Note “other herd mates”: it’s female on female or juvenile on female activity which alerts the bull or the farmer.
The behaviour is observed in cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, dogs … probably most mammals.
It has been observed in cane toads which will bonk anything stationery vaguely resembling a cane toad whether female or male, alive or dead.
Now if another male does not move away when approached by a dominant, testosterone addled male then they will endeavour to exploit the opportunity. It’s hormonal and instinct. Can make no comment on the degree of pleasure.
Cross and Jackson put Portia’s mental abilities to the test in the laboratory. They built an apparatus with a central viewing tower on a platform, surrounded by water, from which a spider can see two other towers topped with boxes: one containing dead spiders that Portia likes to prey on, and one with dead leaves. The only way to reach the prey without getting wet, which jumping spiders loathe, is to climb down onto the platform and then choose the correct one of two separate walkways leading to the boxes.
From the perch atop the viewing tower, the spiders carefully surveyed the scene before descending the tower and climbing up a walkway. Most spiders chose the path that led to the meal, even if this meant moving away from the prey and passing the incorrect walkway on the way. Cross and Jackson argue that the spiders planned the route from the viewing tower and then followed it, possibly by forming a mental “representation” of the scene — an impressive cognitive feat for a brain barely bigger than a poppy seed.
Ok, then there we part company. Attaching a “reward” to the target behavior and allowing cognition to work out the strategy vs “hard-wiring” the entire behavior seem like qualititatively different implementations of behavior to me.
In other words, I think it’s fine to define “pleasure” as the reward where a reward system exists, but I think not all behavior works that way.
An interesting question is whether the [ reward + flexible cognition ] paradigm requires consciousness. I don’t see why it does.
I don’t think you’re appreciating just how simple “automatic” reflex behaviors are. Like, suppose you put a male spider very near to a female spider, but with some small obstacle directly in between them. If the male’s approach to the female were an automatic behavior, then he would move straight towards her, just running directly into the barrier and pushing against it. I’m not an expert in spider mating behavior, but I suspect that the male spider would instead move around the barrier, either to the left or to the right. There’s a decision point there, trivial though it might be. But even a decision point that trivial is too much for the behavior to be automatic.
By contrast, to use your example of kicking when the doctor taps below your kneecap with a hammer, you’ll do that regardless of whether or not there’s something in front of your leg, and if there’s a desk in front of your leg when the doctor hammers your knee, you’ll kick the desk.
What an odd question. When I was a kid, we joked about our dog’s “homosexual buddy”. I would have guessed most people would have directly observed other species having anal sex, but i guess not.
(Our dog was bisexual, or more likely pansexual. He was VERY interested in bitches in heat, too. But he bottomed for another dog almost every day.)
As I understand it, that’s more a dominance display than sexual. One of my neighbors has a Great Dane who trys to hump my (male) dog every day. But his penis isn’t extended, and he rarely even makes contact with my dog’s hindquarters, much less penetrates him.
There were extended penises and our dog, the bottom, seemed to enjoy seeing his friend. Maybe it was partly about dominance, but it was also a sex act.
Interesting. I’ve seen male dogs mount each other many times, but never seen that. But there are certainly human males who will, as the saying goes, hump a rockpile if they saw a snake under it; so it’d be no surprise to find horndogs who are actual dogs.
Well I’m back sooner than expected so I’ll respond after all.
Again, not only does this not address the point, it actually makes my point for me.
My only position in this thread, right from my first post, was that “instinct” and “pleasure-seeking” are not synonymous. They are not interchangeable.
And part of illustrating that, is to give the examples of simple behaviours, like the way in which humans examine parts of an image (I didn’t only talk about reflex actions). Because these give the clearest examples of instinctive behaviour that is very obviously not pleasure-seeking.
Your retort is that some behaviours are really simple.
Yes. Yes, they are.
