Animals, emotions, and learning

[lee]

My sixth grade teacher, among others, has asserted that animals cannot feel emotions. Any expression that appears to be emotional is dismissed as instinct or anthropomorphizing by the observer. Others expressing this view, including a professor of mine who was also a priest, have said it is because man is created in the creator's image and emotions are by-products of having souls, which is another thing animals are said to lack. My grandmother and many others, assert that all animals other than humans lack the complexity and intelligence to feel and express emotion.

Another distinction between humans and animals is made in how animals learn behaviors. By far too many to count, it has been said humans lack instinct. In psychology class my professor stated that many now believe that animals only learn through conditioning and do not learn by modeling observed behavior. He also said that a smaller number believe this is true for children as well.

Why should human beings be the only animals that have emotions?
Based on personal observation, I think that animals have and express emotions. Also based on my own observations, I think that animals do model behavior and learn that way in addition to learning via conditioning, etc. It seems far simpler to believe that humans and animals share the ability to feel and learn than to believe that humans are unique in that capacity. Anyone care to debate this?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by lee

My sixth grade teacher, among others, has asserted that animals cannot feel emotions.

I strongly recommend reading the first 60 or so pages of The Case for Animal Rights. Even if you disagree with the author's later conclusions, he spends the first big chunk of the book setting for the strong arguments that:
* Fido can feel pain.
* Fido can feel pleasure.
* Fido can experience happiness.
* Fido can remember things.
* Fido can express desires about the future.

Most folks who go with the "animals as complicated circuitry" argument are drawing on Descartes's theories. Those theories get cut to ribbons by Occam's Razor.

Daniel

[cromulent]

I think plenty of animals, mammals in particular, feel emotion. Fear is an obvious one -- on those nature shows, when a lion shows up among a herd of wildebeast, what could possibly get them running if not fear?

My cat definitely feels pleasure, pain, unhappiness, fear. A more interesting question is which of the "simpler" animals feel emotions. I had a pet chameleon who would turn bright red, puff himself out, and hiss furiously when he saw his image in the mirror (they're territorial, and he thought it was another chameleon.) Was he angry, or just working on pre-programmed instructions in that little lizard brain about what to do if he saw a possible rival? Maybe it's a combination of the two.

As far as modeling observed behavior, primates imitate each other. Birds learn bird song from other birds.

Some animals do seem to be working with "complicated circuitry" though. Take Tinebergen's experiments on herring gull chicks -- they peck at a red spot on the mother's beak to get her to throw up food. They seem to have no idea why they're doing this -- they're more or less "programmed" to do it. Give them a stick with a dot on it, and they'll peck at that too.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Perhaps not as scientifically rigorous as what Left Hand of Dorkness suggested reading but I cannot imagine how anyone could live with a dog (or many other animals but dogs are a convenient example) and come to the conclusion Fido has no emotions. It goes way beyond anthropomorphizing to watch the critter day-to-day for years and come to the conclusion the animal experiences a range of emotions we all understand.

The only way I can imagine someone saying a dog does not have an inner life as humans do would be to appeal to religion and accept that God gave only humans a soul and that God created every other living thing without.

If one must go down the path of animals just exhibiting fancy programming that merely appears as emotions that they actually lack then I'd say why is it any different for humans? Either we are all complex machines and there is no deeper reality to our lives than your car has (what you think of as emotions is just a clever illusion) or all animals live in a spectrum of emotions and thinking. Admittedly it would be a broad spectrum based on many things but no less real in my view for that.

[Avumede]

Plus, as humans we are nothing more than "complicated circuitry" to a large degree ourselves, same as animals. To think otherwise is to be ignorant of the field of psychology. I often wonder how much of my behavior is purely instinctual - that is, I don't think about it beforehand. My guess is that 99.99% of my behavior is purely instinct, including this post. If there are any who claim to be less instinctual to a significant degree, I ask them how on earth they get anything done!

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

The only way I can imagine someone saying a dog does not have an inner life as humans do would be to appeal to religion and accept that God gave only humans a soul and that God created every other living thing without.

