Denial of Sentience in Animals

It seems that Bermond considers the apparently emotional behavior of most animals as merely conditioned response behavior where there is really nothing going on inside with regard to emotional experience by a sentient being (that we could empathize with as being akin to our own emotional experiences). I think this is ridiculous, an attempt to resurrect Skinner's behaviorism which was debunked long ago. This may be motivated by the animal farming industries as pushback to the pressure from animal rights groups, or maybe just an attempt to avoid feeling guilt for animal abuse. 

I wonder what Bermond would consider the purpose is of emotional behavior in animals, if it isn't an automatic expression of inner emotional experiences. Would he say its function is just sending information to other animal robots? For a mechanical signalling/response system, why pick just those signals that mean certain emotional experiences to humans? 

Most important (except of course to behaviorist materialists), is the powerful direct human intuition of sentient inner emotional experience when looking into the eyes of higher mammals like a dog or a horse for instance. This animal can't think anywhere as sophisticatedly as a human, has no abstract thought or language ability, but but most people instinctively know that it still feels and experiences and has desires, fears, etc. This is apparently also the case with people interacting with octopuses - a strong feeling that there is a sentient being there. For me, I have less conviction of there being any emotional sentience going on inside when observing lower mammals like rodents, and reptiles and fish, and none at all with insects and plants. Perhaps human intuition has its limits and there still really is something going on there.

Thank you for your response. 

I agree on most of what you're saying, except two things:

There is good evidence for intelligent thought, including abstract, in various species of non-human animals

I can understand why you don't expect there to be any emotional sentience in plants, but rodents, come on! That is really counter-intuitive to me, to be honest. 
They are mammals and have a whole repertoire of emotional behavior. See, for example: 

Thank you for your response. 

I agree on most of what you're saying, except two things:

There is good evidence for intelligent thought, including abstract, in various species of non-human animals

I can understand why you don't expect there to be any emotional sentience in plants, but rodents, come on! That is really counter-intuitive to me, to be honest. 
They are mammals and have a whole repertoire of emotional behavior. See, for example: 

Never had a pet rat, so no extensive experience. I just think that the lower mammals like rats and rabbits have less emotional sentience and are more instinct-driven machines than the higher mammals - there is something sentient going on in there, just not as much. The mammalian encephalization quotients seem to roughly bear this out, with approximately 0.4 for rats and rabbits, 1.17 for dogs, and over 7 for humans. Of course, the EQ calculation turns out to be somewhat oversimplified and controversial, but there still seems to be a valid rough correspondence between the EQ (ratio of the actual brain volume to the volume expected for its body size (usually bodysize**2/3) for mammals), and the observed intelligence.

It is interesting that the rough correspondence of measured encephalization quotients to observed intelligence levels over evolution is naturally expected from the physicalist materialist theory that mind = activity of brain neurons. It is not so directly expected with our interactionist dualist point of view, but it still can be done.

Never had a pet rat, so no extensive experience. I just think that the lower mammals like rats and rabbits have less emotional sentience and are more instinct-driven machines than the higher mammals - there is something sentient going on in there, just not as much. The mammalian encephalization quotients seem to roughly bear this out, with approximately 0.4 for rats and rabbits, 1.17 for dogs, and over 7 for humans. Of course, the EQ calculation turns out to be somewhat oversimplified and controversial, but there still seems to be a valid rough correspondence between the EQ (ratio of the actual brain volume to the volume expected for its body size (usually bodysize**2/3) for mammals), and the observed intelligence.

It is interesting that the rough correspondence of measured encephalization quotients to observed intelligence levels over evolution is naturally expected from the physicalist materialist theory that mind = activity of brain neurons. It is not so directly expected with our interactionist dualist point of view, but it still can be done.

I see what you mean. As you point out, dualist interactionism is compatible with such a brain-mind correlation, as long as it not explained in terms of the brain producing intelligence rather than allowing for the manifestation of a certain level of intelligence.

However, in the case of rats, you may also underestimate their cognition in general, see for instance this article

What I learned from Bermond is intelligence is no barrier to stupidity.

I guess you have seen this one before!?!
A white blood cell chasing after this one particular bacteria, ignoring a few others along the way. Like there is intent, purpose, differentiation, coupled with decisive action, in that white blood cell. It was hell-bent on that particular bacteria and no other - and didn't get distracted by that nearby bacteria that just sat there - which would have been a much easier prey.
 

My guess is that particular white blood cell is tracking via the chemical trail the bacteria leaves behind. If memory serves a particular slim mold appears to have intention as it moves around. It was finally determined this mold was leaving a chemical trail.

Doves are monogamous. One day while out I passed by two one was laying dead in the gutter the other perched on the curb hanging head in what appeared to be grief. Its whole body conveyed that emotion.

I see what you mean. As you point out, dualist interactionism is compatible with such a brain-mind correlation, as long as it not explained in terms of the brain producing intelligence rather than allowing for the manifestation of a certain level of intelligence.

However, in the case of rats, you may also underestimate their cognition in general, see for instance this article

The article you cite, Hidden Lives of Rats and Mice, is from an animal rights advocacy group (PETA) and therefore biased. However, I have to say it is persuasive that rats are far more complex than I had assumed. If you are to believe all the claims in the article it seems rats are as sophisticatedly sentient as dogs. This would apparently invalidate the encephalization quotient argument. The only other instance where an EQ argument appears invalid is with some very intelligent birds having nonetheless small brains, but that is accounted for by the fact that bird neurons are much smaller and more densely packed.