UKC

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/21/the-heartbreaking-moment-a-terminally-ill-zoo...

Dunno, but I found this story interesting and moving.

In reply to aln:

Morgan's Canon seems to me to be a pretty good rule in these instances.

"In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development."

In reply to DaveHK:

Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. I know from experience animals and humans can develop very strong bonds. The anthropomorphism though - was it a kiss? No. Was it a display of affection? Quite possibly.

In reply to Fraser:


Morgan's Canon doesn't preclude that.

In reply to DaveHK:

Good, I do so hate precluding canons.

In reply to DaveHK:

Do you think the giraffes were displaying affection?

In reply to aln:


I've got no idea. Insufficient data. It's only one of a number of possible explanations.

In reply to DaveHK:

>It's only one of a number of possible explanations.

Just like humans

In reply to aln:



Yes but there's nothing wrong with attributing human emotions to humans. Tory MPs aside.

In reply to DaveHK:

Descartes was a keen believer in something like that; he thought we should take animals to be automata, "because it was a simpler explanation".

So much for "simple explanations".

In reply to DaveHK:


Not sure about that.

In reply to aln:

If you die in your sleep, your cat will eat your head without a second thought. And then expect you to get up and make breakfast.

Your dog would do the same thing, but would at least wait until it was hungry.

In reply to DaveHK:


The story very sensibly attributes animal emotions to the giraffes. They don't say "The giraffes heard he had cancer, so they texted all their friends and got him a present". They say "The giraffes realise that not all is well for him, and they know and trust him, so they show their affection." I don't know any giraffes, but everyone knows that dogs are perfectly capable of this level of understanding and response, and I've experienced it for myself. Rabbits can be surprisingly interactive and responsive too (we have a pet rabbit).

Of course it's possible to sentimentalise animals, but it's equally possible to automaton-ise them, if that's a word. There is something very autistic about the supposedly scientific quest--whether in Descartes, or in this Morgan chap that Dave K mentioned--to destroy or undermine or go all hard-nosed-sceptical about the data of our own experience about animal emotions. In the nature of the case, emotional interactions are not something that can be well measured by quantitative or experimental methods. That doesn't mean they're not real. What it means is that Life is not the same place as The Lab.

In reply to maisie:I would like to think the animals recognized him either by smell or sight,afterall he spent years with them,i watched a programe once about a guy who had looked after lion cubs the released them into the wild as young adults,he returned many months later him and they came and greated him not ate him.

In reply to maisie:The guy who came to grief on striding edge where a memorial stands,didnt he have a small dog with him and it stayed by his side till his body was found,did that dog eat him?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I often disagree with a lot of what you say but I concur with 90% of that post.

In reply to blackcat:


You might like Born Free, book and film

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2549214/Dog-stan...
In reply to blackcat:

I saw that film, it was very moving. The one where they bought a lion cub in Harrods.

In reply to blackcat:




That'll be Christian the lion, video here:

youtube.com/watch?v=rqhJuwUukX8&

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Nicely put.

Anyone who's had a pet will know that animals are capable of showing affection, recognition, interaction etc. And, does it really matter if we're interpreting it wrong? In this case the guy got a chance to say goodbye to some animals that were a huge part of his life and felt happy that he could do so. I think that's good enough.

In reply to Edradour:



That could still be anthropomorphisation. Does it matter? Not really if you're a pet owner. I had a deep relationship with my dog, that possibly saved my life through times of heavy depression. Was it real, was he reciprocating? Dunno, but it felt like it. Apart from human family I've had 4 important relationships. The one with Chewie feels as important as the others.

In reply to marsbar:Not called mans best freind for nowt.

In reply to aln:Some experts say having pets in the home can in some way alleviate deppression.

In reply to blackcat:


Only a quick nibble....

Dogs can and do (obviously) form strong bonds with owners. Cats, still a no.

As the joke goes, if you want to find out who loves you the most, your dog or the other half, shut them both in the boot of the car. Come back an hour later and see which one's the most pleased to see you.

In reply to maisie: Like.

In reply to blackcat:


Certainly. He was my best friend at the time. I might not be here now if he hadn't come along and saved me. A few people came along to the selection process at the rescue centre. Everyone thought he picked me.

In reply to aln:And he probably did ma friend,i notice you speak about him in past tense,did you have to let him go.

In reply to blackcat:


Thanks for the empathy but I don't like double talk like "let him go". 18 years old, 17 with me, I looked into his eyes and cuddled him as the injection went in and he died.
4 years later I still miss him every day.

