O/T: Do dogs experience emotions?

[IronFist]

Most people have one of two beliefs.

1. Dogs spend most of their life in search of food. This is why they get all excited when you eat something... cuz you might drop something on the floor or break off a piece for them. They also know that if they do the tricks (sit, shake, lay down, etc.) you want, they'll get rewarded with food. So, it could be assumed that dogs pay attention to you and spend time with you because they think that increases their chances of getting food or treats, which is basically their main objective in life.

Similarly, if a dog does something that he thinks you will percieve as "bad" (like if he knocks something off a table), he will cower not because he feels remorse, but because he fears your wrath (yelling, scolding, hopefully not actually hitting, etc.).

2. Dogs experience emotions similar to those of humans, and actually spend time with you because they have fun and want to. If they do something bad, they feel bad, etc.

What do you think?

IronFist

[SevenStar]

they have emotions.

[TjD]

dogs definately have emotions, theyre just way more overpowering than ours are.

[Souljah]

yeah i think they do.

[red5angel]

no doubt in my mind they do.

[Chang Style Novice]

Dogs, yes. Cats, no.

[KC Elbows]

They experience emotions.

A good friend of mine is an anthropologist, did a lot of research work with chimps who could do sign. She has a whole bunch of studies that suggest just about all animals have emotions of one sort or another. She's found no legitimate studies that suggest they do not. Make of that what you will.

This is from an anthropologist who has directly communicated with animals through a common language.

[Chang Style Novice]

KC - I'm curious how far your friend's claims extend. I have a hunch that emotions are pretty much exclusive to mammals (people, dogs, ninjas) and maybe birds. Or put another way:

I have a hard time buying that turtles, tuna, termites or tarantulas have emotions.

[Ford Prefect]

Chang,

I believe the common held belief based on research and brain structure is that most social animals experience "emotions" to a varying degree. These emotions are part of the glue that binds their societies together.

As for tuna and turtles, very primitive parts of the brain regulate fear, agression, pleasure, etc. This means that in it's basest sense, all animals experience emotions.

The main question that plagues researchers today is how these animals experience the emotions. Are social animals like the chimp, wolf, etc self aware? Do they know they are an individual?

[ewallace]

As for tuna and turtles, very primitive parts of the brain regulate fear, agression, pleasure, etc.
Hence the reason Bill Parcells is likely to become the next coach of the dallas cowboys.

[guohuen]

Hahaha, Oh my dear God. That will be a match make in heaven.:rolleyes:
Btw, What do you call a room full of millionaires watching the superbowl on television? The Dallas cowboys.:p

[ewallace]

What do you call a room full of millionaires watching the superbowl on television?
Last year's superbowl teams. :)

[Chang Style Novice]

"As for tuna and turtles, very primitive parts of the brain regulate fear, agression, pleasure, etc. This means that in it's basest sense, all animals experience emotions."

This strikes me as merely begging the question. At what point do mere instinctive behaviors become complex enough to be called emotions? It may be simple anti-arthropod bigotry, but I don't think cockroaches can be said to be emotional creatures, even though they avoid pain, seek out food and sex, etc..

A dog, on the other hand, will demostrate recognizable playfulness, greed, remorse, hatred, protectiveness, they'll pine for absent loved ones (loneliness), hell, I'm pretty sure I've known neurotic and manic-depressive dogs.

[Braden]

Have you spent as much time cultivating relationships with ants as you have with dogs though?

[Chang Style Novice]

If by 'cultivating relationships' you mean 'trying to keep them out of the god**** kitchen,' then yes.

[KC Elbows]

Chang,

One anecdote, one study that I have none of the supporting evidence for:

The anecdote:

I have friends that have some sort of egyptian rock lizard. This lizard has an extreme distaste for my singing. It's response is a lot like my wife's response, angry, except the lizard has a spiney tail that hurts.

The study:

A study of invertabrates was once done in which mazes were made for worms. Some tunnels had sufficient moisture for the worms to move through, some did not. As long as there were enough variety of tunnels for the worms, they would never choose the dry tunnels. However, once the number of good tunnels became really small, the worms would move through them and through them and, at some point, would take the dry tunnels and die. The worms in high variety tunnels would not do this. There was no reason for the worms to do this, and they clearly knew that the tunnel was bad(as they'd avoided it before), and they had everything they needed in their wet tunnels, but still they'd choose the dry paths if they didn't have enough variety. Since reason is not a good explanation for the behavior...

An aside:

Cats experience ecstacy constantly. This is an emotional state. My cats only require little waded up pieces of paper to achieve an emotional high. My fat cat gets angry if his food is not full when he gets up.

[FatherDog]

Actually, the remorse and obedience behaviors dogs exhibit are more closely tied to the pack mentality instincts than the food-gathering instincts. Dogs will imprint on their owners as the "alpha male" and act accordingly. Rats will also do this. Cats, not being pack animals, will not.

That said, it's pretty well established that the areas of the brain that we believe control emotion are present in dogs. The main controversy in biological circles is the extent to which dogs and other lower mammals are self-aware. It's been established that most primates exhibit a high degree of sentience; it had been assumed that lower mammals were not self-aware at all, but there's been research that suggests otherwise.

Woof.

[Braden]

Chang, you silly person, science has proven beyond a doubt that both ants and fruit flies precipitate spontaneously from the aether. You're wasting your time.

[red5angel]

FD - interesting where that's going. What do you think about the self awareness of lower animals?

[KC Elbows]

Are humans self aware as a species?

[Braden]

By the way, I think you're right about begging the question, but wrong about what it is we're begging.

You can picture the sensory part of the brain as a really, really good camera and video projector that creates this really incredible movie. Not just light and sound, but the body senses, emotion, memory, stream of thought, sense of self and sense of other - bundles all this stuff up and makes a scene of it on the screen of the upper cortex. I'm not sure there's much point in drawing a certain line somewhere in the process and saying "Ok, above this line is special, below this line isn't." The question isn't about this process at all. Rather, the question is - who is it that's viewing this projection, and why? It's this unknown viewer which, I think, is what people doubt animals have. Unfortunately, science has really nothing to say about this unknown viewer, and likely never will.