Actually, Descartes's explanation is that our nervous system is wholly separate from our mind: when our spiritual, immaterial mind decides to jump, God uses that as an excuse to effect the change in the physical world of making our bodies jump. Similarly, when our finger touches a hot stove, God uses that as an excuse to effect the change in our immaterial mind of causing it to experience pain. God is like the ultimate switchboard operator.

Without God's intervention in this bizarrely micromanaging fashion, Descartes was unable to explain why the similarities in nervous systems between animals and humans shouldn't result in the conclusion that animals feel pain just like humans do.

Daniel

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by cromulent

Some animals do seem to be working with "complicated circuitry" though. Take Tinebergen's experiments on herring gull chicks -- they peck at a red spot on the mother's beak to get her to throw up food. They seem to have no idea why they're doing this -- they're more or less "programmed" to do it. Give them a stick with a dot on it, and they'll peck at that too.

I am not so sure this says anything one way or another on whether an animal can or will develop complex emotions. Certainly humans are born with innate responses. Human babies have the "rooting reflex". If you touch a baby's cheek it will turn its head in that direction. This is to facilitate feeding (the baby will turn toward the mother's nipple when it feels it pressed to its cheek). This does not seem so different from the baby chicks running on in-built responses till they grow and learn.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Human babies have the "rooting reflex". If you touch a baby's cheek it will turn its head in that direction.

Not to mention what happens when you give a baby a pacifier.

Daniel

[Whack-a-Mole]

Here are two examples that I think speak strongly to animal emotions. Occam's Razor would suggest the only conclusion is that animals can and do experience an inner, emotional life. The alternative is to do some serious logic pretzels as Decartes seems to have done as explained by Left Hand of Dorkness (who also handily supplied applying Occam's Razor to this).

The lions reluctantly moved away, watching the elephant bull as he started touching and sniffing the dead elephant from head to toe with his trunk.

<snip>

We do know that elephants are quite intelligent, have strong social bonds and very good memories. There are also reported cases of elephants collecting the scattered bones of dead elephants, and piling them up on one spot again. This may explain the "elephant graveyards" observed by early European hunters.

<snip>

All the evidence points to the fact that elephants are complex creatures who can bear mental scars of their suffering.

SOURCE: Elephants mourn their fallen in Botswana

She (Koko the gorilla) communicates in sign language, using a vocabulary of over 1000 words. She also understands spoken English, and often carries on "bilingual" conversations, responding in sign to questions asked in English. She is learning the letters of the alphabet, and can read some printed words, including her own name. She has achieved scores between 85 and 95 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test.

She demonstrates a clear self-awareness by engaging in self-directed behaviors in front of a mirror, such as making faces or examining her teeth, and by her appropriate use of self-descriptive language. She lies to avoid the consequences of her own misbehavior, and anticipates others' responses to her actions. She engages in imaginary play, both alone and with others. She has produced paintings and drawings which are representational. She remembers and can talk about past events in her life. She understands and has used appropriately time-related words like before, after, later, and yesterday.

She laughs at her own jokes and those of others. She cries when hurt or left alone, screams when frightened or angered. She talks about her feelings, using words like happy, sad, afraid, enjoy, eager, frustrate, mad, and, quite frequently, love. She grieves for those she has lost-a favorite cat who has died, a friend who has gone away. She can talk about what happens when one dies, but she becomes fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death or the death of her companions. She displays a wonderful gentleness with kittens and other small animals. She has even expressed empathy for others seen only in pictures.

Does this individual have a claim to basic moral rights? It is hard to imagine any reasonable argument that would deny her these rights based on the description above. She is self-aware, intelligent, emotional, communicative, has memories and purposes of her own, and is certainly able to suffer deeply.

