What Kind of Emotions Do Animals Feel?

From another, more detailed article on this honeybee research, at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...141031.htm :


It seems to me that it is an enormous stretch to use the words "understand" and "perception" when referring to what the bees are doing in apparently detecting an image with zero elements by calculating that this number of elements is less than 1, 2, 3 or 4. We just don't know at what level of animal evolution and complexity something recognizably like the human conscious "understanding" developed. I personally don't think the bees can consciously "understand" anything in anything like the human sense - their brains are just too simple, and their behavior could be interpreted just as the neural implementation of a simple logic circuit. The special case logic circuit to detect zero elements in an image that had long ago evolved could be: IF (A-B) = A THEN B LT A. And then the bee chooses B and expects the reward, as per training. No requirement to form the mental concept of zero.

By extension, the apparent abstract thinking of at least some other more complex animals may also be purely behavior mechanized by neural logic circuits. This is not to recognize that at some higher level of animal evolution there must appear a real inner life and a consciousness that can in truth "understand".

So abstract thinking is dependent on brain size?

I'm reading your link and it seems the scientists involved in the research felt [their work] suggested understanding:

Dyer, a researcher in the Bio Inspired Digital Sensing-Lab (BIDS-Lab) in RMIT's Digital Ethnography Research Centre, said the findings opened the door to new understandings of how different brains could represent zero.

"This is a tricky neuroscience problem," he said.

"It is relatively easy for neurons to respond to stimuli such as light or the presence of an object but how do we, or even an insect, understand what nothing is?

"How does a brain represent nothing? Could bees and other animals that collect lots of food items, have evolved special neural mechanisms to enable the perception of zero?

"If bees can learn such a seemingly advanced maths skill that we don't even find in some ancient human cultures, perhaps this opens the door to considering the mechanism that allows animals and ourselves to understand the concept of nothing."

Study co-author, Dr Aurore Avarguès-Weber from the University of Toulouse in France, said: "The discovery that bees can show such elaborated understanding of numbers was really surprising given their tiny brain."

"Large brains are thus not necessary to play with numbers. This capacity is therefore probably shared by many other animals."

Is the argument that the bees are simulating understanding, using neurons that work like a computer program? If this is so why would you think the Scholastic argument for an immaterial soul by way of human mathematical understanding holds weight?

And what exactly is the evolutionary process by which we go from un-souled animals to suddenly souled missing links [to human beings]?

Is the argument that the bees are simulating understanding, using neurons that work like a computer program? If this is so why would you think the Scholastic argument for an immaterial soul by way of human mathematical understanding holds weight?

And what exactly is the evolutionary process by which we go from un-souled animals to suddenly souled missing links [to human beings]?

Some rough ideas along these lines:

Following the interactive dualism theory of mind, reality consists of two realms, mind and an objective physical reality. Human consciousness manifests in the physical through the physical brain, where rough analogies would be the filter and the receiver/transmitter theories. Like the TV set receiving and transducing the electromagnetic waves of the TV signal, the brain physically manifests immaterial consciousness which still interacts with matter via the neurons, synapses, etc. of the brain. But the brain is not the producer of human consciousness any more than the TV set really produces the information content of the program. There is a large body of empirical evidence that can best be explained by this theory of human consciousness.  

The known facts of animal and human evolution at first glance would seem to conflict with this, producing a sort of cognitive dissonance. Two bodies of empirical evidence exist, where their implications conflict. So presumably there was some sort of demarcation point between animal and ensouled human in evolution. How did it happen? And there is much evidence for the existence of conscious awareness of various levels in animals, some primitive. These are problems, but here are a few thoughts.