[Souljah]

In my experiance (i've always had a dog), I'd say they do, this seems to be a one sided arguement, everyone has voted for the same option havent they?

anyway, the bond a dog forms with its owner/s (and no1 else) cannot be put down to instinct. This is one of the main reasons im for the emotional side, in comparison to what CSN mentioned beforee about fright being remorse and all that.

[Former castleva]

A good one tekken,

Of course I may be biased,but I will go with the emotion.
I have had hamsters for many years and they have emotions too...
considering that brain structure of humans and dogs (sort of like higher animals) is different,we could make the claim that oh yes,dogs do have emotions even though their degrees do not vary in length as much as with humans (get the idea...)
People´s personal beliefs also have to do with this I think,I have the idea that one of the things that made our society see this in different light is our surrounding religion (christianity-church)
There was discussion during the old times,I think,whether dogs etc. do have souls or not...well they came to the conclusion that dogs cannot have souls (according to church,since this would make their belief systems considerably harder to understand-I´m referring to my own understanding along with others)
This varies trough cultures though and even in such systems like christianity where dogs were originally seen as filthy,have their stories of holy dogs etc. as far as my memory serves.
Based on my understanding of "soul" concept,soul in less religious circles is considered that of mind/ego etc.
which makes it less complex to me.
Then we can see that from more rational/less romanticized view,our "soul" and mind is that made of our physiological system (brain---)
Now that it seems,basically dog´s build does not differ so much of human´s-the basic organ system is the same,we could,without too much fear,say that they posses emotions,less or more.
And after all,emotions are made up of our mind,brains (you may refer to limbic system and others if you want to go deeper)
which is the same as saying that they are "chemical" products.
After this explanation,it does not really seem too bizarre to say dogs posses emotions.
How could they not?


"A dog, on the other hand, will demostrate recognizable playfulness, greed, remorse, hatred, protectiveness, they'll pine for absent loved ones (loneliness), hell, I'm pretty sure I've known neurotic and manic-depressive dogs."
Yes,not too different from us?
These days we do also have dog therapeutists,psychologists and also medication for dogs with mental issues.

To say whether dogs are self-aware or not,is slightly strange concept to me...
I´ve heard of ppl referring to difference of animals and ...well ppl as recognizing oneself?
But first we would have to accurately describe it.

[DelicateSound]

Yes they have emotions, as do most pets. [Isn't that half the reason to have a pet?] Animals are characters - that's the point.

On a basic level animals are self-aware. Think of a kitty the first time it sees itself in a mirror. It gradually becomes aware of itself through time, like a child.

Are they emotional and self-aware on a complex level? No. There is no conflict of opinion, only basic decision-making, no conscience, no conscious growth or development.

I think that animals can be seen as having emotions, as they have "evolved" past the simplist ideas of self-preservation. i.e: They don't just kill to eat to survive etc. They play. With wool sometimes.

[Braden]

Do "lower" animals have a sense of self? Science has had a difficult time addressing this question due to the problems of defining the term.

Do animals make self-other distinctions? Clearly. Do they generate a perceptual world? Clearly. So what possibly could be lacking in their sense-of-self?

I believe in most people's view, though they don't phrase it this way, it is the aforementioned unknown viewer. Science has nothing to say about this for humans either though.

For others, the question concerns a linguistic notion of self. I'm not sure that's entirely fair, but at least it's a reasonable operationalization.

In most of the "hard science" on the topic, the question is operationalized very strictly (which is good), but the way you do this is very problematic (which is unavoidable), however it causes people to make overly broad conclusions (which is bad). For instance, one of the most common tests of self awareness is to do something like paint a dot on an animal's forehead, have them gaze into a mirror, and then observe if they react to the dot. While in some ways clever, I suspect most people wouldn't be comfortable with concluding from these results whether something is self-aware.

It's certainly a difficult and intriguing question.

[Ford Prefect]

Self-awareness is a whole other cup of tea. Some postulate that all social mammals (dogs, dolphins, monkeys) are self-aware to a degree. For example, a study done recently by researchers in Columbia shows that dogs are able to count in a sense. The researchers theorize that this ability is an off shoot of the pack behavior where a dog had to know how much support it had from the other dogs in the pack. This would be important in gathering allies when trying to take a shot at becoming alpha-male. Unfortunately this will always boil down to theory since we can't have a discussion with them.

[Chang Style Novice]

We can be sure of one thing, though. Dogs do not experience emoticons.

;p
:\
;^>
{:~(

[Braden]

No, but cats do:

http://www.thelost80s.com/toys/transformers/decepticons/1984/ravage.jpg

P.S. frelling no-image-support

[red5angel]

Braden, there is something wrong with what you say, I haven't quite pinpointed it yet but here is my first attempt. The "viewer" you describe seems to be the fault. The viewer is you, the "projection" of sensory input you describe, including emotion, stream of thought, etc.. is all being veiwed by "you". how "you" work is up for defining as of yet. Relgious people define it as a soul, in general. Scientist might want to say it's a series of chemical imprints thrown together in a way that sems to allowa us to "be".
Is this making any sense? I think the idea of "viewing a projection" is flawed in that there is no viewing the projection per se, but an interaction of the things around you and the chemicals on the inside in a way that makes you "aware" of them.
That said, awareness, is evident in any creature that interacts in even the rudimentary way with the outside world in my view. It may not be concious of self, but that to me doesn't determine really anything. If I were a creature from another planet that could communicate succesfully, understand formulas, theories and music, but couldn't define "Me" or "I", does that make me less then you? not saying this is what anyone is saying but I think sometimes this idea is implied.

[Braden]

I'm not sure where you disagree. I never said you couldn't claim the unknown viewer was 'you.' In fact, that's what I believe.

[FatherDog]

I tend to agree with Braden on the 'unknown viewer' issue of self-awareness. It's a difficult issue to define.