SOURCE: The Case for the Personhood of Gorillas

I also recall a show (on Animal Planet I think) where a senior female member of a group of chimpanzees died (old age). Her daughter apparently was a bit of a princess and with her mother, who elevated the daughters place in the pack by virtue of her status, gone the daughter seemed to fall into a deep depression. She refused to leave the body of her mother and the pack (or whatever you call a group of chimps) stayed with her for several days. Eventually the imperative to survive forced the pack to move on (find food and water) but the daughter still refused to leave. The daughter built a nest above the body of her mother and would visit the body constantly. Eventually the daughter died as well. Cause of death was lack of food but the deeper cause would seem to be a broken heart. Certainly that chimp overcame all biological programming that would tell her to get on with life. Unfortuantely I haven't found a cite for this story yet but perhaps others here remember it and can verify or elaborate.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by lee

My sixth grade teacher...a professor of mine who was also a priest...My grandmother and many others

They are clearly "full of it."

Anyone care to debate this?

What's to debate? Anybody with longterm experience with higher animals has seen that animals have rich emotional lives and the only explanation for those you mentioned denying it is that they are trying to force-fit reality into an imaginary universe in which there is a solid wall between humans and other animals. It is psychological creationism with no basis in fact.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I also recall a show (on Animal Planet I think) where a senior female member of a group of chimpanzees died (old age). Her daughter apparently was a bit of a princess and with her mother, who elevated the daughters place in the pack by virtue of her status, gone the daughter seemed to fall into a deep depression. She refused to leave the body of her mother and the pack (or whatever you call a group of chimps) stayed with her for several days. Eventually the imperative to survive forced the pack to move on (find food and water) but the daughter still refused to leave. The daughter built a nest above the body of her mother and would visit the body constantly. Eventually the daughter died as well. Cause of death was lack of food but the deeper cause would seem to be a broken heart. Certainly that chimp overcame all biological programming that would tell her to get on with life. Unfortuantely I haven't found a cite for this story yet but perhaps others here remember it and can verify or elaborate.

If we're thinking of the same case, Jane Goodal wrote about it in In The Shadow Of Man. Though, IIRC the depressed chimp was a son who despite having been a physical adult for a long time, never overcame a dependance on mom. After her death, he basically lay in the fetal position by the corpse and would not do anything. His sister attempted to care for him but was unable.

Back To The OP

As others have said, if Fido appears to be expressing emotions then the explanation which fits all the facts without introducing unnecessary entities is that Fido really is expressing emotions.

I believe that humans don't have that many instincts-OTTOMH, rooting reflex, stepping reflex, extending arms and legs while falling, built in recognition of human faces, built in expressions for expressing emotions and built in recognition of those emotions in others, yelling at a certain pitch when in distress, and OTTOMH that's it.

What we use to post here is taught-language, abstract reasoning, logic, rhetoric, the SDMB rules, etc. Some of these are things that we learned so long ago that we can use them without conscious effort, but they are learned information and behaviors. Only if a Doper is born knowing how to touch type without any training whatsoever would it be instinct.

[Yllaria]

I think we also have an instinct to create and navigate in social heirarchies and to imprint on the stories and values of our group. A lot of the information we pick up is, at least at the beginning, done to fit into the group or to compete within it. Information used to fit into the group can be illogical and/or completely wrong and it will still function perfectly well as a group linkage. Information used to compete probably has to be correct more often.

Oh, and the chimps were named Flo and Flint. Flo had raised a number of babies to adulthood and was the most successful mother in the troop. She was getting old when Flint was born, though, and was older still when his baby brother was born. Although old enough to go out on his own, Flint competed with the baby for his mother's attention, often interrupting its nursing and the baby eventually died, very probably from the neglect. It was Flo's only failure at mothering.

So Flint mourning himself to death wasn't the beginning of the soap opera for those two.

[Lissa]

Originally Posted by lee

My grandmother and many others, assert that all animals other than humans lack the complexity and intelligence to feel and express emotion.

It's my view that emotions are extremely simple in nature, not requiring complexity, per se. Really, when you break it down, emotions are simply chemicals which are released into the brain because of various stimuli. (Research has shown that the chemicals released in the brain of a human mother when she looks at her baby are virtually identical to that of chimps.)

