Animal emotions - II

Leif Erikson wrote:

> Glorfindel wrote:

....
>> the dog will go into the bedroom and lie down in his usual place at
>> the right time. The humans may still be doing not-going-to-bed things
>> like reading, working on the computer, or watching TV, but the dog
>> clearly anticipates that they *ought* to be going to bed around this
>> time.

> No. The dog has a set of Circadian rhythms, too. There is no
> "anticipation"; the dog just realizes it's sleep time.

The interesting thing is that it is the only time the dog goes
into the bedroom to sleep. The rest of the day, he sleeps on
the couch, in the office, on his rug on the patio, but never in
the bedroom. He anticipates that the humans will follow a
routine.

>> Recent studies which show that some animals can practice deceptive
>> behaviors to fool conspecifics also show that the animals can
>> anticipate that if they provide certain stimuli, their fellows
>> will probably respond in a certain way.

> This is not "anticipation".

How are you defining the word?

>> So they learn to provide
>> false stimuli. This must demonstrate a very complex and
>> sophisticated form of anticipation. They not only can anticipate that
>> "If I do *this* the other animal will do *that*" but "if I do *this*
>> the other animal will respond in *this* way, so I will fool him/her
>> by providing stimuli which will make him do something else instead."
>> It's a double layer of anticipation, and cannot be instinctive.

> You're not qualified to say. You have no expertise.

You have no more than I, and probably less.

> Anyway, these studies are not conclusive. They are not considered
> definitive among ethologists.

Very little is considered definitive among ethologists.

This appears to be the best information we lay people have now.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal-loving sob
sister, blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Glorfindel wrote:

No - KAREN WINTER, sappily sentimental animal-loving
sob sister, blabbered:

>
>
> ...
>
>>> the dog will go into the bedroom and lie down in his usual place at
>>> the right time. The humans may still be doing not-going-to-bed things
>>> like reading, working on the computer, or watching TV, but the dog
>>> clearly anticipates that they *ought* to be going to bed around this
>>> time.
>
>
>> No. The dog has a set of Circadian rhythms, too. There is no
>> "anticipation"; the dog just realizes it's sleep time.
>
>
> The interesting thing is that it is the only time the dog goes
> into the bedroom to sleep. The rest of the day, he sleeps on
> the couch, in the office, on his rug on the patio, but never in
> the bedroom. He anticipates that the humans will follow a
> routine.
>
>>> Recent studies which show that some animals can practice deceptive
>>> behaviors to fool conspecifics also show that the animals can
>>> anticipate that if they provide certain stimuli, their fellows
>>> will probably respond in a certain way.
>
>
>> This is not "anticipation".
>
>
> How are you defining the word?

The conscious state that an entity expects something to
occur in an indefinite future, with or without - but
mostly without - some triggering signal. When a
child's father says he will take the child some place
"next weekend", this conveys symbolic information that
animals cannot grasp. If the child is old enough to
understand "next weekend", the child anticipates the
event between the statement and the weekend, without
any additional signals. No animal can do that.


>>> So they learn to provide
>>> false stimuli. This must demonstrate a very complex and
>>> sophisticated form of anticipation. They not only can anticipate that
>>> "If I do *this* the other animal will do *that*" but "if I do *this*
>>> the other animal will respond in *this* way, so I will fool him/her
>>> by providing stimuli which will make him do something else instead."
>>> It's a double layer of anticipation, and cannot be instinctive.
>
>
>> You're not qualified to say. You have no expertise.
>
>
> You have no more than I,

You have NONE, but you are pretending to speak
authoritatively. You have read some stuff you like;
that's all.


>> Anyway, these studies are not conclusive. They are not considered
>> definitive among ethologists.
>
>
> Very little is considered definitive among ethologists.
>
> This appears to be the best information we lay people have now.

No. It appears to be the information you like. You
have a warped, anthropocentric view of animals that
leads you to see things that aren't so.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Eden wrote:

.....

>>> This is not "anticipation".

>> How are you defining the word?

> The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
> indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
> triggering signal.

That certainly appears to be true of many species of animals,
especially social species.

It's interesting to watch animals turn signals around and
try to train their guardians, in a way which shows they
understand an if/then correlation in the future. For
example, a dog who has learned that "Sit" will gain a
treat, may also use "sit" to influence the guardian to
do something else. It becomes a form of "please" or "I
want this" even if no treat is anywhere in sight, and the
thing the dog wants has nothing to do with food -- for
example, to be let out on the patio to bark at a passing cat.
I see that as a simple form of symbolic communication.


> When a child's father says he will take the child
> some place "next weekend", this conveys symbolic information that
> animals cannot grasp.

That says that the only possible signal is verbal. That
is much too limited a definition of information.