The reason we've pretty much established that higher primates have what we consider higher-evolved self-awareness is that we've gotten gorillas and chimps to 'talk' (via sign language) and interviewed them about it. There have been similar experiments with dolphins. We're never going to be able to do that with dogs, though, because they don't have the linguistic capabilities to manage it.

On a related topic, the fact that we've managed to get chimps, gorillas, and dolphins 'talking' raises sticky issues of what, exactly, should be considered a 'person', legally. Koko the gorilla, for example, has a fairly broad vocabulary, has expressed wants, needs, desires, and semi-complex emotional concepts, and has been tested with an IQ in (I think) the high 80's or 90's.... below human average, but higher than, say, your cousin Waternoggin who attended 'special education classes' in grade school. At what point does someone, legally, become a person?

[KC Elbows]

Sort of an interesting digression, but when my friend was working with chimps at the same institute that Koko and Washow(sp?) are from, there was one there that had adapted a word. Anytime this chimp saw something it really liked, it called it black. Black was its favorite color, and so the word had become this chimp's word for cool.

[Braden]

That's actually the noteworthy thing about the studies, is that the chimps generated novel associations and combinations. To just reproduce a taught language isn't that remarkable, really.

[red5angel]

Maybe we don't disagree. I think the way you put it, with the idea of the projector and camera sort of through it off for me.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

satan says he feels emotions more complex than some might guess, but isn't burdened by such things as long term guilt or a lack of self esteem. basically he has all the core emotions but lacks the intricate thought processes that create "human" emotions such as anxiety over the future and self loathing.

[KC Elbows]

How much anxiety over the future could you have if you knew that your food would be ready for you twice a day and you'd not have to do bills or anything else?

[Braden]

I'd still be burdened by the death of the subjectivity and alienation from the Other and stuff.

[Braden]

Unless one of those daily meals consisted of Boo Berry.

**** that would be good.

[red5angel]

I would have to say Count Chocula, more because I always seem to be disagreeing with you Braden but then it turns out I'm not. This time I know I am ..... ;)

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Braden
I'd still be burdened by the death of the subjectivity and alienation from the Other and stuff.

Probably not if you'd never read a book.

As for cereal, apple jacks.

[Braden]

I was being silly, KC. Although, seriously, I do think there is an "existential" angst which would be present even in theoretical utter absence of temporal needs and even desires. Actually, I think it's ultimately the fundamental anxiety. I'm referring to humans here.

Red - I suspect actually that we do disagree regarding the original topic. I mean something specific by my screen analogy, something which is likely to cause disagreement. As for the cereal topic, you're just plain wrong, Boo Berry ownz the Count. ;p

[red5angel]

Actually I would have to say Cocoa Crispies rocks over them both, but that's just me ;)

As for the original topic, it sounds like we get to the same idea but form different paths......Why don't you try to explain in more depth what you mean?

[KC Elbows]

You're both wrong. If you aren't able to understand the goodliness that is apple jacks, perhaps you should start with cinnamon toast crunch and advance from you're halloween cereals.

As for angst, my dog knows it. She understands that she cannot sit on my wife's lap on the couch(she's a 75 lbs. dog- not talking about my wife here:mad: :D ), yet the cats can. There is nothing that can change this, yet still she yearns for couch time. In return, when the cats aren't paying attention, she steps on them.

[Braden]

Kind of tedious over this medium, as I can't go step-by-step and see where you disagree... at least not without investing more time than I have.

When I say that the brain is making a projection, I mean it fairly literally. I mean the brain generates a perceptual world (I'm talking here about the sensory part of the brain, and not those parts which govern action of the body; in other words, I don't mean the brain _only_ generates a perceptual world), which includes a wide scope of perceptions beyond those which we usually associate with the word; including, as I mentioned, things like emotions, associations in memory, internal monologue, etc. The brain generates all this stuff like a very sophisticated movie projector (functioning off a very sophisticated camera, directing, and editting crew). It's not too much of an absurdity or simplification to say it "projects" it "upon" the upper cortex. I'm sure you've heard the stories of the person being stimulated there and smelling burnt toast and such. Much of this part of the brain seems to be a "phenomenological" centre; that is, it generates this "projection" of the perceptual world. The burnt toast thing isn't just an abnormal brain reaction to bizarre stimulation... the brain's normal sensory processing all climaxes with activation at that level, stimulating these things I'm calling phenomenological centres. BTW, it would be incorrect to conclude that the stimulation is triggering the _memory_ of burnt toast, exactly - memories, at least old ones, are in parallel "all over" the brain. I can go into experiments proving this if you want. What's being triggered is what people call a "qualia", a phenomenological element; in other words, a scene or part of a scene in the grand screen play that your brain generates. The question is - why does it generate this? You and I both know that it _does_. I'm sure you're looking around right now and experiencing a very rich screenplay, as you have in every moment of your life that you remember. Why is this necessary? We can imagine someone who doesn't have this screenplay. Philosophers call this figment of thought experiment a "zombie." He's exactly like you or me, only he doesn't have this screenplay. His brain just processes the information and makes an output. This isn't a spooky statement. He can still reason, be creative, adaptive, etc. There's no reason he couldn't - I mean, the bulk of our reasoning, etc, isn't a part of this screenplay anyway. So why does this screenplay exist? What is it's purpose? Why aren't we just zombies? And, here's the real doozer, _who is this screenplay being shown to_? I mean, if your brain is this insanely complex screenplay producer, who is it producing for? What is this thing that is "watching" the screenplay? That's what I mean is the big problem.

I'd be quite content calling this unknown viewer "me." That is what I believe, exactly. However, that's a "me" which is quite distinct from the usual trappings people (including me) associate with themselves. I'd be pretty content calling it a soul too. I wouldn't be content calling it a chemical imprint, as this is a fairly empty statement. There's nothing science can point at and claim is that, there's nothing even concievable or theoretical in science people can point at and claim to be this.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

"As for angst, my dog knows it. She understands that she cannot sit on my wife's lap on the couch(she's a 75 lbs. dog- not talking about my wife here ), yet the cats can."

lol.... i actually encourage satan too cause i think its funny. he's already 90lbs at 8 months old and when he lays on suzi she cant get up (she only outweighs him by 10lbs and that's not going to last long at this rate). its funny cause if she starts yelling at him to get up he just frantically licks her face. i'm 99 percent sure that she's not above him in the pack. if i got it right im the alpha male, followed by the cat, himself, suzi, and then adora.

