this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
534 points (98.2% liked)
Science Memes
10923 readers
2233 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How do you know?
My pets express themselves pretty clearly, despite having much more limited ability to communicate across species lines.
I feel reasonably confident in stating that I believe animals are conscious, just to varying depths.
They express wants and needs, not emotions. Assuming that they have emotions that are the same as human emotions is anthropomorphization. They might have some analogous emotions, and boredom in a mammal might seem similar to human boredom, but where do you draw the line? Can a dog experience ennui? Can a cat experience a lack of fulfillment? Can a snake experience depression?
I don't disagree, but you can't say that animals that evolved consciousness in completely different environments and with different senses and neurology would experience emotion in the same way as humans. Apes, sure, they are really close and probably the easiest argument for human emotions in non-human species, but other mammals get farther and farther from human experience and emotion, and it's presumptuous of humans to assume that they experience emotions the same way. Read "What Is It Like to Be a Bat" for some of the philosophical and scientific issues with assigning human emotions to other mammals.
And other intelligent animals that are further removed from humanity on the evolutionary chain would have even more alien emotions. Humans can feel empathy for an octopus or African Greys, but can either of those animals feel empathy for humans? What about curiosity? They seem curious, but how can we know if they experience curiosity that is anything like human curiosity?
I think of that paper often, though I think it applies equally to other humans. Like I'll never know how it feels to be Doug unless I fully become Doug, and thus lose my own perspective.
Like how much of empathy is just projection?
I feel like a lot of it. We can talk about similarities in physiological responses to events, but as far as the actual subjective "qualia" (I think I'm using the term correctly) 🤷♂️
I believe you just hit upon what is called The Problem of Other Minds in philosophical terms
Hell yeah, you're killing it with these links, thank you.
I'm not surprised it's a known phenomenon, but still excited to catch up on others' thoughts.
No problem! I'm just glad my semi-obsessive reading of wikipedia is helping others, too
You state that animals are expressing wants and needs, not emotions, then ask questions that can only be answered by "we don't know".
I'd sooner think you do not know the former, either.
Fair. I could have been more accurate by saying "they are exhibiting behavior that has been reinforced by certain positive responses," but that's a little wordy.
Unfortunately I've got to disagree with you from the outset, they do in fact express emotions, having witnessed one of my pets feel less inclined to partake in activities he very much normally enjoyed when his compatriot of a different species eventually passed away due to age. That is one clear example I've observed on my own, several times in a couple of different species over the years (unfortunately).
It's a bit pedantic, in truth, to state that these animals don't feel human emotions. Do all of us experience ennui for that matter? Envy, to the same level as one another? Which leads to a paradox of how one defines a conscious, human mind at all, if it were indeed based only on what emotions are present when presented with a similar stimulus.
Further, I'm noticing that you're focused on dancing around "are they human", not "are they conscious", a more interesting & insightful question. Unfortunately, I've noticed this tactic among people who don't want to feel bad about eating other conscious beings. If you eat other passengers on this ship called earth, so be it, but avoid the cowardice that comes with assigning them lower value in a pseudo-intellectual manner.
Do you think animals are capable of being curious, even when there's no impetus for them to be? I certainly do.
As noted elsewhere, this is an ongoing philosophical discussion called The Problem of Other Minds. I'd link it, but since you can't be bothered to read the links already present, I don't think there's much point.
You're missing the point that all humanity, collectively, as a species has largely the same senses, evolutionary history, and brain structure. Therefore, despite experiencing the emotions differently and to different extremes, we are mostly capable of experiencing the same emotions. Take away that shared brain structure and shared evolutionary history, and it's a very large, unfounded assumption to think that other species have the same emotions.
No, I literally agreed with you that consciousness is a spectrum and that most life falls somewhere on that spectrum. Buy hey, go ahead and ignore that so you can build yourself a strawman. I never said anywhere that I eat meat, so you're just imagining things so you can build an argument against a statement I never made.
This sentence right here is everything I need to know about your stance. You're either not willing to consider or able to understand that different species experience consciousness and emotion as an evolved trait, and when the evolutionary drivers are different, the emotions are different. Any species that evolves the ability to be curious will have done so because it's an evolutionary advantage, but if the evolutionary pressure and the senses and the literal brain structure is different, then the emotion of "curiosity" will be different. Assuming that other species experience curiosity the same way as humans is exceptionally close-minded.
You're not doing other species any favors by anthropomorphizing them; you're just limiting your own understanding.
Quite a long, pedantic response.
I didn't in fact read your other links, nice to see you're unable to imagine others having lives and limited time. At no point did I say you ate meat, but that you are using similar tactics.
Curious, how much writing you do when all I ask is whether you think animals experience curiosity, and how much of it doesn't have anything to do with that question.
Rolling back through your overly elaborate discussions here, you'll note that I never said humans and animals had the same emotions, nor to the same level we as a species do. But I do say what they have is analogous, and that the line between anthropomorphism and observation can itself be a fuzzy concept.
Do you understand that, or will you resort to ad hominem again?
You seem unable to distinguish between nuance and pedantry, so it's unlikely that we will be able to have a productive conversation on a topic that revolves around nuance.
Have a nice day.
Hmm, I don't think that's true either. You as well, stranger.