.....
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Sat, 13 May 2006, Goo desperately clung to anthropomorphism:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> ...let's not forget how you hug all over
>> Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig fantasy
>
>No such thing. Salt has written an essay

In order for the fantasy to be any more than a children's story
type of fantasy, it would be required that (in order of appearance):

1. pigs are capable of replying to humans
2. pigs are aware of revered moralists
3. pigs understand the concept of pleading
4. pigs contemplate time
5. pigs contemplate their own existence
6. pigs contemplate the future
7. pigs understand their bodies will be butchered
and prepared in specific ways
8. pigs understand and are capable of disputing
verbally with humans
9. pigs consider that they may be unworthy to dispute
with "a master of ethics"
10. pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect
11. pigs know humans deliberately raise them
12. pigs are aware of death
13. pigs know they can be killed
14. pigs know humans deliberately kill them
15. pigs know humans eat their dead bodies
16. pigs consider what motivates human thinking
17. pigs are aware of moral reasoning
18. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because
humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a
moral reason" for devouring them
19. pigs consider how they come into existence
20. pigs accurately understand what humans do and do not consider
21. pigs contemplate their own fate
22. pigs would rather they had never been born
23. pigs know humans eat meat
24. pigs know they are "pork"
25. pigs have a "so be it" attitude about humans killing them for food
26. pigs are able to understand human speach
27. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because
humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry"
28. pigs understand the situation they are in
29. pigs understand how the situation they are in relates to humans
30. pigs are aware of filth
31. pigs feel they are forced to live in filth
32. pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them
33. pigs feel that what and or how they are fed is filthy
34. pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies after their death
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 11 May 2006 Goo wrote:

>>>pet owners mistakenly believe their
>>>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>>>don't really have.
>>
>> That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
>> of idiocy than you're displaying Goober. But you fall for that
>> one yourself too Goo...let's not forget how you hug all over
>> Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
>
>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions

It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
It didn't work with me.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Jack Crenshaw wrote:
>
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>> Jack Crenshaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> seabird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >>...
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> lived with a dog?? ???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots of
>>>>> unsophisticated pet owners mistakenly believe their animals have
>>>>> all sorts of capabilities the animals don't really have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If pets have no emotions, why did you bother having them?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say they have no emotions. Try to read with better
>>> comprehension next time, please.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow. Brilliance and civility in the same package. What a guy.
>
>
> You understood me as having said something I didn't say. I can only
> assume you didn't comprehend what I wrote.

Who could? It is gibberish.

Jack
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Leif Erikson wrote:

....

>>>The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
>>>indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
>>>triggering signal.

>>That certainly appears to be true of many species of animals,
>>especially social species.

> No.

That is hardly an argument.

....

>>> When a child's father says he will take the child
>>>some place "next weekend", this conveys symbolic information that
>>>animals cannot grasp.

>>That says that the only possible signal is verbal.

> Symbolic times and places, as opposed to mere signals, *require*
> language to be communicated. That's why animals can't engage in it.

> "Ancient Rome", "next Christmas", "the Roaring 20s" - these are all
> symbolic times and places that no animals can ever grasp;

Obviously. No one suggests they could.

> nor is there
> any evidence, at all, to indicate some analogous symbolic times/places
> in their world.

You are correct in that -- but that is not the kind of communication
we are talking about at all, and I'm sure you realize that. To say that
an animal cannot understand "ancient Rome" does not mean that an animal
cannot anticipate that something will happen in the future because it
has happened in the past, or that an animal cannot communicate by
applying a behavior which he understands in one context to another
different but similar context. To carry out the behavior which resulted
in a treat in one context to a situation where something totally
unrelated is desired by the dog requires a limited form of abstraction.

.....
> "No dog knows there have been dogs before him, and
> will be dogs after him." Kenneth Boulding

However, we do know that some species of animals have learned
cultures which are passed on from one generation of a particular
population to another. Animals are capable of making original
discoveries and teaching them to other animals in their group,
passing them on to future generations.

.....
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

<testicling.DeleteThis@testus.dot> wrote
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:

>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>
> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans. Duh!
> It didn't work with me.

That was not the point of it at all, that idea does not appear in the essay
or is it ever implied. When the pig says "If, then, thou art firm set on
pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at
least spare me thy sophistry" it is the author speaking by means of a
literary device, and he is saying, 'If you feel you have the right to kill
and eat a pig, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind,
but in the name of human decency don't try to claim that you're doing the
pig a favor.'
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Jack Crenshaw wrote:
>
>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>>Jack Crenshaw wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jack Crenshaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>seabird wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever
>>>>>>>>actually
>>>>>>>>lived with a dog?? ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots of
>>>>>>>unsophisticated pet owners mistakenly believe their animals have
>>>>>>>all sorts of capabilities the animals don't really have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If pets have no emotions, why did you bother having them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't say they have no emotions. Try to read with better
>>>>>comprehension next time, please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wow. Brilliance and civility in the same package. What a guy.
>>>
>>>
>>>You understood me as having said something I didn't say. I can only
>>>assume you didn't comprehend what I wrote.
>>
>>Who could? It is gibberish.
>
>
> No, it isn't, and you don't even think it is; you just went for a cheap
> insult right now. If you thought it was gibberish, you would have said
> so in the first place, rather than trying - stupidly - to reply to
> something you didn't understand.
>
> The fact is, it makes complete sense, but only to someone who reads
> carefully before running his mouth - something you don't have the self
> restraint to do.
>
> Thanks for playing.
>

Ok, leaf. I bow to the unbearable brilliance of your intellect, and the
incomparable logic of your prose.

