physical structure of your body reacts to that pain by releasing certain chemicals etc.producing a certain reaction.
both human and animal can clearly have this.
the second part of the def of emotion seems to me that to "suffer" from pain one need to be able to reflect on it. one need be able to say "I am in pain and I hate it". Can animals refer to themselves? Reflect on themselves? This is where i would say no. all except the highest apes seem not to be able to do this.

>> No.1864983

>He then brought up consciousness and how it's impossible for something that isn't aware of itself to be aware of pain, pleasure, ect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition

>> No.1864991

>>1864942
it does, however, mean he's a bad SCIENTIST
as in bad scientific reasoner
scientists don't use special pleading or make exceptions 'just because'
they use logical arguments, reasons, and evidence
he basically recited an age old fable and criticized dissent

>> No.1865000

who cares OP, you got told

deal with it.jpg

>> No.1865002

>>1864682
>tried to tell use animals don't have feelings at all.
>He then brought up consciousness and how it's impossible for something that isn't aware of itself to be aware of pain, pleasure, ect.
Your teacher is fucking aware that some animals are proven to be self-conscious right?

>> No.1865016

>>1864973

>implying I care enough about you to reply quickly to everything you say.

And you seriously have so much difficulty with vocabulary as to find my last message too advanced to be written without a thesaurus?

There's a good reason for which I stopped arguing the case at hand and attacked your methodology: the case in question was that your argument was shitty; and you replied "I just summarised".

So I countered: however you did, your argument could not have any value if you just improvised something like that with no knowledge of the question, nor research. It was a shitty arguement, and I can make this claim even without knowing it.

>> No.1865019

>>1865002

I wasn't aware that anyone had actually gone into an animal's brain to feel what it was thinking. Thanks, I will be sure to tell my teacher about sonia the horse whisperer who could feel the emotions of animals

>> No.1865024

>>1865019
>we cannot see gravity
>it doesn't exist

>> No.1865026
File: 12 KB, 209x168, troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865026

>>1865016
>I can make this claim even without knowing it.

you mean you don't have any evidence to base your claims on? what a shitty argument you make

>> No.1865050

>>1865024

gravity is a theory (a geuss)

>> No.1865052

This is called the problem of other minds. We really can't "know" that any other human is conscious since an individuated subject only has direct access to his/her own mind. We can however make the inference that since our brains are made of the same stuff the physical minimum requirement for the emergence of consciousness in other beings is intuitive, the same goes for animals. They SEEM to exhibit a cognitive structure requiring some kind of consciousness to operate it, so it makes intuitive sense that they can "feel" (have affect) as well.

>> No.1865054

>>1865019
researchers place a sticker on a crow where it needs a mirror to see it
they put the crow in front of a mirror
if the sticker is visible (a different color), the crow promptly removes it
if the sticker is not visible (black, matching its body), the crow leaves it there
conclusion: the crow is aware the image in the mirror is itself, it's self-aware
no brain-entry necessary

>> No.1865065

>>1865052
no. just no. this whole threat is full of fuck and yours is the distilled fuck of this thread.
you are assuming that animals have emotions, see behaviour and therefore conclude that they have emotions.
the way theory today says we solve the other minds problem is change of perspective. we put ourselves in the Other, ask ourselves how we would react in their situation, see if they do, see if they are successful in what we percieve is their goal and then conclude whether theyre agents or not. we cannot do this with animals. animals do not react WE expect conscious agents to react. therefore animals are not the kind of conscious we mean when we say it. animals cannot have emotions like we have and how we mean emotions to work. they can have animal-consciousness and animal-emotions depending on their definition but when you say they have consciousness and emotions youre saying they have human-consciousness and human-emotions which they clearly havent.

to OP
you are a student for being wrong. your prof is a retard for not being able to explain himself and dabbling in reals where he has not sufficient knowledge to teach it.

>> No.1865067

>>1865054

that experiment was flawed. We do not know if the crow picked off the sticker as a learned response from human interaction: IE: bird sees sticker in mirror, knows that there is also a sticker on body by associative learning, then peels off the sticker in hopes of a reward by human trainers.