[red5angel]

Well, I think the idea of a "zombie" as you say in your thought experiment, is what I would say IS the reality. I don't see the need for a projection at all and it seems almost extraneous.
If I understand you correctly you say the Cortex, is the "screen" what I would propose is that it isn't a screen so much as maybe a filter? The data coming in and going out is processed by your brain and so this may pass through the cortex and then into the brain in general.
So there is no screenplay to be shown just life to be experienced. I would also say that at first it might seem like the same thing but it's not.

If you look through a digital camera, you aren't getting the direct picture but a screen, much like hwat you are describing, but then my instinct says you are then bringing the senses into the brain themselves. What I see and hear and feel is all in the cortex.

hehe, I am not sure if that makes sense I will think about it tonight and maybe get back tomorrow....

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

i also think animals can have mental illnesses, cause im pretty sure that satan aint playing with a full deck.

he has a tendency to go off on inanimate objects for no apparant reason .... all the time. i first noticed it when i took him out to pee one morning and he went nuts on a political sign that was put up in the neighbors yard. it was a sign. i had a hard time getting him to use the rest room cause he wouldnt stop barking at it. he also got scared of our xmas tree and would bark at it for days if the two were left alone. he was fine if we were in the room, but would start going nuts as soon as we left. these could be attributed to the fact that things are out of place, and he's a puppy, but his worst enemy is the street light out back. he barks at it all the time and that's been there his whole life.

[Chang Style Novice]

Maybe...and maybe he knows something you don't. Remember, dogs have black and white vision, just like the alien-revealing sunglasses in They Live.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

you know i think you might be right. better to play it safe and start taking an axe to the things he points out. i guess adora will have to say goodbye to her sit and spin.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

.... they live ruled btw.

im glad that im not the only one who remembers that movie.

[Former castleva]

According to slightly more modern research,dogs do also see colors,but in a different manner.
They also see better in the dark than we.

GDA,I think satan is normal (if his name does not count)
such objects,like statues may irritate and scare them but it can be learned out of at least when it comes to fear related issues.

My cents they were.

[red5angel]

I have been wracking my brain over this thing all night Braden. I think part of the problem is I know just enough about brain chemistry to be dangerous but not enough to know what bothers me about this discussion!!

[ZIM]

R5 and Braden: you seem to be having an argument over 'Empiricism vs. Rationalism', and you are each in turn not so far off from each other- more of a philosophic difference of opinion.

Could be wrong. :)

As for the original question: emotions- kind of: "ohh! puppies!" That kind of thing. The most immediate, not complex ones like, say, those triggered in Proust's works by a smell remembered.

Even tho they remember smells! :p I tend to look at them like 3 year olds with huge teeth. :D

on edit: Braden: the problem you'd posed re:'who/what is the production playing for?' is AKA 'the h0m0nculous problem'. Not trying to offend, but showing the logical error. I have no answers for it, but I do know it's a logical dead-ender.

[KC Elbows]

But are human emotions really that refined? Is adult emotion any more profound than children's emotion, or do adults merely find that fewer stimuli produce those emotions?

It just seems to me that children experience more intensity of emotion than adults, making exceptions for those with mental conditions that come on in the adult years. Even the Prousts work and a smell remembered thing- is that a different emotion, or merely a more mitigated emotion than, say, the unbridled joy of a wolf smelling a packmate that she has not seen for years? (I use this example because a friend has a dog who's part timber wolf, and all of us who were there in her puppy years are basically her pack. Whenever she sees me, no matter how long the time since she has seen me, she is ecstatic- Proust does not raise this level of emotion in anyone I know:D .)

I just don't think there is such a thing as human emotion. I think we get emotional about different things because our circumstances are different, that's all. It isn't our emotions that are unique about us as a species, it's our ability to create history and reason over time, and our ability to use language. In addition, we control emotion probably more than most, which might suggest that the intensity of our emotion is more manageable than in other species. Frankly, I think dogs have more intensity of emotion overall than us.

We're emotionally mild. We're the oatmeal of emotional creatures. If dogs ruled the world, they'd nuke the mailman right away, they're that emotional about the postal b@st@rd.

[red5angel]

ZIM - I am not sure about the emotion thing but I do look at dogs behaviourally as being similar to a toddler, always testing boundaries, responding strongly to rward/punishment sytesm, etc...
I know my dog shows a pretty good range of emotions, he gets jealous when we pet the cat and will try to get between us and the cat. He gets irritated when you try to move him and he is comfortable. He gets excited wne he hears the treat bag being rustled and gets really excited when he hears his leash. He gets playful and sad and all the other things I can think of, so ultimately it surely doesnt mater to me how strongly he feels them or if his feelings are that different from human beings, he feels enough to have become part of the family and so is always treatd iwth as much respect as other members for sure.

KC, brother that is the funniest and strangely most true thing I have heard all day.....

[fa_jing]

Braden - you are referring to the non-spatial relationship between the phenomena and the pre-reflective cogito. Subjectivity is kind of like a singularity. We can't really prove it for others, but the actions of others indicate clearly that they are directed by a subject, in fact our doubts about the subjectivity of others are no greater than our doubts regarding our own subjectivity.

Then again, the Buddha said don't wrack our little brains over whether such a thing as a individual or universal Ego exists. Mad props to the Buddha.

Regarding dogs, I think it is clear that they feel things (there is a subject), but not clear whether or not they experience emotions. I guess the distinction that I'm trying to make is that we can choose to be sad or happy, while I suspect the chemical-directedness factor is dominant in the lower animals. It is just a matter of degree, IMO. Little fishes definitely do not experience emotions, their behaviour is purely determined.