In reply to aln: I understand.

In reply to blackcat:

Don't know you, haven't interacted on here with you, but, thanks..

In reply to aln:

Im dreading that time. Mine never left my side when I was so bad I literally couldn't get up. I made it out of bed to walk him and bought food for myself because I had to get food for him.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Morgan's Canon as formulated above doesn't say that animals can't experience higher emotions or that an explanation in terms of lower processes is always the correct one. What it does do as I understand it is warn against the assumption that something that looks like a human emotion is a human emotion.

In reply to aln:

Know the feeling. Take care.

I made it out of bed to walk him and bought food for myself because I had to get food for him.

Yes. Keep going.

In reply to aln:

Thanks. I'm a lot better these days, but I wouldn't have got through it without him.

In reply to DaveHK:

Oh god, is there no discussion which is safe from sad lefty idiocy?

In reply to stroppygob:

It's what we like to refer to as a joke.

In reply to stroppygob:


Well, now you're here you can balance it out with some sad righty idiocy. Which is much easier to take the p*ss out of.

In reply to maisie:


hmm... I used to think this, that cats were only interested in the food and didn't have any particular preference for particular people. However, the evidence didn't support this and so I changed my opinion.

I think it is a very human thing to make the assumption that by default, we MUST be different from other animals, rather than sharing something in common with them.

What is the purpose of emotions? Why have we, as humans, evolved them? Did they suddenly come into being in humans, or did they gradually evolve in various species over time?

To me, love is there specifically to bond animals together. If animals are herd/tribal/group animals, they logically must experience 'love' even if it varies from human 'love'. Animals need to have in in order to put the hard work in to feed their young, or to stay with their own group and not just wander off on their own.

Other mammals have brains and nervous systems, hormones, all the things that make emotions work. How on earth could you argue that they don't have any emotions? Or that the emotions that they feel have nothing at all in common with human emotions, at a basic level?

I could see arguing this for a flea, but not for a chimp.

In reply to aln:

Dogs and Other animals grieve, and thats a fact. That surely shows emotion.

In reply to tlm:
>> >> Other mammals have brains and nervous systems, hormones, all the things that make emotions work. How on earth could you argue that they don't have any emotions? Or that the emotions that they feel have nothing at all in common with human emotions, at a basic level?

I've not seen anyone on this thread arguing that. Many animals clearly experience emotions. The problem comes when you make the leap that you have done and say 'they logically must experience 'love' even if it varies from human 'love'' because its an unknowable, what they experience may be so different to what we call love as to make the term useless. They obviously have something that drives their behaviour but automatically labelling it with a human emotion confuses the issue.

In reply to tlm:
I think you're taking this too seriously. Or making the assumption that I mean what I say...

Why not fleas? Don't you think that mummy fleas control their young at bedtime by telling stories of the Great Fleacomb In The Sky and how it'll get them if they don't go to sleep RIGHT NOW? Or hold memorial services on the anniversary of the Frontline Attack (it only really works for frontline, as the other spot-ons leave far fewer survivors).

Basically, it's about abstract thought in the main. But certainly protectiveness - aka maternal love - can be hormonally induced (and blocked) in most mammals and, it seems, in birds. Not so much in animals which don't participate in rearing activity.

Assumption of affection as an altruistic, or even reciprocating, act which doesn't incorporate some expectation of reward (food, protection, sex etc) is at the heart of the argument about anthropomorphism. I can't rustle you up some references right now - not in the UK or near my own computer - but it's a fascinating area of study and, to a large extent, philosophy.

It's really not that long since we didn't think that animals demonstrated either pain (I know, it seems ridiculous) or, even more recently, emotional responses to pain. And once you can demonstrate a complex emotional response to something, even in the physical absence of that thing, then it's not a big jump towards explaining animal behaviour in a way which parallels human behaviour.

But your cat will still eat your face. And not feel bad about it. For an explanation of why, find a copy of the great picture-book 'All Cats Have Asperger Syndrome' (hint: you can sometimes find it, briefly, on YouTube). Cats are just different. And scary (3-500 million small furries and birds each year can't be wrong)

In reply to Tim Chappell:

>Life is not the same place as The Lab.

One of the more useful and memorable aphorisms I've seen on UKC for a while.

In reply to DaveHK:


How about 'fear'? Do you think animal fear is very different from human fear and that to label it as such confuses things?