>> No.1865069

>>1865050
Okay, I dare you to tell me gravity doesn't exist despite the evidence. Also tell me chimpanzees dont feel emotions, if you think that you're a fucking idiot

>> No.1865073

>>1865067
>that experiment was flawed.
WHAT I SAY GOES I KNOW BECAUSE IM SUCH A WELL KNOWN AND POPULAR SCIENTIST

>> No.1865081

>>1865069

the difference is, you're saying gravity has to exist based on "evidence" While I like to keep an open mind and say "yes, it is likely gravity works the way we think it works however we should keep an open mind as we as a species have been wrong in the past"

agnostics - 1
atheists - 0

>> No.1865082

>>1865067
the crow needs to infer the image in the mirror is itself
it doesn't get rewarded for peeling stickers off other crows
I don't think they even get rewarded: they just preen because they hate junk on their suits
fail criticism is fail

>> No.1865085

>>1865067
moreover, if it knew a sticker were there some other way, then it would peel the black stickers
they don't

>> No.1865087

>>1865082
>the crow needs to infer the image in the mirror is itself

no it doesn't. It just needs to infer "crow in mirror has sticker! That means humans also put sticker on me and if I take it off I will get a reward"

>> No.1865097

>>1865087
>"crow in mirror has sticker! That means humans also put sticker on ME and if I take it off I will get a reward"
this still requires self-awareness

>> No.1865100

>>1865087

Well shit, surely researchers who conduct the mirror experiments never thought of that!

What if the animals receive a treat every time the mirror experiment is performed, regardless of whether the animal finds a sticker or not? Or what if there's no treat?

>> No.1865104

>>1865097
>>1865097

you know what I meant. "me" for lack of a better word. Not the conscious self but the physical body. Being aware of your own physical body is no different than being aware of trees or the ground or whatever

>> No.1865105

>>1865081
no, i'm saying show a little fucking logic and common sense

>> No.1865107

>>1864687

I think there is some confusion as to what we are talking about.

You sure as shit have to be conscious to "feel"(have a subjective experience) anything.

What you are referring to is the ability to self=reflect, something most animals probably don't have. So they feel pain like we do, but it doesn't ponder the experience and it's existence, it's just a reacting creature.

>> No.1865108

>>1865081

Congrats, you're an agnostic gravitationalist.

And I assume an agnostic atheist as well. Even if you don't identify as such.

>> No.1865110

>>1864682
Basically you guys are both wrong, OP. You really need to define your terms if you want to be clear what you are arguing about. I'm can't even tell what you mean by consciousness from your post.

>> No.1865117

So there is subjective experience, this is what I consider the most basic level of consciousness, and most animals, like dogs have it. They are conscious.

Then there is a kind of meta-consciousness, the higher level of consciousness, which humans have. Obviously our thoughts are way more complex, a dog doesn't think "what am I", but that doesn't make him an unfeeling robot.

>> No.1865123

>>1865081
This distinction is asinine, arguing over it is pointless.

HOLY SHIT YOU ARE SO OPEN MINDED.

But on a practical level, you both trust in gravity, the difference is that you tack a little qualifier onto the end, I believe in it BUT...

Who cares...it's so pedantic.

>> No.1865125

Anyone who has ever owned a pet can tell you animals have emotions. My puppy likes to steal my stuff show it too me then run around tail wagging to get me to chase him. If I ignore him he drops it next to me and skulks off with his tail down. There is no reason for him to steal my stuff if he is just going to give it back except for he wants to play with me. (He doesn't do this to anyone else)

>> No.1865130

>>1865117
you are using the words wrong. you use them like you understand them without telling anyone how you understand them. you just made a distinction that doesnt exist in the science community and redefined consciousness. great work.

>> No.1865134

>>1865130
>you are using the words wrong

you are dumb. You are really dumb, for real. Take an english class please

>> No.1865137

>>1865125
you are his pack leader. this learned behaviour is rewarded by you so he repeats it. you dont need emotions to explain this. you can assume emotions and put them in your conclusion though, as you did.

>> No.1865140
File: 11 KB, 285x251, Brain-Triune_2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865140

Yes because mammals have a limbic system.

/thread

>> No.1865144

>>1865104
you're confusing self-awareness and some other idea
the animals aren't rewarded for removing the markings
they're marked when sedated or unconscious so learning isn't even relevant
they have an awareness of the physical self, which is all self-awareness requires
they can tell where their body is and where something else is in relation to it
the simplest explanation is they identify the image and their body

>> No.1865160

>>1865137
they why does the animal appear to skulk around (in defeat)
skulking around doesn't achieve anything either

>> No.1865164

>>1865144

Right but they don't know the image in the mirror is themself. They see another bird in the mirror. They are trained to know that in seeing a bird with a certain colored sticker on them they will remove a sticker from a part of "their" body. (again the ravens don't know it's part of their own body in the same way a dog scratching its own ear doesn't make it self-aware. This part seems to have confused you). This is no different from training pavlov's dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell. And no the animals weren't sedated, they were trained to do this, which is why the experiment was flawed

>> No.1865167

>>1865130

Way to just tell me I'm wrong without explaining yourself.