[fa_jing]

On the wierd tip: I saw this guy on TV giving a speech about his book. He was one of those Searle-type guys and a behavioralist. He claimed that if a certain nerve connecting the right and left sides of the brain is severed, effectively two consciousnesses are created that exist in the same head, as if the soul was split down the middle. Now, this guy was pushing his agenda hard, so I take that statement with a big grain of salt. Still, I wonder if there's any info out there on this. I suppose that the only way to truly tell the complete ramifications would be to experience the severing of the nerve myself, which I am certainly not about to do. Because several questions do come up here - are we already the combination of seperate consciousnesses? Maybe there's something behind our mood swings and multiple personalities! Or maybe it just appeared that way to the doctors doing the brain work -- who the freak knows. I usually think of myself as a single subject, but if you think back to 10 years ago you can't even tell if you're really the same subject now that you were then - statements like "I am and am not" come to mind.
As I pointed out on another thread, it's a good thing we didn't create the Universe, reality or ourselves, because there is no freaking way we would get it right.

[KC Elbows]

Red5,
Sounds like we're on the same page.

Fa Jing,


[b]Regarding dogs, I think it is clear that they feel things (there is a subject), but not clear whether or not they experience emotions. I guess the distinction that I'm trying to make is that we can choose to be sad or happy, while I suspect the chemical-directedness factor is dominant in the lower animals. It is just a matter of degree, IMO. Little fishes definitely do not experience emotions, their behaviour is purely determined.[/i]

We are capable of choosing to be sad or happy, but we begin by being sad or happy because of stimuli or lack of stimuli(chemical directedness). It is only through training and experience that we alter this, in much the same way that we train a dog to not drink toilet water. Whether a dog is happy because food is present or for more abstract reasons does not alter the fact that that dog is experiencing happiness. That same dog can be trained to restrain those emotions to some extent(for instance, my dog used to be climb onto people she was happy to see, but, due to her size, we had to train her out of this). By the same token, one can teach a dog to be happy for a variety of reasons that don't immediately make the dog happy.

That we have unhinged our emotions from the basic stimuli-response level says more about our ability to reason around problems(i.e. the needs of society over the primal needs) than about our emotional nature, and does not in any way show that only we have this capability, though only we have the capability to train others in this.

We are dominant in this world for a million reasons that do not include our emotions. In emotion, we don't seem notable in the least, and, in fact, appear quite meek in comparison to the larger mammals. This is, of course, judging solely by appearances.

However, I don't know enough to comment on the goldfish thing. I'll have to ask my friend if any research has been done on small fish.

[ZIM]

FJ- re: split brains- yes, there's a lot of research concerning that. The split usually is at the corpus collosum & IIRC, is used as a treatment in certain extreme cases. Stating that 2 brains/consciousnesses/souls are created thereby is overstatement, IMO. By the same token, we would expect to find that a pre-frontal lobotomy wipes the soul, or something anyhow. ;) [Which is why I support it as an alternative to the death penalty :D ]

KCE- actually, I was giving a sort of opposing thought to what youre saying. I was looking at our cultural ideas of whathave NO emotions, but are still self-aware, eg: Spock, Data, Uruk-hai, zombies, ghosts, etc. For the most part, in our possible hubris, we regard the emotions as being [B]removed, and a sort of advancement[?] as if emotions are a pre-requisite for self-awareness. Or the thing is not alive to begin with [as in Data].

OTOH, we don't tend to 'invent' creatures that have emotions without self-awareness- it's a real thing, but we'll anthropomorphize them in order to make them 'real'-er. I'm simply wondering if we regard this as a superior position?

The trick is not to romanticize animals, but trycome up with proof and not anecote- thats a hard thing. :(

[KC Elbows]

KCE- actually, I was giving a sort of opposing thought to what youre saying. I was looking at our cultural ideas of whathave NO emotions, but are still self-aware, eg: Spock, Data, Uruk-hai, zombies, ghosts, etc. For the most part, in our possible hubris, we regard the emotions as being removed, and a sort of advancement[?] as if emotions are a pre-requisite for self-awareness. Or the thing is not alive to begin with [as in Data].


Very interesting, if I'm understanding you correctly. I wonder if those archetypes are actually looking at two extremes: the datas(basically, reason in its purest sense), and the orcs(emotion at its basest levels). I find that interesting, as we're always writing emotion into characters like Data and Spock, but how often do we wish to see reason in the orcs?


OTOH, we don't tend to 'invent' creatures that have emotions without self-awareness- it's a real thing, but we'll anthropomorphize them in order to make them 'real'-er. I'm simply wondering if we regard this as a superior position?

I think we tend to involve emotion in any discussion of consciousness. It's probably because emotion seems so tied in with self. However, I'm not sure what you mean by 'it's a real thing'.


The trick is not to romanticize animals, but trycome up with proof and not anecote- thats a hard thing.

I don't think so, but I've been at my friends before looking at the actual research on it and having her explain it to me. The research against it is pretty shaky, mostly influenced by fundamentalist christian groups. I don't really think it's romanticizing animals, but refusing to romanticize humans. In some ways we are spectacular, but our emotional side does not appear all that different from other species, certainly not in a qualitative sense. We are taught to control our emotions as children, just like we teach our pets to control theirs. We are taught to create happiness or whatever other emotion is deemed desirable just as we teach our animals to behave in ways we link to the emotions we desire. Cognitively, there is a limit to the amount of our teachings a dog can understand, but emotionally? Who is happier when mom comes home, the puppy or the child?