Jack
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Jack Crenshaw wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Jack Crenshaw wrote:
>>
>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jack Crenshaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack Crenshaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> seabird wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that dogs are not disappointed..have you ever
>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>> lived with a dog?? ???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. I've had lots of pets. I've observed that lots of
>>>>>>>> unsophisticated pet owners mistakenly believe their animals have
>>>>>>>> all sorts of capabilities the animals don't really have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If pets have no emotions, why did you bother having them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't say they have no emotions. Try to read with better
>>>>>> comprehension next time, please.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow. Brilliance and civility in the same package. What a guy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You understood me as having said something I didn't say. I can only
>>>> assume you didn't comprehend what I wrote.
>>>
>>>
>>> Who could? It is gibberish.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it isn't, and you don't even think it is; you just went for a cheap
>> insult right now. If you thought it was gibberish, you would have said
>> so in the first place, rather than trying - stupidly - to reply to
>> something you didn't understand.
>>
>> The fact is, it makes complete sense, but only to someone who reads
>> carefully before running his mouth - something you don't have the self
>> restraint to do.
>>
>> Thanks for playing.
>>
>
> Ok, leaf. I bow to the unbearable brilliance of your intellect, and the
> incomparable logic of your prose.

Trite, jacko - trite.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal
anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter, sappily sentimental animal anthropomorphizer, stupidly blabbered:
>
>>>> The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
>>>> indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
>>>> triggering signal.
>
>
>>> That certainly appears to be true of many species of animals,
>>> especially social species.
>
>
>> No.
>
>
> That is hardly an argument.

Given yours, mine is just fine.


>>>> When a child's father says he will take the child
>>>> some place "next weekend", this conveys symbolic information that
>>>> animals cannot grasp.
>
>
>>> That says that the only possible signal is verbal.
>
>
>> Symbolic times and places, as opposed to mere signals, *require*
>> language to be communicated. That's why animals can't engage in it.
>
>
>> "Ancient Rome", "next Christmas", "the Roaring 20s" - these are all
>> symbolic times and places that no animals can ever grasp;
>
>
> Obviously. No one suggests they could.

Anticipation is about symbolic communication. It's
clearly much more than mere cause and effect.

Go back, you stupid argumentative ignorant pig-headed
twat, to my example of the child promised a trip out
for ice cream, perhaps "tomorrow" or "next weekend".
No animal can comprehend those times, or the nature of
a treat *experience* (as opposed to the simple
Pavlovian nature of an immediate food treat.) The
child anticipates the complete experience of the ice
cream excursion following a considerable time interval.
THAT is anticipation. The dog doesn't do that, or
anything remotely like it.

You're being your usual pig-headed idiotic self, Karen.
You're trying to imagine an equality, or at the least
a close similarity, between two experiences that are
qualitatively SO far apart as to be utterly different -
absolutely incomparable. Just concede.



>> nor is there
>> any evidence, at all, to indicate some analogous symbolic times/places
>> in their world.
>
>
> You are correct in that -- but that is not the kind of communication
> we are talking about at all,

It is exactly what we're talking about.


>
>> "No dog knows there have been dogs before him, and
>> will be dogs after him." Kenneth Boulding
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing
cracker, lied:

> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:21:27 -0700, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 May 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>>>pet owners mistakenly believe their
>>>>animals have all sorts of capabilities the animals
>>>>don't really have.
>>>
>>> That's a more popular but somewhat less moronic brand
>>>of idiocy than you're displaying Goober. But you fall for that
>>>one yourself too Goo...let's not forget how you hug all over
>>>Henry "ar" Salt's talking pig...
>>
>>Salt's pig was not about animals having emotions
>
>
> It was intended to create the dishonest belief that livestock
> suffer from the knowledge they will be killed by humans.

No, it absolutely was not that, Fuckwit, and you know
it. We have explained in simple language that even a
dropout like you can understand what Salt's essay is
about. It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical
absurdity of the belief that causing animals to "get to
experience life" somehow offsets any moral harm that is
done in killing them. That is what it is about,
Fuckwit, and you know it, because Dutch and I have
patiently explained it to you. Stop lying.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II 

Leif Erikson wrote:


Anticipation is

....

>>>>> The conscious state that an entity expects something to occur in an
>>>>> indefinite future, with or without - but mostly without - some
>>>>> triggering signal.

.....
> Anticipation is about symbolic communication.

......

That's not the definition you gave earlier, nor do I think it
applies in many cases with humans anticipating something.
Why should anticipation require *symbolic* communication?

Anticipation requires the ability to extrapolate from a past
event to a probable future event. You've agreed a signal
of some kind may be involved, but need not be. One example
would be where a dog has learned that his guardian usually
comes home at a certain time each day. Many dogs will start
expecting the person at about the same time each day, even
if no direct signal (such as the sound of the car engine)
is given. I think you could say the same of a pack of
wolves who respond to signals, such as physical movements
and sounds, with the anticipation that a hunt will take place.

....
 >> Stay informed about: Animal emotions - II