Often I've heard people scoff at the idea that animals experience emotion primarily because most of the evidence for it is antectdotal. (After all, we can't be positively sure that the chimp mother feels the effects of the endorphin release when she looks at her infant the same way as the human mother does.) We can't ask them, and the visual cues we've been programmed from birth (hell, maybe even instinctually programmed) to read how others are feeling do not apply. While animal faces are just as expressive as human faces in many respects, we haven't been programmed to catch the subtle nuances which would be almost automatic to another member of the species.

I argue that most social species of animals have emotions, based not only on the much derided antectdotal evidence, but because emotions are very useful for social creatures, and can explain many social behaviors much better than pure instinct. A mother who feels an emotional attatchment or love for her offspring will be more eager to care for it, perhaps showing more attention and care than a mother who does so out of programmed duty. Love also helps to cement pair bonding. Shame, another emotion which would on the surface seem complex, really is just a useful tool for keeping creatures within the bounds of their social order. Fear, of course, needs no explanation as to its usefulness-- nor does anger.

I'm not arguing that animal emotions are as complex and nuanced as human emotions can be-- perhaps emotions are more effective in their simpler forms, anyway. My point is that I see no evidence or reason why emotions should be thought of as belonging only to a higher form of conciousness.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Lissa

Often I've heard people scoff at the idea that animals experience emotion primarily because most of the evidence for it is antectdotal. (After all, we can't be positively sure that the chimp mother feels the effects of the endorphin release when she looks at her infant the same way as the human mother does.) We can't ask them, and the visual cues we've been programmed from birth (hell, maybe even instinctually programmed) to read how others are feeling do not apply. While animal faces are just as expressive as human faces in many respects, we haven't been programmed to catch the subtle nuances which would be almost automatic to another member of the species.

Actually in one very special instance we actually have asked another species about its emotions. Read my blurb on Koko (the sign language using gorilla) above. Better yet read up on her on your own or track down a variety of videos on her. A remarkable story and sure enough Koko communicates experiencing the same range of emotions we do (including complex emotions like love).

As to understanding what other animals are saying to us it is not all that hard. I can read my dog (or most dogs for that matter) like a book (my cats too for that matter but I think my dog is easier to read). Dogs are very communicative (via body language mostly although vocalizations can be a part of it). Granted it is a limited communication method compared to speech but I have zero problems understanding my dog's emotive state and can do that in little more than a glance at her. Heck...unlike people who can hide their emotions dogs advertise them pretty freely (which I think is one aspect humans find so enjoyable about dogs...if they express affection for you it is straight-up, unadulterated affection and nothing else).

[Avumede]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

What we use to post here is taught-language, abstract reasoning, logic, rhetoric, the SDMB rules, etc. Some of these are things that we learned so long ago that we can use them without conscious effort, but they are learned information and behaviors. Only if a Doper is born knowing how to touch type without any training whatsoever would it be instinct.

Well, I think it surely is instinct, in the sense that as a species we have an instinct to acquire languages, to argue, to ridicule spelling mistakes, etc. I'm responding to this post by an instinctual desire to nitpick and argue, knowing rationally that I am gaining nothing by doing so. Some of that desire to nitpick and argue is personality, which is genetic to a large degree. And of course, what you say is true: we learn some things so well we use them as if they were instinct.

[Arwin]

When we look at the brain, or at our development in the womb, there can be no doubt that humans and animals are more alike than different. The reason why we sometimes like to fool ourselves this isn't so, is because memory and reasoning has developed very far in humans and was then amplified by our powerful social and cultural structures.

But the most striking thing here, is that emotions and instinct are generally considered to come from the most primitive, animal parts of humans. Our advanced memories (greatly enhanced by cultural memory - what we learn from each other and our ancestors) and reasoning skills allow us to disregard or at least channel our instincts and emotions in a certain direction or behaviour.

I think the confusion here is the discussion of consciousness, self-awareness. Some people believe that if you are not self-aware (can't hear yourself think, so to speak), you cannot feel emotions. But this is not true, sooner the opposite - you can only not feel emotions if you overcome them through reason and self-awareness. The lesser your capacity to remember things and to reason, the stronger and more directly emotions will be felt - each time will be unique, it will be like, say, feeling, smelling, and tasting something for the first time each time, with programmed responses (instincts) determining your emotions and reactions (run away, fight, eat, etc.), and no learning (for which you require memory).