[/rant]

[fa_jing]

Right KC, I am sort of redefining the emotions/feelings thing in terms of free will, which I think is present in dogs only to a small, very small degree, in comparison with humans, and completely non-existant in little fishees. I am also trying to make people aware that we choose our emotions. True, as a child we are angry when a toy is taken away from us, due to instinct, but very quickly we are angry because we feel we have a right to be angry, because we want to be angry, both of which concepts are based on higher thought (ideas and idealism), and thus the anger is of a different level. As usual, I am riding Sartre's jock on this one. :D

To be serious, hopefully I won't touch people's nerves here, because I know this sh!t really happens to people, but let's look at the difference when a dog's mother (or owner!) dies. His instinct is telling him that someone should be there, who is not. He feels this lack, and it causes him to be sad. Whereas when our mothers die, we are so far beyond instinct that we have to choose to be sad. We feel it is right to be sad, we exercise our imagination (which dogs probably lack) to imagine that our mother is still alive, and the difference between that and reality causes anguish. Conversely, if we do not experience sadness, we will feel guilty in most cases. A good illustration is the existential anti-hero in Camus' L'etranger, who fails to shed tears at his mother's funeral or feel remorse over her death. He has basically chosen not to be sad. The people vilify him for this, because it shakes the foundation of their behaviour, and this is a big reason why he is convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Of course he actually is guilty of a murder, and is a cold-blooded individual, but the purpose of this character is his all-too-humanness and our reactions to him. Along the same vain, humans will typically be sad over their mothers' death for far longer than an animal, because we choose to be so. I would certainly make the same choice to be sad and have, where death of a loved one has touched me. But, I might not be too sad over the death of a very old person, for instance. When Bob Marley died, his funeral procession became a celebration of his life and music - a beautiful thing, IMO. There is nothing wrong with sadness, it is part of the human experience and we should not seek to avoid it - neither should we wallow in it. To summarize, I do think an animal such as a dog feels happiness and sadness, in fact if you show him some do-do he made in the wrong place, he may even show you guilt. When he is walking at the side of your family, he may take on a proud demeanor. But, as we are fundamentally more intellectual beings than we are instinctual, our emotions are of a very different nature, based on Ideas and Idealism, and as such are imbued with a more intellectual and vivid quality than those of an animal. To say they are more valuable as well - that is my opinion, but you can't prove a value judgement. I value to some degree the emotions of a dog, but I recognize the fundamental difference between these and the emotions of a human. I still eat meat. ;) But I am sympathetic to the sufferings of animals.

[ZIM]

'cuz I gotta get off to a potty then a party, in that order!:D

KCE- simply meant that there are creatures with emotions but no or little self-awareness [in the strictest sense, a la what Braden referred to earlier re:red dots on the forehead]. Thats a real thing [mice? snakes?]. By this, I'm meaning to hint that emotions and self-awareness/consciousness may in fact be separable things, yet we seem unable, in a cultural sense, to imagine them as such without resorting to the supernatural or science fictional. And I note that we tend to regard them as 'lower' when in fact emotions may not be such.

"Go with your gut" is often good advice for survival or a fight, right? 'Think it through' is ideal, but less useful. Just a matter of what each is meant for.

There is an online journal of conciousness studies, for thiose interested. http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/
GtG. have a safe holiday, everyone! :)

[KC Elbows]

Zim,
I see what you're saying. I'll have to read through that site.

fa_jing,
What you are referring to is the way we utilize emotions and the side effects of that utilization, not the emotions themselvelves. The emotions themselves, in Sartre as well as me and you, are reasonless and non-intellectual.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of mourning as a universal. I would say that some people, because of the fact that we must constantly keep our emotions in check, cannot display them immediately when they need to, however, that need is above choice. It is necessity-the mourning will happen, regardless of personal choice, if mourning is what is needed. As for the duration, this is also based on need, so that the person who goes on mourning too long is the one who made the choice, for whatever reasons, to continue, all of which does not touch the intrinsicly non-intellectual nature of emotions.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, there's no reason[intellect] to be happy other than what makes an untrained dog happy, i.e. food, shelter from the elements, a nice b1tch. Everything else is reasonless. Even those reasons are essentially meaningless, as there is nothing truly advantageous to be gained from endless propagation of any one species. There is no reason to do kung fu, we just like it or are forced to do it, in which case there is no reason to dislike kung fu, there is no reason to read books, there is no reason to feel anything, because emotion is reasonless. Now, I believe that we, as humans, preserve knowledge and might spread across space, but my belief is reasonless, unfounded, and illogical. For all I know, humans have tried it twenty times on earth alone, heck, there could be millions of planets were billions of humans developed separately, dreamed big, spread as much as they could, and petered out like so many spores.

Anyway, I digress. Regardless of what utility we put our emotions to, the moment we decide to be happy, we experience happiness, not intellectual happiness. The emotions take over. I see no difference between the happiness displayed by a dog and my own, other than I use my intellect to mitigate mine more often, which does not color, but instead masks, my emotion.

Of course, from the right vantage point, I'm just a spore. Don't listen to me.:D

[Braden]

red5angel

"Well, I think the idea of a 'zombie' as you say in your thought experiment, is what I would say IS the reality. I don't see the need for a projection at all and it seems almost extraneous."

I, and the zombie-theorizing philosophers, would agree with you. In fact, that's exactly the point. Yet it does exist; I mean, you're aware of the vivid screenplay of consciousness all around you right now, aren't you?

"what I would propose is that it isn't a screen so much as maybe a filter? The data coming in and going out is processed by your brain and so this may pass through the cortex and then into the brain in general."

But what's being filtered, for whom, and what's the product? If you mean filtering and computing upon sensory data to produce behavior, that also happens, and doesn't require (as you noted) the phenomenological world (which is the point). If you stimulate an 'downward/leaving' connection in the brain, you won't find some filtered version of what's at the cortex, you will (as a generalization) produce behavior.

"If you look through a digital camera, you aren't getting the direct picture but a screen, much like hwat you are describing..."

How are you suggesting the brain is different?

" think part of the problem is I know just enough about brain chemistry to be dangerous but not enough to know what bothers me about this discussion!"

I understand what you mean.

Zim

"I have no answers for it, but I do know it's a logical dead-ender."

For sure. That's what I meant to keep in mind when I pointed out that science has nothing to say on the matter, and won't.

fa-jing

"you are referring to the non-spatial relationship between the phenomena and the pre-reflective cogito. Subjectivity is kind of like a singularity. We can't really prove it for others, but the actions of others indicate clearly that they are directed by a subject, in fact our doubts about the subjectivity of others are no greater than our doubts regarding our own subjectivity."

Yes, but I'm also saying that the phenomenological world is also not the subject.