Do you think that 'love' spontaneously arose in humans and didn't exist in any form before that?

In reply to thread:

Not directed at anyone in particular...

There's an idea, an assumption, which often comes into play in discussions like this, that humans are somehow the pinnacle of evolution (or of creation, if that stuff floats your boat).

We're just one of countless species, all of which are well adapted to a particular environment or set of environments. We're pretty clearly the most intelligent one around just now, but we're not some end-point that everything else has been working towards.

We're not even the smartest at everything - just at the stuff that's relevant to us. Most birds, for example, can quickly process flight-related data and calculations that we can't handle without computational aid; other species have senses and methods of communication that we can't comprehend from our human point of view.

In addition to us having emotions that are more advanced than other animals', it's very likely that some animals will experience sophisticated emotions that we can't grasp - although not very many will be able to rationalise them as we can, or build philosophy around them.

Going back to the original story, giraffes pretty obviously feel social ties; it seems to require more assumptions to suggest that they weren't displaying affection for someone they cared about and may have felt concerned for the welfare of. That doesn't make it certain, of course, but there doesn't seem any obvious reason to start by assuming they weren't.

As for the 'kiss' - well, that's probably anthropomorphism. However, is kissing a natural behaviour in humans, or a learned one? If, as I suspect, it's the latter, what's to stop some other animals learning it too? Is it a 'human' behaviour', or a societal one?

In reply to maisie:


Because fleas aren't group animals, don't mate for life or form pair bonds and don't look after their young. They work as individuals so have no need for love.


But isn't all human affection none altruistic, just as animal affection is? We either hope to send our genes onwards into the future, or we get some other sort of reward from our relationships...


I'd be pretty shocked if it did, seeing as I don't have one!

In reply to DaveHK:


You need to get someone to explain the concept of "a joke" to you in that case.

In reply to maisie:


No thanks, I'll have the good manners and common decency not to politicise a discussion on anthropomorphising animal behaviours.

In reply to stroppygob:


A refreshing self-awareness in that you're not volunteering for the task.

In reply to tlm:


So where does that direct the search for the basis of love? Is oxytocin at the root of it?

But do have a look at that book. Shockingly anthropomorphic, but I use it constantly to help people understand why their cat keeps p1ss1ng on the bed.

In reply to maisie:


I don't think you have to simplify it that much.

firstly, we use 'love'to actually refer to a really wide range of emotions, all those that link us to others. Love for a child, love for a sister, new, fresh being in love love, love for someone who looks after you, love for a new car...

and love must involve a few electrical impulses, synapses etc as well as hormones...

In reply to tlm:



And thereby the argument turns in a circle. Once we start to look at synaptic transmission, we move towards higher cognitive function, suppression of instinct and direction of behavioural responses to elicit self-rewarding outcomes. Or, in other words, participating in falsehoods to get what we want (of course I love you, darling / pack leader with bacon sandwich / menial and subservient being who knows how to open the Whiskas).

There are, of course, clear links between neurotransmitters and mood. But that's not necessarily the same thing.

And I'm not suggesting that it's all as simple as a regular squirt of oxytocin - although that's a good place to start looking - but I suppose my contention would be that anthropomorphism is as bad as anthropocentric belief that no other species can love One Direction quite so much as we do.

Better to assume nothing and work from the ground up, based on evidence, than to believe everything and wait for some spontaneous rebuttal from nature.

In reply to maisie:


Disingenuous. Those aren't the only two options, and most people will quite rightly tend towards somewhere in the middle, believing what seems likely until evidence suggests otherwise.

In reply to maisie:


Whoaaa! That was a bit of a leap, wasn't it?


Exactly. We know that we have evolved from animals and there isn't anything in a human that you don't find in an animal. So why ASSUME that there are no emotions in animals? That seems a very victorian view of humans...

In reply to skog:


That's not the middle position.....

Since we demonstrated in animals both capacity for pain sensation, and the emotional damage that it does, we've been able to promote proper analgesia in patients, and to lay down legal frameworks for their protection that have culminated in things like the Animal Welfare Act. Building the blocks from the ground up has resulted in permanent, unshakeable foundations; assuming pain and emotional damage without evidence wouldn't have resulted in the research, mechanisms of protection, or altering of attitudes on a wider scale.

TBF, we go looking for the evidence largely because we think that something is already so. The pioneers of researching pain in animals didn't do so because they wanted to disprove its existence; they probably had the animals' interests in mind.