[Lissa]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Actually in one very special instance we actually have asked another species about its emotions. Read my blurb on Koko (the sign language using gorilla) above. Better yet read up on her on your own or track down a variety of videos on her. A remarkable story and sure enough Koko communicates experiencing the same range of emotions we do (including complex emotions like love).

As to understanding what other animals are saying to us it is not all that hard. I can read my dog (or most dogs for that matter) like a book (my cats too for that matter but I think my dog is easier to read). Dogs are very communicative (via body language mostly although vocalizations can be a part of it). Granted it is a limited communication method compared to speech but I have zero problems understanding my dog's emotive state and can do that in little more than a glance at her. Heck...unlike people who can hide their emotions dogs advertise them pretty freely (which I think is one aspect humans find so enjoyable about dogs...if they express affection for you it is straight-up, unadulterated affection and nothing else).

I think perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm well aware of Koko and her amazing ability to communicate, as well as Alex, the parrot who communicates about as well as a three-year-old child. Both of them have communicated how they're feeling, but many people discount what they're saying, claiming that they've merely been trained by their human teachers to act in a certain manner or say certain things in response to various situations, not really understanding the implications of "sad" or "happy." I think those naysayers are full of it, but nevertheless, they insist that it's merely a trained response.

These same people also insist that the displays of emotion we see in our dogs are the product of training that we have subconciously given our pets. We comfort (or "reward" as they put it) our pets when they seem sad, and these people think that this trains the dog to display that behavior in order to be hugged and petted. Personally, I think that our pets aren't quite that manipulative. If my dog wants petted, all she has to do is nudge my hand, not "fake" an emotional display.

As much as I think they're over-stretching, there are many people who are positively vehement in their insistance that animals cannot feel. I've often suspected that these people are somehow a bit afraid to admit that man may not be quite as special and unique as these people want us to be, and this is what bothers them. If animals can feel and think, what then is our responsibility to them?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Lissa

These same people also insist that the displays of emotion we see in our dogs are the product of training that we have subconciously given our pets. We comfort (or "reward" as they put it) our pets when they seem sad, and these people think that this trains the dog to display that behavior in order to be hugged and petted. Personally, I think that our pets aren't quite that manipulative. If my dog wants petted, all she has to do is nudge my hand, not "fake" an emotional display.

As has been mentioned in this thread, using Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is probably the right explanation. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you are probably looking at a duck. These people dreaming up such complicated explanations so as to say (for an extreme example) that the duck is really a space alien's holographic projection stretches credulity.

To assume we have taught our pets emotive responses so Fido can get a treat is easily debunked. Merely go out and watch wild dogs and see how they behave. It should come as no shocker that wild dogs display the same body language in comparable situations as Fido lying on your living room floor does.

I am not ranting at you Lissa as you have said you don't buy these alternate arguments either. Just a general rant at those who seem unable to take obvious, indeed overwhelming, evidence at face value and prefer to magic-up all sorts of bizarre explanations instead. It boggles the mind.

[DocCathode]

Re Koko there have been GD threads on her. There is IMHO legitimate scientific debate on just how inteligent she and other gorillas are, and how much sign language they actually use.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

Re Koko there have been GD threads on her. There is IMHO legitimate scientific debate on just how inteligent she and other gorillas are, and how much sign language they actually use.

I did a search here on "koko gorilla" and did not find much sadly (also some very odd hits that seemed, on the face of it, to have zero to do with talking gorillas).

The little I did find and read seems a feeling that Koko is nothing more than a spectacularly trained gorilla but has no actual command of the language she uses. Her handlers are either favorable interpreting her signs to fit their own preconceptions or Koko throws out random sings till she hits something and everyone goes "ooohhh!".