"He claimed that if a certain nerve connecting the right and left sides of the brain is severed, effectively two consciousnesses are created that exist in the same head, as if the soul was split down the middle."

Right, a callosectomy is the cutting of the corpus callosum, a relatively large "bundle of connections" between the two hemispheres. There's actually a few much lesser connections which aren't typically cut in a callosectomy, and of course sub-cortical connections...

I think we have to be careful with suggesting that the soul and/or consciousness has been split. Although it's somewhat controversial, it's reasonable to say that people conclude two 'human automata' (or whatever you want to call them) are created by callosectomy.

Originally, the non-linguistic half (in most people, language develops primarily on one side, and in most it's the left) was taken to be vastly inferior, as if the linguistic half was more-or-less the original, and an additional, non-linguistic human automata sprung forth from the operation. This has been more-and-more called into question, although I suspect this is still the predominant belief. Language in general has been given a sort of primacy in our thinking about cognition (eg. as necessary for 'higher' processes), which I disagree strongly with, but explains this way of thinking.

Callosectomies, like alot of really interesting brain work, were done on people were severe epilepsy which responded unsatisfactorily to medication. The cognitive experiments on subjects post-surgery are really fascinating.

Because the hemispheres more-or-less are responsable for independant halves of the body, you can think up clever ways to play with presenting information to only one hemisphere. The idea here is that each of the human automata that result from callosectomy "reside" independanly in each hemisphere.

So, with clever presentation, you could show a picture to just one hemisphere, then ask them about it. Asking is a linguistic task; the linguistic hemisphere is going to respond. If you showed the linguistic hemisphere the picture, no problem. If you showed it to the non-linguistic one, there's a problem - it's not very good at responding.

Some cool stuff happens with permutations of this. For one thing, you could get the non-linguistic hemisphere to produce behavior, such as a laugh, then ask the person about that behavior. Hey, why did you laugh just now? Since this linguistic approach primes up the linguistic centres to respond, and the linguistic centres have no idea why the body just laughed, this causes a problem. So what does the person respond? They just make up a response. Something which sounds reasonable, or at least, relatively reasonable, like "Oh, you scientists are just so silly." These kinds of statements will be believed by the person the way psychiatric delusions are believed; they're not lying here, they are deluded, they believe that's why they laughed.

Another interesting thing which seemed to start happening is that the non-linguistic hemisphere (or otherwise, the hemisphere impaired for the task) would try to communicate. For instance, if you showed a red-or-green light to the linguistic hemisphere, then asked them if it was red-or-green - no problem. But if you showed it to the non-linguistic half, then asked - problem. The person would just guess - again, delusionally. But what seemed to start happening is the impaired hemisphere would try to communicate, for instance, by shaking the head if a wrong response was guessed. The guessing hemisphere would pick up on these cues and go, "Oh no, I meant green!"

Do both of these automata have phenomenological worlds though? Of course, we'll never know. I believe alot of people suspected the poor, non-linguistic offshoot did not, whereas the linguistic "original" did. As (hopefully) the concept of the primacy of language (and the concept of the inferiority of the non-linguistic hemisphere) fades, this conclusion will become more problematic.

In my mind, since I do not associate the subject with the phenomenological world, a splitting of the phenomenological world does not split the subject. So I wouldn't find this to be particularly problematic.

KC Elbows

"We are dominant in this world for a million reasons that do not include our emotions."

Remember, we're not that dominant!

"I think we tend to involve emotion in any discussion of consciousness."

I think there's alot of emotional stuff going on we're not conscious of, and alot of conscious stuff going on that isn't emotional.

[Chang Style Novice]

My friends H. and E. have two dogs. Molly, the chow mix, insisted on going out last night at around 8 pm so E. let her out. Then Molly went to the side yard and started barking, even though she's not a very barky dog. So, E. went out to check it out and surprised a couple of teenagers climbing out of their neighbors' window. The teens dropped the dvd player and stuff and took off.

One's a ten year old chow mix who looks kind of like a monkey!

One's an environmental policy analyst for the state!

They fight crime!

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by Braden

fa-jing

"you are referring to the non-spatial relationship between the phenomena and the pre-reflective cogito. Subjectivity is kind of like a singularity. We can't really prove it for others, but the actions of others indicate clearly that they are directed by a subject, in fact our doubts about the subjectivity of others are no greater than our doubts regarding our own subjectivity."

Yes, but I'm also saying that the phenomenological world is also not the subject.



Sorry if I didn't make that clear (as if I've made anything clear :))
Of course the phenomena are not the subject, otherwise why bother distinguishing between the two using two different terms? I can see that this is kind of directed towards the issue that Red5 brought up (is there a distinction?) For this reason one proves that the being of consciousness does not include passivity or relativity, for these would cause consciousness to be absorbed up in the outside world and it would become a nothingness. The proof (or attempt) is a bit complicated and if I try to paraphrase it will definitely lose all meaning. Thanks for the info on the brain experiments. As I alluded to before, the doctors are reading the results to say that there are two seperate consciousnesses, but we wise men know not to make any but the most careful claims regarding subjectivity. In other words I don't think we know.

KC - it seems that you are thinking of reason as potentially coming from outside "there is no reason," etc. I think of reason as coming from within, and endowed with free will, but recognize that we wouldn't be here at all if we didn't satisfy some principles of the universe. Sartre wrote "man is the foundation of his values, but it is a foundation without foundation." I would alter that to say that we do reflect some principles of the Universe as above. However, this is not to denigrate any value that comes from within, in fact as the only possible values, I elevate these to a high status.

Ultimately, we treat animals the way we do because we can. And that too reflects a principle of the Universe.

[ZIM]

I: "I have no answers for it, but I do know it's a logical dead-ender."

Braden: "For sure. That's what I meant to keep in mind when I pointed out that science has nothing to say on the matter, and won't."
--------------------------

Only insofar as what precepts are accepted by the observer, IMHO. I agree that, for the most part, the question of what makes the 'self' is unanswerable, but I try to look for whatever alternative explanantions i can find, as I'm sure you do as well, as you seem not to like logical dead-ends. :)

FWIW, I was looking at how Derrida and Lacan [who are not without critics] attempted to solve the h0m0nculus problem. For each, it can be summed as 'there is nothing outside the text [Derrida]', or 'it is the world of words that creates the world of things [Lacan]'. Both tended to regard the 'self' as a theoretical construct and so attempted to disprove it, in a way.