Are you saying that you think your cat has the ability to ponder it's own subjective experiences? Or are you saying that a cat simply has no subjective experience?

>> No.1865172

I think some animals, like crows are obviously experiencing creatures, and are capable of some basic abstract thought and problem solving.

I think the real difference comes with language. Since their brains are incapable of language, they are incapable of pondering the infinite number of abstract concepts. There can't be any philosophical thought without language, you can still figure out to drop a nut in front of an approaching car to crack it under it's tire.

How is an animal that can do that just a completely unfeeling robot?

>> No.1865180

>you use them like you understand them without telling anyone how you understand them

Bro, please explain HOW YOU KNOW THE WORDS in your post. You can't just use words without explaining how you know them!

English isn't your first language, is it? That fine, but please don't get to cocky then.

LOL.>>1865130
>>1865130

>> No.1865189

>>1865137
Rewarded how? All he gets is playing with me which if anything burns useful energy for no material gain.

>> No.1865192

>>1865134
you are in highschool or maybe youre a construction worker? did you ever write a decent length paper? did you define the context, relevant concepts and meaning of the words you use in the first part of it? no clearly you didnt.

>>1865117
>subjective experience [is] most basic level of consciousness
you said here "self aware experience is the most basic level of self awareness"
i gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought you meant something else. but maybe youre just retarded.
then you went on to claim that animals are self aware.

next:
>meta-consciousness
so humans are self aware of self awareness? wow. thats deep shit bro.
its actually accurate in the different context of acknowledgement concepts but you sure as shit dont mean know that.

>a dog doesn't think "what am I", but that doesn't make him an unfeeling robot
you claimed beforehand that dogs are self aware, have a concept of "I". therefore they should think that. if they dont, it doesnt make them un-FEELING robots, but un-EMOTIONAL robots. feel in this context should be understood as an input like sound or smell. the emotion resulting from that is the I + the input.

>> No.1865200

OP, you are going to keep getting the same answer.
Atheists and evolutionists will say they don't have feelings, who cares.
Christians, etc, will say they might have feelings, who cares, god made them for us so we can use them as entertainment

But for the master race, will say, ANIMALS DO HAVE FEELINGS!

>> No.1865213

>>1865192

It's hilarious when morons with terrible reading comprehension get their monocle on.

Subjective experience is not the same thing as introspection. Stop putting words in my mouth.

>> No.1865218

>>1865164
>They are trained
they're not
they have no prior experience
what part of 'marked while sedated/unconscious' do you not understand?
they do this entirely themselves

>> No.1865223

>>1865180
no it isn't. even in german I make sure to explain what concept I am arguing with the words I use. Different contexts and different discourses distort the meaning of words. "performative" for example has a completely different meaning in every day usage and language philosophy.

if you were aware of this, you would see in this thread how people talk past each other because they set feelings = emotions whereas others set feelings = physical input or feeling = physical reaction. you need to say what exactly youre talking about. Ill just assume that you are a kid so take note: before you write your paper, DEFINE YOUR CONCEPTS. "I use this and that as used by XYZ specifically including the attributes of 1, 2 and 3".

maybe you guys should stay with math threads. everything there is clearly defined and i can tell that most of you never had to deal with different problems.

>> No.1865226

>>1865213
not in your world maybe. in people who actually know their shit it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_consciousness

I could give you an entry from a philosophical dictionary but I dont want to confuse you.

>> No.1865229

FIrst off I have never fapped to furry shit and detest people who do.

This whole instinct theory is kinda weird. Animals have nervous systems, they have brains, except nowhere near as complicated as ours so they're dumb as shit. I can perfectly see them feeling some basic emotions.

Why does my dog whine and wait at the gate if my pops is away? She doesn't give a shit about me or anyone else. This leads me to believe there must be some kind of awareness of his absence in there.