In a sort of spiritual evolutionary process even the earliest animals would have some form of primitive awareness and consciousness (perhaps received from the spiritual realm), but only to the extent allowed by the animal's neural machinery. In other words, there had to be the physical mechanism to go along with the spiritual elements of primitive consciousness. But full human levels of consciousness in the world would have to wait until this evolution produced a suitable body and brain (the human) for the manifestation of preexisting spirits or souls in the physical. Presumably souls did not inhabit less advanced animal bodies like bees, rats and crows (though some religions claim that).  Some New Age channelings claim a system along these lines.

Another idea: there was no demarcation point or sudden transition: the soul and the body evolved in concert over the hundreds of millions of years of animal evolution. Individuation, self-awareness, rational thought, abstract thought, etc. all developed in a simultaneous process integrated between the physical and the non-physical. This sort of idea would seem to conflict with very many New Age, esoteric religious and religious teachings.

Following the interactive dualism theory of mind, reality consists of two realms, mind and an objective physical reality. Human consciousness manifests in the physical through the physical brain, where rough analogies would be the filter and the receiver/transmitter theories. Like the TV set receiving and transducing the electromagnetic waves of the TV signal, the brain physically manifests immaterial consciousness which still interacts with matter via the neurons, synapses, etc. of the brain. But the brain is not the producer of human consciousness any more than the TV set really produces the information content of the program. There is a large body of empirical evidence that can best be explained by this theory of human consciousness. 

I think we'd have to distinguish between soul/body distinction and the actual idea of Cartesian Dualism. A variety of metaphysics can accommodate the former and be in line with the evidence.

We also don't run into the issues with Cartesian Dualism or the Hylemorphic Dualism of the Scholastics.

The known facts of animal and human evolution at first glance would seem to conflict with this, producing a sort of cognitive dissonance. Two bodies of empirical evidence exist, where their implications conflict. So presumably there was some sort of demarcation point between animal and ensouled human in evolution. How did it happen? And there is much evidence for the existence of conscious awareness of various levels in animals, some primitive. These are problems, but here are a few thoughts.

Why does evolution conflict with the idea of soul/body distinction? And why is there a demarcation point necessitated by the afterlife evidence?

In a sort of spiritual evolutionary process even the earliest animals would have some form of primitive awareness and consciousness (perhaps received from the spiritual realm), but only to the extent allowed by the animal's neural machinery. In other words, there had to be the physical mechanism to go along with the spiritual elements of primitive consciousness. But full human levels of consciousness in the world would have to wait until this evolution produced a suitable body and brain (the human) for the manifestation of preexisting spirits or souls in the physical. Presumably souls did not inhabit less advanced animal bodies like bees, rats and crows (though some religions claim that).  Some New Age channelings claim a system along these lines.

This makes sense to me as a possibility, and doesn't seem to require a break between animal and human cognition. I also think this doesn't cause problems for the "Affinity Argument" wherein our souls are immortal because of their capacity for participation in grasping the Universals of Logic/Math.

Another idea: there was no demarcation point or sudden transition: the soul and the body evolved in concert over the hundreds of millions of years of animal evolution. Individuation, self-awareness, rational thought, abstract thought, etc. all developed in a simultaneous process integrated between the physical and the non-physical. This sort of idea would seem to conflict with very many New Age, esoteric religious and religious teachings.

Yeah I think it would be hard to explain souls evolving if they aren't dying and being replaced in some natural selection process.

Why does evolution conflict with the idea of soul/body distinction? And why is there a demarcation point necessitated by the afterlife evidence?

It seems to conflict because the observed (through the fossil record) process of animal evolution over hundreds of millions of years has involved a sudden jerky punctuated equilibrium sort of advance in complexity and sophistication, where the overall pattern seems to be major innovations suddenly introduced from outside (transitions to new classes and families), plus smaller lower level gradual changes at the genus and species levels of classification apparently due to the Darwinian RM + NS mechanism. All this implies that the periodic increases in sophistication of animal consciousness over evolutionary time is due to larger more complex brains (the orthodox evolutionary biology position). It seems to me that this picture is incompatible with the view of present human existence as being a soul inhabiting an animal body. This looks like a disconnect to me. 