For my part I can't really say as I have not delved deeply into the work that has been done with Koko (nor am I particularly qualified to judge even if I did). That said a LOT of work has been done with this gorilla and as near as I can tell been dutifully documented. One would think a good peer review would uncover errors (or wishful thinking) yet no smoking gun as been produced to thoroughly debunk the work done with Koko...at least none I am aware of.

Certainly it would not be a first for a scientist to skew results (or give unfounded favorable interpretations to results) in order to continue their work or because they just really want to find a particular answer. I myself have read transcripts from Koko and she seems scatter-brained at best often not answering a question or answering with meaningless phrases in those contexts. That said she very often does give relevant answers and does so more than one would think pure chance could account for.

Language is a funny thing and questions are posed differently in different situations. It is not as simple as teaching a dog to drool when hearing a bell. If Koko was truly random or programmed to give canned reponses in certain situations it should be a simple matter to trip her up and show she cannot adapt her language to different questions/situations. Yet Koko does use language appropriately getting things like "before and after" right. She gets agitated when certain questions are posed to her and happy (all body language) when other questions are presented. To suggest someone could use operant conditioning for her to get it as right as often as she does seems near impossible.

I don't know. Perhaps a proper thread on Koko alone is in order to explore this more fully. As mentioned I am not professionally qualified to make definitive statements about her. While I am open the possibility that Koko is doing nothing more than tricks for a bannana I will say I have seen enough for me to think there is more to her than that and hope I am not merely being hoodwinked by a clever monkey.

_{I know a gorilla is not a monkey...the last sentence just read better with "monkey" in it in my view.}

[Whack-a-Mole]

I posted a topic on Koko here in GD rather than hijack this one further. For those interested here is the link: Can Koko the gorilla actually talk?

[Sample_the_Dog]

Animals clearly have emotions. Fear, jealousy, anger, even shame can be observed in many higher mammals -- in zoos, in the wild, and in our homes.

Humans clearly have instincts. We are born with a preference for sociability and a reluctance to approach precipices (which not all animals are) and scores of other useful software daemons -- and Steven Pinker has argued (I believe conclusively) that language acquisition is instinctual, not cultural (i.e., "learned" in the sense that we learn history or higher mathematics).

There is no evidence that animals possess the ability to learn and use language. The Koko/Washoe "research" is bogus, as I hope has been demonstrated in the thread cited by Whack-a-Mole above. Perhaps dolphins have syntax, but as of now, we simply don't know.

The "animal language" issue, however, is separate from the issues of emotion and learning.

I think Arwin went to the heart of the matter. The brain structures responsible for emotional response are definitely present in many animals (not just mammals). The larger question regarding animal emotions concerns whether they consciously experience these emotions, or are just reacting to the chemicals without "feeling" anything.

Daniel Dennett has proposed that a multi-layered brain (such as our medulla/cerebrum/cerebellum structure) is fundamental to creating conscious experience -- in essence, that there must be one part of the brain which receives and processes raw data, and another part of the brain which receives processed information as input. I won't go into the details, but if you're interested, read Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".

I believe that the basics of Dennett's theory are probably right.

In any case, there's no doubt in my mind that (a) my dogs not only have emotions, but experience them, and (b) insects have no conscious experience of anything, even though they can be said to appear "content", "angry", "territorial", "threatened", "horny", etc.

[Sattua]

I agree that animals--at least higher ones--do experience emotion. I also agree that they do not have a language ability. I am sure that the language ability allows us to elaborate on our emotions--"oh pain! oh grief! oh great gaping blackness in my heart!"--in a way that animals without language cannot, thereby adding a unique dimension to them. To Fido, not wanting his dinner is the equivalent of bad poetry.

[Elenfair]

Originally Posted by Sample_the_Dog

In any case, there's no doubt in my mind that (a) my dogs not only have emotions, but experience them, and (b) insects have no conscious experience of anything, even though they can be said to appear "content", "angry", "territorial", "threatened", "horny", etc.

As a dog trainer who works with working and service animals, I have to agree. Dogs who make good service/guide dogs usually have strong social drive and a *willingness to please* - they take great joy in their work.

