Different in degree or kind: animal minds (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, February 18, 2016, 13:59 (3201 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I believe you are twisting the intent of his article. Again he cited Nagel and bats. That is the point. What they show may not be what we think they show.
> 
> dhw: The intent of Allen Greer's article is to persuade us that animals do not HAVE the same emotions that we have, and we are "anthropomorphizing" them. That is his word, not mine. I myself believe, as do the Cambridge scientists, that they HAVE the same emotions. You are of course welcome to join Greer in believing that animals do not HAVE these emotions and what they SHOW is not the fear, love, anger etc. that we feel, but I'd be very surprised if that was your belief.-I have clearly said animals shows basic emotional reactions that we interpret as being similar to ours. However, per Nagel, whose book is key to this discussion, we have no idea what they are accurately internally feeling. Is it superficial, is it deep? We are at a different level. Yes, our brains have the same physiology as animal brains, but so much more complex, our emotional reactions can be very different and be convergent compared to animal reactions.-> 
>dhw: I had better repeat my claim for clarity's sake: our self-awareness is what has enabled us to develop ALL the attributes we have inherited from our animal ancestors, and these include emotions. These feelings existed long before we did!-I'm glad you know that statement is totally true. that animals show raw emotion is true, beyond that not like us.-> DAVID: Note, I'm not ignoring any of it. I'm just not romanticizing it, and I love my dog and horses and my barn cat who gets her daily petting.
> 
> dhw: And I'm sure they appreciate it. It is Greer who is prepared to ignore the research because he has latched onto a fragment of epistemology. Acknowledging that animals have emotions is not a matter of romanticizing them.-The depth of emotion you are trying to give animals is romanticizing.