>> No.1865234

>>1865164
they see an image
whether they think it's another body is open to debate
whether they reason a correspondence to theirs is not
the correspondence is a physical self-awareness
self-awareness, not introspection, only requires capacity to self-identify
the test positively demonstrates this

>> No.1865236

>>1865223

Most people don't need the term subjective experience defined for them, dude.

Also, this is /adv/ I'm not going to type out an academic style argument. Who do you see doing that?

Also, you seem to have no point other than blabbing about me for not defining subjective experience, if you don't know what I am talking about te.,w...


ok, I'm sick of this. hahaha....what am I doing with myself?

See...that was an example of introspection. That was what I was referring to as meta-consciousness. feeling about feeling, thinking about thinking.
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


I'm leaving now.

>> No.1865240

>>1865229
the "awareness" of your pops absence could be formulated in terms of a "lack of an input". this lack of input causes a strategy to start that had been successful in the past to receive the input: whining.

no emotions needed.

>> No.1865253
File: 40 KB, 700x466, photopodborka133.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865253

>>1865223


Here's a piece of advice: don't get into philosophical arguments that involve complicated semantics when you yourself phrase things so awkwardly that you are hard to understand, due to the fact that English is not your first language...

There are not enough palmed faces on the internet.

>> No.1865261

>>1865234
how do you make the distinction between self-awareness and introspection?

self-awareness is having a concept of "I" as opposed to others and objects. this is a relation. introspection is used to describe how the I refers to others, which is the same relation.
as soon as you have a concept of "I" you have to have a concept of others and how you stand in relation to them. Self-awareness implies the ability to introspect and the other way round.

>> No.1865263

>>1865223
what about those who consider the input and physical processing (with neurotransmitters) the same as emotion?
what use is pain, for instance, if the animal has no emotion, yet the neurotransmitters and capacity to process it?
the pain may be nothing more than the neurotransmitter activity

>> No.1865291

>>1865236
yes they do. even though they have a general feeling about the term, they don't have the exact attributes at hand.

and there you used meta-consciousness wrong again. good job.

>>1865253
my professors who have to read my english semantics dont seem to mind. sorry for trying to keep it easy enough for you to understand. Im trying to leave out subtleties that would only confuse further. what dont you understand? ask and ye shall be answered.

>> No.1865303

>>1865261
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection
introspection requires self-awareness and a lot more (reflection on thoughts and feelings, contemplating meaning of one's self)
self-awareness is more superficial than that: identify self

>> No.1865304

>>1865263
that is perfectly fine. if you understand "input + physical reaction = emotion" then that is one definition. if you talk with someone who defines "input + physical reaction + relation of the I to that reaction = emotion" you guys can talk past each other forever without getting anywhere.

perfect example is this case: does an animal have emotions? according to definition 1, yes. definition 2, only the highest mammals.

>> No.1865314

>>1865240

Why would it be beneficial for animals to be essentially automatons though, especially given that mammals share similarities in the structure of their brains. We know they feel pain, fear would also be quite good to have.

This whole animals dont feel any emotions thing seems to stem from the christfag notion of soul on some level, and I'm baffled by the person who said evolutionists will be more inclined to say they have no feelings. If anyone it's them who'd be the most likely people to speculate that they do.

How do you think our fancy brains developed? Like anything else - in small increments.

>> No.1865323

>>1865304
concept of 'I' is not relevant to emotions
If I didn't know who I was (retard), I could still feel angry, happy, or in pain

>> No.1865327
File: 44 KB, 500x368, Beavis-Butthead-Returns.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865327

Just look at a dog. It sure seems self-aware to me. I am saying that dogs are conscious. I am saying that humans are that and more, because of language we have the ability to have more complex concepts which allow things like introspection. Feeling "I" is not the same thing as pondering your place in the universe. That is the difference between a dogs existence and ours.

Is there something wrong with what I am saying?

>> No.1865344

When you are having a dream I don't think you can really count that as being fully unconscious.

>> No.1865354

>>1865303
one can only identify oneself (self awareness) as opposed to other objects or agents. Without any objects or agents, one cannot make the distinction.
I would claim that as soon as you make that distinction, develop an "I" you will have already done the step of establishing what relation your "I" has to other objects (introspection). Basically you would be able to say "I am to this object in way X". This is self-observation, right? Personally I cannot think what self-awareness would be without the ability to introspect.

>> No.1865362

>>1865323
so your definition of an emotion is "input+physical reaction".
good for you. nice of you to assert that.

now explain why.