It's not a debate with a right answer, just differing opinions and different angles from which to look at the same thing. I feel it's a disservice to other species to assume that they feel what we feel, without evidence.

In reply to tlm:



There are many things you find in a human that you don't find in other species.

I'm not assuming that animals don't show emotions; I'm scratching my head as to why you'd think that was my position. I just don't think that coming to the conclusion that love and other emotions exist in other species through anthropomorphism is a situation where the end justifies the means.

But cats are mean.

In reply to maisie:

It's a position somewhere in the middle. We cannot live our lives never believing anything without evidence - assumptions are required before we can even obtain any evidence. Better to start with a reasonable assumption and be ready to question it and reconsider. But I imagine you already do this!

Where there's a significant chance we're causing suffering, it seems better to err on the side of avoiding it, so I'm inclined to give other animals (human or otherwise) the benefit of the doubt. That isn't to say we all feel exactly the same things - we pretty obviously don't - but even cats usually wait until their slave-companion is dead before eating their face - maybe they just aren't sentimental about corpses?

In reply to maisie:


For example?

There are still quite a lot of people in the world who think that humans are intrinsically different from animals. Which they are, to us, just because we are one. Just as a cheetah is different to all other animals, especially to a cheetah.


Then we agree.


Apart from this

In reply to maisie:


But that is a very different thing from assuming that they don't feel anything at all. Or that what they feel is very different to what we feel, without evidence.

In reply to skog:


See, that's my point. It wasn't always thus - in fact, not so long ago, we didn't recognise suffering in animals as such. It was only through work that evidenced such suffering that we came to our current understanding. And, err, perhaps really promoted anthropomorphism as a standpoint along the way.

But your (completely agreeable) contention that we should assume suffering unless proven otherwise is in itself a by-product of the processes I'm describing.

(I should also declare an interest in that I'm a vet who does occasionally write about pain issues in our patients)

It's not necessarily wrong to say that animals have emotions; it's just not right to say that they MUST have because we do.

In reply to tlm:


Some of our brain anatomy and physiology is unique - that doesn't mean that we're somehow special, just that we evolved in a slightly different direction. A good example is some of the brain function surrounding speech and how we learn words.

But mostly, it's like a vast (and vastly complicated) Venn diagram - we overlap somewhere in almost every respect. What happens in the brain is where we differ completely (as far as we currently know - I'm hoping nobody is cutting up dolphins to look at their speech centres)

In reply to maisie:


Sure, I agree. 'Probably' is a much better word than 'must'; I'd go as far as 'very probably'. But I'd take issue with the 'we' bit - different people may experience emotions quite differently, and some may not experience some that are considered normal.



I think you're probably referring to the body of recorded science when you say 'we', here - is that right? It can take a lot of work to prove something that seems obvious in the first place (and still worth doing, as obvious doesn't always mean correct, of course.)

I see no evidence that people haven't always cared for other animals some of the time - and some evidence that other animals also do, sometimes. I don't think this is new - it's just sympathy and empathy, which seem likely to be 'tools' used by social animals in general, to help them get on (note - I'm not saying 'MUST'!)

The giraffes certainly seem to be exhibiting sympathy for their dying keeper. Whether they're empathising is a harder, and more interesting question, and probably more on-topic.



As an aside, you playfully suggest cats are like people with Asperger's.

Asperger's makes it harder to empathise with neurotypical humans (probably because they're significantly different, so harder to relate to). It doesn't stop someone caring, or start disemboweling, ripping heads off and eating faces. Cat's aren't aspies, they're sociopaths. (Though probably neither, really - that's anthropomorphising again!)

In reply to maisie:



This is great, apart from the use of the word 'completely' and the omission of the fact that 'we' differ significantly amongst ourselves, too (though rarely as much as with other species).

In reply to maisie:Hi maisie i find it astonishing that as a vet why are you so anti feline,we have kept both cats and dogs over the past 30 years,and we have owned several cats each of them living a long life,and never once has our cats peed on the beds or anywhere else they shouldnt,and the cats that may do that as you will know may have underlying problems for instance hyperthyroidism,which can cause feline dementia,id like to bet that if a cat owner died and the cat had a choice of human face or whiskas tuna in gravy,id put my house on it tha cat would choose the latter,remember the story of the plane crash in the andes,when the survivors were hungry enough they ate the dead.were humans and one of our insticts is to survive,does that make us mean,i presume you have never kept a cat life long,because you would know they are amongst the most affection animals on earth.