Two of the breeds I work with (the NSDTR and the Australian Shepherd) only need to be observed on and off duty to see the changes in their mood: My toller looks sullen and bored and mopes around until he is working - his expression then changes to a keen, happy, if not ecstatic one. He goes from "interractive rug" who moves like a slug to a keen, alert, reacts-in-a-flash dog. The aussies are happy when working, and mellow when not.

Zap (an aussie) and Valen (a toller) both exhibit signs of frustration when learning difficult new tasks. Had they no emotions whatsoever, this drive to learn and please would not exist. Social drive in dogs is highly related to their ability to perform certain jobs (service, guide, working, SAR, police K9, narcotics detection, therapy, etc.)

So the question is - where does instinct stop and emotion begin? I'm not sure. All I know, though, is that a dog who is able to alert for seizures before they occur has something more going for it than just pure instinct. It's not something they'd need or use in the wild... and it cannot be taught... but these animals show immediate concern for their owners, alert them to the oncoming danger, and insist they head somewhere safe before the seizure hits. This is NOT a behavior we trainers are able to train into a dog. We train some seizure alert dogs to respond WHEN a seizure occurs... but there are a handful of working animals out there who are not only able to detect them before they hit but who automatically, without training, get their concern across to their owners...

I'd like to believe our dogs do feel emotion. Mine certainly let me know when they are unhappy, happy, sad, frustrated, scared, territorial, or just plain bored.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Sattua

I am sure that the language ability allows us to elaborate on our emotions--"oh pain! oh grief! oh great gaping blackness in my heart!"--in a way that animals without language cannot, thereby adding a unique dimension to them.

I disagree.

While Fido may not be able to verbally communicate their distress (or happiness or whatever) they can and do communicate it.

Read my quotes above on elephants showing distress over dead comrades. Surely if the elephant didn't care or feel pain at the loss of a member of its group it'd just move on rather than face down a pride of lions who just killed another elephant. I can also see no reason why, of all the bones elephants likely come across in their wanderings, they will pile up bones of other elephants (I have also seen them caressing the bones of dead elephants). I see no other explanation for these actions than outward signs of distress or grief even when the immediacy of a death has long past (e.g. caressing bones).

There is also the story of Flo and Flint which I imperfectly related and others filled in for me.

Flint therefore became abnormally dependent on his old mother. When Flo died in 1972, he was unable to cope without her. He stopped eating and interacting with others and showed signs of clinical depression. Soon thereafter, Flint's immune system became too weak to keep him alive. He died at the age of eight and a half, within one month of losing his mother Flo.

SOURCE: The Jane Goodall Institute

Certainly not all, or even most, mammals will show such complicated reactions to death but I think it does show that there is at least a spectrum with humans at the top and sliding down rather than a hard and fast wall with only humans able to evince complicated emotional responses.

[Sattua]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I disagree.

And also didn't read closely. I was not saying that animals do not feel emotions deeply, or that they do not express them. I said that having language as a tool allows a special dimension of expression and elaboration. It allows us to spin narratives around what we're feeling, to reference other narratives and apply them to our own situation, in short--to make ourselves more miserable or more happy than we would be otherwise.

[Sample_the_Dog]

Originally Posted by Sattua

I said that having language as a tool allows a special dimension of expression and elaboration. It allows us to spin narratives around what we're feeling, to reference other narratives and apply them to our own situation, in short--to make ourselves more miserable or more happy than we would be otherwise.

Indeed, thanks to language, we can have intense emotional responses to things that aren't even real, like the imaginary worlds of books and films or worries about hypothetical future situations.

By the same token, we can use language to control and check our emotions. I'm sure all animal owners and caretakers on this board know the frustration (in some cases, the anguish) of having to take a beloved critter to the vet for a necessary but temporarily frightening and painful procedure and not being able to explain to them what's going on or why. Same is true for kids, only moreso -- once they're old enough to be comforted by language, it's easier.

So I would have to agree with Sattua that while the higher animals all share the conscious experience of emotion, the presumably uniquely human trait of language allows for some significant differences in how humans are able to process those emotions.