If the present human is a soul inhabiting a basically animal body, then it looks as if there must have been in the past a demarcation or transition point in evolution, the time when spirit finally decided to inhabit the physical body. This is assuming spirit or soul would not inhabit primitive animal bodies due to the very limited ability to express and experience sentience in the physical. Prior to this revolutionary "inflection point" animals would presumably have no souls, and by implication even at present non-human animals have no souls.

That notion is of course problematic for several reasons. 

Hence the cognitive dissonance - the implications of interactive dualism (soul/spirit inhabiting the physical human body) conflicting with the reality of a past evolutionary process. Both with a large body of empirical evidence.

I have found what seems to be anthropological/paleontological evidence identifying a possible candidate for this transition point. It may have been approximately 50,000 years ago, when there was a sudden change in the pace of cultural change in Homo Sapiens. This was the sudden flowering of human culture, when the "tool kit" suddenly grew much larger. Jared Diamond, in his book The Third Chimpanzee, characterized this acceleration of cultural change as the "great leap forward". It is thought by some to correspond to the beginning of increased cognitive sophistication, the manipulation of symbols and the origin of language. In other words, the origin of much of what we believe is essential to be human. From The Third Chimpanzee:  "Until the Great Leap Forward, human culture had developed at a snail's pace for millions of years. That slow pace was dictated by the pace of genetic change. After the Great Leap, cultural development no longer depended on genetic change. People could think, innovate and communicate in a new way."

There were some interesting comments to Michael Tymn's article on the Elberfeld horses. One was by reader Lloyd about horse and dog consciousness that I thought I might repeat:

Point one, A few years back, I was watching an NPR special on Secretariat, the famous racehorse who was leaps and bounds ahead of the pack when it came to speed.  It seems he had a larger heart and lung setup than the usual horse, they concluded after his autopsy (he passed over in old age).
However, Secretariat also seemed to have intelligence, if the sincere sounding remark made by a reporter who was being interviewed for the documentary is any indication.  It seems the reporter was standing off to one side of Secretariat, talking to other humans.  He made some remark about how this horse couldn’t possibly understand what he was saying, he was only a horse.
The very next moment, he found that Secretariat had turned to look him straight in the eyes, and continued to stare at him, until he got the distinct impression that the horse was saying, non-verbally of course, “Oh, yeah, buddy?  What do you know?”  Then the horse turned away.  This was not a documentary on animal telepathy or anything paranormal, and the reporter, again, came off as quite sincere.

Data point two:  While visiting our veterinarian the other day, the vet told us (in front of our dog), that our dog was training US by not eating until we put peanut butter in her food.  And we should stop putting peanut butter in her food, except as an occasional treat.  We agreed to that (in front of the dog).
The very next feeding, our dog did something totally different than usual.  She immediately started eating the dry food, no peanut butter, without hesitation.  Just the day before, she had refrained from eating all day, then pounced on the food when I put the peanut butter in.  She had been doing this for months.  But ever since seeing the vet, she has been eating the non-buttered food right away with no problem.
Coincidence?  Perhaps.  Or maybe she knew the jig was up.

What Kind of Emotions Do Animals Feel?

Karin Evans

Science can tackle this, once the metaphysical ideas are pushed back.  Living things have detection systems that react to signals both external and internal.  If a feeling is a signal to be perceived, then lets start looking at what these "signals" do.

“For me,” de Waal writes, “the question has never been whether animals have emotions, but how science could have overlooked them for so long.” 

The current idea is that emotions "arise" from the biological organism.  However, the scientific model looks to conserved transformations,  input materials and forces = output of same in a transformed state.

The process model I use, says that information is just the same and a different kind of conservation takes place.  Meaningful relations are not "nerve juice" from biochemistry, but meaningful relations are transformative, both in and outside the living organism.  Emotions are detection of probabilities for an organism.  Human and animal subconsciously detect emotions as instinct.