>> No.1865364

>>1865354
that is not introspection
did you even read?
you think identifying self implies identifying not-self. gotcha

>> No.1865376

>>1865362
already did
if you went full-retard and couldn't figure out the difference between you and not-you, then you could still feel pain, fear, excitement, pleasure, etc: they're still emotions
makes little sense to exclude them and I see little advantage in doing so

>> No.1865385

This is just retarded.

And to the German guy who doesn't understand the word introspection, please stop.

>> No.1865392

>>1864682
>He then brought up consciousness and how it's impossible for something that isn't aware of itself to be aware of pain, pleasure, ect. and their brains are no more feeling than a rock falling off a cliff.
then why does my dog like his belly scratched? SERIOUSLY doesn't that fucking throw your teachers argument to shit?

>> No.1865402

>>1865392

He's just programmed to do that man!

oh...so what makes him think humans are different...hmmm? Because he is conscious himself? Your professor makes no sense.

>> No.1865412 [DELETED] 

>>1864682
if your professor says that, then just demand he prove he proves he's conscious and repeat everything he said back to him, then watch lols ensue

>> No.1865415

>>1864682
if your professor says that, then just demand he prove he's conscious and repeat everything he said back to him, then watch lols ensue

>> No.1865417
File: 14 KB, 344x193, derp2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865417

>>1865402
nah i'm sure when my dog sees another dog from 100 metres away in the car and notices its a dog he has no idea what hes looking at and thinks hes a person or some shit
>my face when everyone on the teachers side in this trhead

>> No.1865418

>>1865364
exactly.I think Fichte was first to think that, Hegel elaborated that and now Brandom updated it. It still seems to be the way the community thinks about the self.

It is also based in child development theory, which is easier to quantify than conceptual thought.

A newborn child seems to think that the whole world is itself. The mothers breast is part of itself, the food comes from itself because it willed it so.

Then they realize that sometimes the world doesnt act as they will it. Like the breast goes away even if they will it otherwise. They realize that for this to happen there needs to be another entity that wills stuff to behave in a certain way: their mother.

From then on, they start the develop a concept of I, other I and not-Is. Now they can have ideas about the relations of these things. before that they cant.

See what happens? Only when the child realises the other Is, it gets a concept of I. It becomes aware of itself. For this to happen you arguably need the thought "I want this breast to do this" or "I am in relation to this object in way X". The self is self observing.
These things should be simultaneous and honestly this is the first time I am aware of someone claiming otherwise.

>> No.1865422

>>1865392

there may be bugs on his belly, and scratching helps get rid of that. Its HUMANS who like scratching dog bellies not the dogs themselves.

>> No.1865426

Many animals have feelings.

When the dog jumps on you, you could say what you teacher said, but you could say that for when your girlfriend kisses you when you come home because she sees you as an ideal mate and wants your children because she deems your genes good so they will be good offspring, which of course is totally not feeling at all right.

>> No.1865431

>>1865422
9/10 would rage again

>> No.1865435

>>1865422
So I stop scratching behind my dogs ears and he nudges my hand to apparently ask me to keep going for no fucking reason whatsoever?

>> No.1865437

>>1865376
again, you are saying "input + physical reaction = emotion".
With what word would you describe "input + physical reaction + reflection on it"?

Think for yourself, can you feel heartache without being aware that you are the one that is feeling it? Basically a disembodied emotion.

Even if your position is arguable, it would lead you to a whole bunch of quagmires: It would set an emotion as a physically existing entity and not just a state a being is in when self-referring. so that would be the benefit of the other definition: you dont have to argue for that.

>>1865385
sheesh, read again. I do know what someone means when he walks up to me an says "By introspection I see X". But I would still claim that he hasn't sufficiently thought about how one can introspect, what its requirements are and what it entails. He would need to tell me his assumptions about that before we can discuss anything related to introspection which isnt the pure activity of it.

>> No.1865459

>>1865418
which is all based on one kind of experience: human
we already know other animals aren't human
it's inappropriate to use anthropocentric definitions
you're objecting to a demonstration of strict self-awareness because it fails to show other features you associate with self-awareness yet aren't strictly part
this, in fact, shows they're distinct ideas
detecting deeper features we associate with self-awareness is probably beyond our present abilities

>> No.1865473

>>1865459
that is another part of my argument I made way earlier:
All we can associate with emotions and self-awareness is in human terms. Saying that animals have human-like emotions is bollocks and them having human like self-awareness is bollocks too.
That's actually how I started to demand the others definition of the concept because I assumed they were using another definition and not the human-related terms.