In reply to blackcat:

We've had a series of cats, mainly as fosters that I fixed up to be able to rehome. We'll continue to do so, because we love them to bits.

If I take it all back and admit that I'm just being facetious, will you promise to use more punctuation?

In reply to skog:


Sorry, I think that probably just came across badly. Our brains as a whole are almost identical to other mammals and birds; but there are parts of our brains which are structured differently and work differently to ANY other animals. As far as our knowledge currently tells us - and these are people much cleverer than me, so I tend to accept their conclusions.

In reply to maisie:

Much as it pains me to admit it, I find nothing to argue with there.

Gotta go, the neighbour's cat has been staring at me for half an hour and I'd better prepare the defenses...

In reply to maisie: I cant promise but i will try,you see at school i was too busy chasing girls and messing about,im sure your a lovely person and keep up the good work.

In reply to skog:



Not my book. There's not much intrinsic whimsicality about Aspergers - although the Big Bang Theory has done a stunning job of introducing humour into it.

The book I'm referring to is actually a picture book which aims to educate siblings of Asperger-affected kids as to why they behave as they do. Someone noted that the outward manifestations of many cats' reactions to their environments mimicked that of children with Aspergers. Terrible piece of anthropomorphism, but for kids (and cat owners) it does offer an easily-understood introduction.

As a large proportion of the cat presentations we see are linked to behavioural issues, we're always looking for ways to explain why cats are stressed most of the time. As a theory coming from a third party, it lets owners examine their own actions without having a sense of persecution, or a feeling of failure hanging over their heads. Which tends to produce a more successful outcome.

Cats don't have Aspergers. But sometimes, it's better to look at things from less lofty viewpoints. It's one of the things which make us human (my dog has NO sense of humour).

The ripping off of heads is evil, pure and simple (sorry, blackcat, I know I promised).

In reply to maisie:

I like to think I have my whimsical moments. You do realise that its the rest of the people that are odd, I'm one of the normal ones.

In reply to marsbar:

We're all of us on the autistic spectrum - as my wife endlessly reminds me, "in particular" as she puts it; it just depends on the position on the spectrum of the person making the diagnosis as to whether we get a certificate and a badge.

I must admit, I do occupy the furthest point on the spectrum that's still coloured 'normal'. I think.

Martin

In reply to maisie:

Have cats really been known to munch on their dead servants?

In reply to MG:

Oh dear gods, yes. It happens more than you'd think. Usually airbrushed out of the proceedings at the inquest. Working with rescue organisations, it's a recurring theme.

This is actually true. With apologies to blackcat, cats are evil.

In reply to maisie:


I've heard of the book, but haven't read it - I prefer to avoid careless felomorphism of autists.

In reply to maisie:

Whilst agreeing that cats are evil (in an affable sort of way, at least if you aren't prey / murder-toy), I don't think that eating a corpse is evil.

On the other hand, what they'd do to you if they had access to shrink-rays...

In reply to skog:



No, the concept of evil is an anthropomorphism. And people are just minions. Or food. Either works.

How did we get here from a (admittedly heartwarming) story about giraffes?

In reply to maisie


Your prejudice against cats - don't worry, the Fancy and FAB are on your trail.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

They're not called fab any more, are they? Why would anyone change such a, err, fabulous name?

(I've been away for a few months, so if they've changed it back then all well and good)

But the Governing Council of the Cat Fancy? Come on, if there was ever a title for a bunch of evil supervillians, it's right there, isn't it?

In reply to maisie:Martin what about dogs that tear children apart while there still alive and kill them.Ive never heard of a cat doing that.

In reply to blackcat:


Tigers, lions, leopards etc kept as pets?

Size issue aside, might this be something to do with how cats (usually solitary) and dogs (usually social) have evolved to deal with threats? Cats probably can't risk getting too involved with something that might harm them, so a slash of the claws and a quick escape is their best defence. For dogs, there's other pack members to help, and defend, so perhaps there's more incentive to get stuck in

In reply to blackcat:


That's because cats finish the job and eat all the evidence. Leave no witnesses, keep the rest in fear.

Plus, dogs that haul off and eat people are usually a product of interference by people. Have you ever tried to tell a cat what to do? Did you repeat the experience?

In reply to aln:

Dogs smile, and have a sense of Humour

In reply to maisie:Like your answers.Is it possible you were a bird in a previous life,lol take care.And leave my punctuations alone.