 | Forum Threads |  |
| Random Photo | |
| Member Poll | |
|
| Comments |
on May 16 2010 19:12:35
watch the video firstThis was a big hit on digg a while back, and everybody was crying because of how the cat is obviously grieving and trying to revive his lost friend..
Only problem is, that he's not trying to revive his friend. He's courting, then humping his dead friend here. Somehow that's not quite as touching as the music suggests.
I think it is amazing how quick we are to assign human traits to things that are not human. Makes me wonder to what degree our whole existence and attempts to understand the universe are affected by this fundamental filter. |
on May 16 2010 21:13:29
How do you know? I can't see that that's what he's doing. I obviously can't see him give CPR either...
But ehm... being horny is a pretty human trait as well... so you're still anthropomorphizing. But anthropomorphizing is not necessarily incorrect. It is, when we do it to inanimate objects, like computers, cars and robots (this might very well change in the future...), but when it comes to animals, our assumptions might very well be correct. They are related to us (and closer than most people believe), and most of our development is shared with them. All our so-called human traits didn't spontaneously appear 10 generations after our evolution split with the other apes.
Our very deepest traits, fight, fear, pain, fuck, eat, are all shared with animals as far as we can relate to them. There's no reason to believe that slightly less deep traits are not shared. |
on May 16 2010 21:59:10
If you look closely at around 0:51, he's making humping movements. Also, I believe the biting of the neck to be standard mating behavior for cats (and for minature stallions?), and the rhythmic movement of the fore and hind legs aswell. To me, the only behavior we can distinguish here, is the behavior seen during mating. I'm not saynig he's horny; I am saying he's courting and humping. That's not anthropomorphizing is it? As far as I know all mammals at least exibit some sort of atypical behavior around mating time.
Whether it is always incorrect to anthropomorphize I have no clear opinion. That is, I haven't really thought it through yet or looked at any evidence for or against. Still, I know that we are often wrong to assume that animals have the same feelings that we do, as I think this video suggests.
I understand your argument from evolution, and will get back to you. |
on May 16 2010 22:14:02
Yes, I saw that too. However, the video is 4 minutes long, and that was a couple of seconds. Also, that may not be humping movements. I have seen a cat cower in a similar manner and piss involuntarily because he got scared.
Courting & humping = horny.
Of course we can be wrong in assuming whatever feeling an animal has at a certain point, especially when it is weird like in this video. But to say that animals are little robots just responding to stimuli is obviously incorrect to anyone who has just a little experience with animals. Well, at least as incorrect as it would be to say the same about us, but that's a different discussion.
Are you in doubt that animals have feelings similar to ours? |
on May 16 2010 23:11:19
Horny is more of an emotion and humping and courting are observable actions, that is the difference.
Are you in doubt that animals have feelings similar to ours?
Doubt? absolutely! I have no idea what emotions are, and neither has anybody else. There is no clear definition of what emotions are, and there are at least 20 unsubstantiated theories since the age of Plato that have tried to explain them. Neuroscience seems to be showing some promise in backing their theories up with evidence, but it is still early days.
Based solely on my limited knowledge, and much doubt, my answer to your question is yes and no.
The yes part:
Without knowing too much about brains and evolution, I believe that animals have feelings similar to ours insofar as their brains allow it. The further we get from the human brain, the less I believe them to be capable of emotion similar to ours.
The no part:
I do not believe, that animals have emotions similar to ours in the sense that they feel emotion for the same things as we do. I see no reason at present why animals should feel what we do, in the sense that they should be sad when someone close to them dies, or that they should feel happy about sunsets, etc. If they are truly capable of emotions then these emotions would probably be completely different from our own. Dogs, for instance, seem to "love" to chase stuff. I don't think we humans have any way of relating to that feeling - if that's what it is.
This is an interesting quesion though - one that I hope will get answered sometime in the not too distant future.
|
on May 17 2010 15:37:22
Horny is an emotion? So when I told that girl that I had feelings for her, I wasn't lying?! 
I didn't want to get into a philosophizing about what emotions really are. And we don't have to discuss that, really, it's beyond the scope of this conversation.
Let's get back to our brain here, which you seem to think is so special. Well, it isn't. It's different from other animals' brains in scale, not in kind. Saying that there is something unique about our brain that doesn't exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom is sort of like saying we have a soul. It's just not supported by science. Again, yes, our brain is bigger than most (not all!) and the composition is special, so in that regard you may argue that we're 'unique', but the point is that the fundamentals are the same. I realize we're pretty much eye to eye on this issue, though.
Regarding your second part, I think it stinks a bit of snobbery. Yes, we may enjoy more 'refined' joys than dogs, but that doesn't mean it's not the same kinds of joys. Maybe dogs chasing stuff is due to their hunting instinct. Maybe we enjoy sports for the same reason. Either way, have you never seen little kids run after cars? Have you ever been to bygd? Perfectly relatable.
Let's try using some Occam's Razor on this issue.
Is it really plausible that emotions are a human-specific trait, or is it more plausible that it has evolved with our ancestors way back?
Are emotions something only humans can benefit from, or is this something that animals might benefit from too?
What is the evolutionary purpose of pain, joy, grief, horniness, etc.? Can animals benefit from having these feelings? Is it plausible that they only evolved in us? Is it plausible that when we observe apparent emotions in animals, it is really a completely different system?
These seem to be rhetorical questions, and they mostly are, but I don't pretend to have all the answers. I do think we should be very careful in how special we pretend we are.