We agree on this point. Thank you good sir, you gave me hope for /sci/.

>> No.1865477

>>1865437
simple: lack of knowledge
you're debating knowledge, which has no place here
we're strictly discussing emotion
yes, one can just feel pain. it seems to require no real thought or knowledge of oneself. you just feel.
it'd probably be USEFUL to know it's happening to your body, so you can control it, rather than just feel the experience occurring.

>> No.1865479
File: 132 KB, 500x333, Dawkins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865479

> a chemistry teacher

> talking about biology

>> No.1865484

>>1865437
it's hard to cease being self-aware once you already are: it'd probably require serious inebriation or neural injury
however, it is logically possible
I'd call it 'emotion + introspection'

>> No.1865489

>>1865473
you're wrong, though
we can use abstract definitions, and we do
I was using one all along

>> No.1865524

ITT:
>WE CANT GET INSIDE ANIMALS HEADS TO PROVE THEY HAVE EMOTIONS, THEY HAVE NO EMOTIONS
>well get inside their head and prove me they dont
>NO I DONT HAVE TO

>> No.1865549

>>1865524
>WE CANT PROVE THERE IS NO GOD, THERE IS NO GOD
>well prove there isn't
>NO I DONT HAVE TO

Why is /sci/ fine with one and not with the other?

>> No.1865555

>>1865549
because /sci/ doesn't know a fucking thing about whats right and still has to find out, which ironically is the very reason for science

>> No.1865561

Cute story incoming.

when i was younger i built my cat a fortress out of old cardboard pieces and he played with it all day. The next day it rained so my dad moved the pieces away from the lawn to the side of the building. A few days after this my cat came and stared at me a few meters behind me, when i walked to him he ran a few meters back and sat down again. Eventually he lead me straight to the cardboard boxes so i could build his fortress again.

Now, how this is relevant to this thread. My cat sucessfully identified two complete different looking objects as the same, the fortress and the folded up pieces by the wall.
The fact that he came and escorted me means he has the memory and thinking power to actually connect that it was i who built it and he needs me so he can play again.

Sure, its not emotion per say. But its definetly more then pure instinct.
Also, they dream.

>> No.1865575

>>1865549
Because there's an absence of evidence, which, when you're trying to show evidence that something exists, is evidence for absence. Don't give me that 'Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' because it fucking well is: If you tell me you have a sexy hooker corpse in your trunk, then I look in your trunk and find no hooker corpse, I'm far less likely to believe you're going to have a hooker corpse in the first place, it's common logic.

>> No.1865577

>>1865561

Your cat was looking at a bird on a roof or some shit that was in the general direction of those folded pieces. It's just that you're a touchy-feely motherfucker who doesn't understand animals and you were all like "DAWWW" and completely misunderstood your cat.

>> No.1865582

>>1865577
nice doubles but bad troll.

>> No.1865585

Do animals get pleasure from sex? They always seem so pained when they're in heat, and then they act like they're being raped and in even more pain when the do get the sex.

>> No.1865588

>>1865575
>implying my points isn't that animals have no emotions

>> No.1865595

>>1865575
but each hypothesis also has an "anti-hypothesis" until proven otherwise.

Kalahari Bushmen Animism- 1
Confuscianism- 0

>> No.1865617
File: 1.49 MB, 259x264, 1242480787160.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865617

One of my dog is vain. When she's dirty she hides from everyone until she's clean again.
My cat likes to take revenge when we displease her. She likes to pee on our clothes, destroy things/plants, beat my other cat, and the list goes on.
explain to me /sci/

>> No.1865625

Dogs have been demonstrated to have a sense of self and others, crows make food stocks but if they think they're being watched they will often make fake food stocks. Teacher is a faggot

>> No.1865629
File: 2.50 MB, 340x200, bear.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865629

>> No.1865635

>>1865595
That doesn't matter, what matters is which is more likely, the hypothesis or the anti-hypothesis? If I said I had flying monkeys in my garage, then you checked and found none, would you be likely to believe I have flying monkeys in my house? Or would you be likely to disbelieve, based on the fact that I had previously deceived you about facts involving flying monkeys?
Just because every hypothesis has an anti-hypothesis doesn't imply they're just as likely as one another.