Is this science? LOL @ that. But interesting thoughts. :) I think its the point where we leave science and enter art/humanities.

[Braden]

"I agree that, for the most part, the question of what makes the 'self' is unanswerable, but I try to look for whatever alternative explanantions i can find, as I'm sure you do as well, as you seem not to like logical dead-ends."

Science should toil endlessly in blindness and fallibility (something Kleinian and also existentialist about that, I'm sure). That is what it was designed to do, and we all benefit greatly from it. I'm fascinated and immersed in the process and it's products. We should just not confuse it with metaphysics, which it is not.

Lacan I'm not confident on commenting on, really. The subject is ever-elusive, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Perhaps, in the peculiar Lacanian sense, that means it's all there really is. It's certainly not in the imaginary and not in the symbolic... and not in the real? The center 'lack' in the Borromean knot? Nevermind... I should have stuck with, 'I'm not confident on commenting on it.' Maybe the endless 'this is not the subject' is equivalent to the neti-neti of the jnani yogi... ok, I threw that in just to sound eccentric, I admit it.

post-edit: ;P ... just noticed I read your 'self' in the above as 'subject'!

[ZIM]

Laughing my fool head off @ that last, Braden!!

Seriously tho,
Perhaps, in the peculiar Lacanian sense, that means it's all there really is. is what was meant, I'm pretty sure...and anyhow, the 'real' can't be described, so...

"Mongo just pawn in game of life" :D Gotta luv blazin' saddles....*ok, I threw that in just to sound eccentric, I admit it.*:p

[Serpent]

I can't believe that the question "Do dogs have emotions" even needed to be asked! :eek:

[IronFist]

Good discussion. I didn't participate because I don't know what I think, I just wanted to hear what other people thought.

:)

IronFist

[KC Elbows]

Fa_jing,

I'm speaking of reason in the purely intellectual sense. Mostly to accent the total absence of reason in emotional states. Not reason as in justification, but reason as in logical justification.

When we find reasons inside of us to do things, they are rarely rational. For instance, the reasons I do kung fu are many. I probably started because I loved the old movies, and enjoyed the physicality of it, and I probably at that time needed something that was my own to be proud of. These are logical enough needs to fill. But now, why do I do kung fu? Because I do. It's integral to me. I love it, I suppose, and thus there's no reason. Why should I love specifically it? No logical answer there, and so, no reason.

I'm not saying there is no logic behind emotion and emotional decisions, but I am saying there is no logic in emotion and emotional decision making, and therefore, how can human emotion be colored with our reasoning? I don't think it can, and that's why I think certain animals have every bit the richness of emotion as us, despite our other cognitive advantages.



I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the whole screen-viewer thing, but I am woefully behind the times in philosophy. I'll just keep reading.

[ZIM]

The logic of the "mind" is wrapped up in the logic of language and its deep structures, not the logic of mathematical progression or philosophy. Hence, emotion plays a role, in the sense of prosody.

[KC Elbows]

Yes, emotion does play a role, an important role. But does reason play a role during emotion?

After all, people put aside their emotion momentarily to approach things in a reasonable way. And when people are tired of thinking, they become emotional.

Now, it's been a long time since I studied psych, but my recollection is that reason and emotion are exclusive from one another. One cannot be reasonable and emotional, but instead must sublimate emotion in order to attain reason.

However, I could be remembering this all backwards.:)

[ZIM]

Correct. But understand that we're talking different things.

Reason [as logic] is acquired by study, in some ways as an alternative language structure. It is similar to math: Math accepts 1+1=2, while logic strives to define what is 1? what is 2? Then to follow the same premise.

I'm speaking instead of the way the "mind" is built, and asserting that its 'natural' logic is based on the deep structures of language [compare with Chomsky], not logic/math.

It follows then, that speaking in different languages CAN open doorways to different aspects of your own personality- indeed, you may be less [or more] emotional when speaking, say, French, than your own language or in comparison to a native speaker of that language. [note that this is a radicalized position, not one that I'm sure of]

[KC Elbows]

I understand what you mean by that. The meaning of deep symbols and words is generally associated with the subconscious, and thus more closely with emotion. Would such traits of languages stem from the emotional states of the language's creators? Or the weight of meaning that those languages take over history?

[ZIM]

Hold on a moment.

If I'm getting you, you are saying that languages carry traits of emotionality- so that, say, Spanish is more 'naturally' spiritual, maybe.

This is not where I'm going. The language is the vehicle for the expression. Just as a sentence must contain verb, noun, etc. in order to make sense, so must the 'inherent logic of the language-based mind' complete its emotion-laden sentence in a way it can understand for itself and thus comprehend the world outside of it.

Cumbersome, ain't it? But thats the way we evolved. Psychotic, irrational behavior [in this view] is an inability to comp....LETE a sentenenz is wey thet maix senz. OK? :D

[KC Elbows]

Yes, that was sort of where I was going. Not so much that Spanish is more 'spiritual', but more that Spanish has it's own way to deal with finishing the sentence, as you called it, when the deep meanings are involved, than another language. That each language has it's own ways.

So what you are saying is that terrete's syndrome is a psychosis?:D Just kidding.

[ZIM]

So what you are saying is that terrete's syndrome is a psychosis? Just kidding.

Yeah right! "cmon cmon cmon cmon baby now...Twitch and shout":D

Regarding the language deal: yep. Thing is to take it radically, saying thats how we interpret the world at large, how we recieve and filter info thru our senses.

To relate this ALL the way back to doggies, maybe then its smell and rank within the pack. A dog is irrational if it doesn't know its' place, hmm? Or if it 'speaks in a different way', like being half wolf or a stranger or something. [eg, don't huskies tear up half-wolves? don't remember myself...]