Here's an interesting article on grief in animals: Psychology Today. |
on May 17 2010 16:39:21
I agree with most of what you're saying here. I will stick to our differences.
My snobbery I think you misunderstand. I do not think human emotions are "better" or more refined than alledged dog emotions. I'm saying that if emotions are indeed more than just positive and negative stimuli, then they are not just refined in humans but in dogs aswell. I think it would be just as hard for us to understand the dog emotion related to chasing stuff, as it would be for dogs to understand our emotions, such as jealousy etc. It seems logical to me to apply the same amount of complexity to both animals and humans, because as you agree, our brains are fundamentally the same.
Which leads us to the next natural point in this discussion. Do animals have empathy? Does the cat in the above example mourn the loss of his parter because he can relate to him and the pain of death? That's a relevant question I think.
Then there is that article. Sometimes I wonder if you have a switch that turns your critical reasoning off when you read material that supports your own views.
To me, this article reads like a bunch of anectdotes and stories that support the perspective that animals mourn. The author doesn't even leave any room for doubt; animals mourn and non-believers are arrogant. This is the sort of thing you yourself usually critisize.
I'm not at all saying that animals do not mourn. It might very well be true, but I'd like to see some evidence above what some guy said he saw. I can even suggest some scientific studies that could be done, where you predict a certain behavior under certain conditions and you then wait until the condition are right and you then observe if the animals indeed behave as predicted. Then you would be underway to create a sound foundation for the hypothesis that animals mourn.
I can easily imagine an extra paragraph in that article that reads "..and in Madrid a cat was observed to be grieving his lost girlfriend and trying in vain to bring her back to life by massaging her chest with his pawns, before lying down beside her, closing his eyes in obvious sadness"
True or not, this doesn't read any differently than what is usually found in pseudoscience. |
on May 18 2010 15:38:36
Do animals have empathy? Do humans? Sometimes I doubt... I'll get back to your question in a second.
RE the article I linked to:
1. I said it was interesting, not that it was The Truth.
2. Yes, the article is anecdotal and presents, at best, circumstantial evidence. However, I do hope you see the difference between reports from noted scientists and some random YouTube vid...
3. My point was, and I realize it might be obscure, related to the headers and the first paragraph. The arrogance he is talking about refers to (as I interpret it) an after-rationalization by us humans where we try to explain how special we are by coming up with reasons why we are special.
I'll try to put that in simpler terms:
The 'specialists' tell us how special we are, and explain any observed similarity in animals by saying 'Cute, but that's just us anthropomorphizing, or reward behavior, or imitation, etc.' (Ironically, reward behavior and imitation are strong human traits too)
I say that most of our evolution has been shared, and that any observed traits will likely be analogous to ours, and that, in order to interpret them differently you must firstly explain why the observed trait is not analogous to ours, and secondly why this 'copycat' trait has arisen.
In conclusion: Occam's Razor tells us that two seemingly similar traits in two (relatively) closely related species will probably be similar. Any other explanation requires more complexity:
You have the extraordinary claim, so you have the burden of proof.
To return to your question about animals and empathy, and also to accommodate your request for scientific research, here is a study that shows empathy in mice: Social modulation of pain as evidence for empathy in mice. |
on May 19 2010 21:31:21
2. I have a firm disbelief in experts, and as such, arguments from authority hold very little sway with me. I prefer a youtube vid above an expert statement in this case, as I am able to judge the information for myself first hand.
3. You make a good point here about the burden of proof lying with those who claim humans to be fundamentally different from animals. I do not contest it. That being said, there are differences, albeit not fundamental ones. Animals do have traits that humans have aswell, but humans have some traits that animals do not have, or traits that are at least not wide-spread among animals, such as social learning, laughter and tool use. Human beings are also the only species on this planet to have traveled to the moon and back. There are differences, but I do not believe they make us "special" in any biological/evolutionary way besides being "lucky" enough to possess the specific combination of traits that has allowed us to dominate the planet.
With regards to anthropomorphizing there is, in my view, a clear difference between projecting human psychology onto animals (like the dog and cat diaries I posted) and simply identifying the purpose of their behavior. If we see two animals engaged in some specific behavior, and we then observe that some time after this behavior has taken place, one of the animals produces offspring, can it then be considered anthropomorphizing to conclude that said behavior is mating since humans mate? I think the answer is no to that question. Behaviorists have sucessfully explained almost all human behavior by "blackboxing" the human brain; that is, by observing humans as objectively as possible without any presumed knowledge about the inner workings of our minds, and I see no reason why you cannot observe animals in the same way and get accurate results. The sound time-tested scientific methods of observation, prediction and testing are used here both with regard to humans and animals alike.
So, in summary, I do not think I am guilty of anthropomorphizing when I claim that the cat in the above video is practicing necrophilia, even though necrophilia is something also practiced by humans, because this conclusion does not presuppose any human qualities on part of the cat. It is pure observation. On the other hand, if I say that the cat is sad, then I am assuming that the cat's behavior corresponds to human behavior, and I am therefore anthropomorphizing.
phew, I'm tired. I'll have a look at your mouse reserach later.
|
on May 30 2010 02:37:05
I had a look at those mouse experiments, but I couldn't get to the eactual article - just the summary. Seems convincing nonetheless. Here's another nice RSA animate about empathy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g |
|
|
| Post Comment | |
Please Login to Post a Comment.
|
|
|
| Login | |
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
| | 
| Last Seen Users | |
| Obituaries | |
You must login to post a message.
|
| |
|
Dumb