>> No.1865638

I find it very hard to believe primates don't have emotions. Also, wikipedia says that it's quite probable that animals feel emotions. And let's face it, when it comes to behavioural sciences, wikipedia is a more reliable source than a chemistry teacher.

>> No.1865639

>>1865635
But with this scenario is see it as being more likely and logical that animals do have emotions

>> No.1865642
File: 124 KB, 500x1145, 1280716255287.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865642

>> No.1865644

>>1865639
Animals do have emotions, anyone who thinks otherwise has no empathy centre. They don't have to be complex to be emotions, to be felt, to be acted upon, etc. The professor in OP's post wants to distance themselves from the mass amounts of pain animals go through on a daily basis to be our tasty dinners, not an uncommon tactic.

>> No.1865663

>>1865644
or the animal testing the teacher may or may not have been involved with

>> No.1865666

>>1864682
NO

\thread

>> No.1865678

>>1865666
You're persuasive, do you should teach the OP chemistry?

>> No.1865690

>>1865678
NO

\thread

>> No.1865712

>>1865690
Are you going to reply no to this post?

>> No.1865714

>>1865712
le paradox

>> No.1865721

>>1865712
YES

\thread

>> No.1865722
File: 2 KB, 209x215, Stick um.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865722

>When a dog jumps on you when you walk home it isn't because it's glad to see you, its because you're the pack leader and instinct is telling them that that means it can survive another day.

If that is not an emotion than we're as emotionless as a computer.

>> No.1865775
File: 65 KB, 400x488, Descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865775

Animals are just robots. Automatons who don't feel anything.
Regards.
-Descartes

>> No.1865786
File: 18 KB, 225x309, IsaacNewton-1689.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865786

>>1865775
"it is my belief that Descartes was a faggot" -Isaac Newton

>> No.1865793

>something that isn't aware of itself

Animals aren't aware of themselves? LOLOL

Tell your prof he should lose his job, and link him to this if he wants an actual discussion on the topic instead of a soundbyte:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/dennett_anim_csness.html

>> No.1865802

Newton really fucking hated Descartes :3

>> No.1865816

>>1865802
well... Newton was English

>> No.1865824

>>1865786
Shut the fuck up newton

hurr durr apples and gravity

>> No.1865827

>>1865816
It was mostly due to the fact Descartes was a faggot, in my opinion.

>> No.1865834
File: 6 KB, 300x340, bentham.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865834

The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor.* It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

>> No.1865848
File: 44 KB, 765x853, 1285887132866.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1865848

Anatomically there is no big difference between the human brain and those of many other mammals. To believe that only humans have emotions is to believe that in the comparably short evolutionary time the brain of homo sapiens grew it also fundamentally rewired itself in a way that all the outward automatic reactions of pain, lust, fear, excitement etc. were suddenly accompanied by qualia that weren't there before.

To believe this is ludicrous because from an evolutionary standpoint it makes no sense that these emotions should only be handy in combination with a higher intellect, that all of them evolved so quickly in such a short time, further more that they evolved only once and that by cheer coincidence they trigger the same observable reactions in us that can be seen in other animals (like screaming for example).

All of you faggots you deny the fact that animals have emotions have been owned.

Have a nice day.

>> No.1865867

Scientifically, they have nerves which directly compare to the nerves we humans have and which are associated with pain.

Philosophically, the issue is complicated. Most of us feel convinced by the reactions elicited by the animals in situations where we feel pain, and we are capable of projecting (empathizing) with many animals. In the sense in which we do empathize, it is safe to say that animals experience pain, as experiencing pain consists of outward phenomena.

>> No.1865912

>>1865793
"In rabbits there is no interocular transfer of learning! That is, if you train a rabbit that a particular shape is a source of danger by demonstrations carefully restricted to its left eye, the rabbit will exhibit no "knowledge" about that shape, no fear or flight behavior, when the menacing shape is presented to its right eye. "

>> No.1866520

OP Here, I made up the conversation in the first post and left the thread to die overnight when I went to bed. But it looks like you idiots found a way to argue about it all night. I also made this thread on /b/, bumped it once, and got 0 replies. Good job, /sci/ you have proven yourselves to be dumber than /b/.

>> No.1866526

isn't pain a "feeling"? kick a dog

>> No.1866539
File: 144 KB, 635x643, reaction4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1866539

>He told me to shut up and that I was just the product of being raised by walt disney anthropomorphic propoganda.

shitted on

>> No.1866550

>>1866520
we like to overthink things. it's our schtick.