[SteveG1]

The teacher is wrong. I have plenty of animals- dogs, cats, chickens, a rabbit, parakeets, etc. They are all capable of showing emotion and are also fully capable of learning, within the limits of their species.

The teacher is also wrong about humans lacking instinct. Try sticking your hand in a fire. Instinct will stop you. Try to not block something that is thrown at your head. Instinct will make you block it. Think about how upset/angry you get when someone takes what belongs to you - it's good old fashioned territorial instinct.

Different animals can do things we can not do. Maybe in their view, we are the stupid ones.

[scotandrsn]

Yeah, anyone who tells you that animals, particularly mammals, do not have emotions is full of it. IMO, what separates humans from other beasts is that we tell stories.

I can't remember what nature show it was, but I saw one about ten years ago where a biologist came right out and said it: "Instinct" is a word biologists apply to an animal's behavior as a shorthand for "we have no idea how they know how to do that".

[Blake]

I think there is a serious problem here with people conflating whether animals fell emotions, and whether animals fell emotions in any way that could possibly be meaningful or interpreted by humans. And if animal emotions are so alien that they can’t be interpreted by humans then we are simply anthropomorphising those emotions and there’s no objective reason to believe they exist at all.

As an example:

The teacher is wrong. I have plenty of animals- dogs, cats, chickens, a rabbit, parakeets, etc. They are all capable of showing emotion…

Chickens? Really? How could a human know that chickens feel amotion in any way that is able to be interpreted by humans? A chicken can be imprinted on a balloon or any other moving object. It will thenceforth react to that balloon as if it were its mother. It will become distressed when the balloon isn’t around, it will seek the balloon for reassurance after being stressed. In short it will behave as though it loves the balloon. Now either the chicken version of the emotion we call love inhuman infants is wildly different to that emotion to the point of denying human interpretation, or else the apparent manifestations of that emotion are not what they appear and are simply interpreted that way by humans.

And that’s the heart of the matter. I wouldn’t doubt that many animals feel emotion, but once we get beyond placental mammals these species diverged from our own so long ago that they are radically different, and any emotions they might feel can’t be readily interpreted. And since they can’t be accurately interpreted there’s really no objective way of determining that they even exist.

A day-old chicken cuddling up to a balloon isn’t evidence that the chicken loves the balloon in any way that makes sense to humans, it’s just a response to a pre-programmed stimulus in the chicken brain. Instinct in the truest form. It looks like love to us because if a human behaved in that way it would be love. And the same doubt then has to be cast over other apparent emotions such as fear. A chicken ducks or runs for cover when a shadow passes overhead. It might look like a fear of hawks but it is very likely it’s just a instinctive reaction since it’s also exhibited by chickens that have been hand reared inside and have never seen a hawk.

It would be incredibly difficult to find behaviour in any bird that provides clear evidence for emotion. Bird brains have evolved to meet the constraints of flight. They pack a lot of complexity into a tiny weight and a lot of that has been achieved by hardwiring almost everything. Whereas a mammal has the luxury of a big brain that can learn how to respond to every stimulus through emotional drivers like fear and pleasure those things may be almost completely lacking in birds. The correct reaction is the one that’s hardwired from birth. So a bird running for cover might look like fear and a bird chortling when it is groomed might look like pleasure but there’s reasonable grounds to assume that’s not the case.

[Sample_the_Dog]

Originally Posted by Blake

If animal emotions are so alien that they can’t be interpreted by humans then we are simply anthropomorphising those emotions and there’s no objective reason to believe they exist at all.

You seem to be claiming that if animal emotional experience is not human-like, we cannot be justified in claiming that it might reasonably exist.

I don't think we should be relying on whether people can somehow identify with an emotional experience to classify it as real. Not sure how we'd apply that standard in practice anyway, since infering emotional experience from behaviour is tricky business.

A combination of behavioural analysis and, most importantly, investigation of brain structure and activity seems the most reasonable method for assessing how likely it is that an emotional state is accompanied by conscious experience.