Longqi,
Continuation of earlier thread.
The more important point though in this discussion is why would the animals behave in such a manner when clearly if every animal ate then none needs to starve. In my view the reason is quite simple and that is because that is a cognitive response to a stimuli that the animals are unable to make. They will not and do not think. They react to the given stimuli according to preprogammed instincts or learned responses. People here can put any spin on it they like but in the end thinking is a cognitive response/behaviour that up till now is an entirely human process and has not definatively been demonstrated by any other animals. Although I will concede that there are examples of some animals in certain situations that appear to demonstrate some ability to think in order to solve a problem, the point I made in my post a few days ago that these examples almost always involve food as a reward for the exhibition of the behaviour, which for me demonstrates conditioning. Please, I did not say some animals cannot remember just that they do not think.
Perhaps I should be more definitive with the word think. For me in this arguement thinking is the process where baser behaviours (instincts conditioned responses) are set aside so a reasoned response can take place where after examining the stimuli and working through an analytical process an acceptable outcome can be achieved. The outcome can be good or bad and there is no reason why even after the thinking process has taken place the outcome could still be that the strongest eat and the weak do not.
I have read a lot of posts here talking about animals taking flight and being fearful in given situations. Maybe we need to clarify responses and definitions. Fear and fright are not the same thing. They are 2 different behaviours that elicit 2 different responses. A reaction to a fright is instinctive. Fear is learned so it is bought about by conditioning and as a consequence elicits a conditioned response. Emotions are what we "feel" about certain external environmental stimuli. There are many words employed to describe what we feel, such as love, hate, fear, anger, jealousy, bitterness, betrayal, joy, happiness, the list could go on. These words all describe "feelings" we have about a given stimuli. We are conscious of them. We are aware of them. Abstract thought again.
As humans we are always looking for ways to "label" everything in our lives, because it makes us more comfortable with who we are and what our place is and how we can be part of what is going on in the natural world around us. In suggesting our pets in particular reptiles have emotions, we are doing nothing more then looking for and in a lot of peoples opinions finding behaviours in our pets that fit in with our stereotyping of what constitutes emotions and emotional responses.
I keep hundreds of dragons over many species and I have never in 20 years observed any of my animals displaying what I would describe as emotion. I see behaviours that are interesting but they are not in my view emotions and can easily be described as baser behaviours. How many times have I heard people say that their Frilly's are sulking. I use the same description myself when one of my Frilled dragons refuses food or demonstrates some other abnormal behaviour. The truth is that the animal is responding to an unsatisfactory stimuli, not enough variiation in diet, not enough humidity in the enclosure, tempretures not right, stress from competing animals and so on. We don't or at least I hope we don't just pass this condition of with a shrug, consoling ourselves, by saying it's just sad or not happy, no need to worry, it will come good soon enough, without actually looking into what has triggered the behaviour.
We all love our pets, I have a staffy that I swear is human. But I know she is not. I also know that in spite of how smart we think she is she is not capable of an abstract thought. My wife thinks that sissy (our staffy) loves her, the dog will go to her every time in preference to me. The dog sits at her feet when we watch TV, the dog demonstrates every aspect of love that we would see in human behaviour. Devotion, loyalty, etc, (interestring eh, more emotions to describe emotions). Why does our dog behave in this manner. Because my wife walks her everyday feeds her most days includes her on car outings and as a general rule treats her like she is one of the family.
If my wife is not around then what does the dog do. She comes to me in preference to my son and does exactly the same thing. Why because occassionally I will feed her and pat her. This is inspite of the fact that my youngest son will play with her for hours and take her out walking and generally spend much more time with her then me. But he never feeds her. This is clearly a learned response to our family situation. Our dog knows by conditioning that my wife is her number one meal ticket followed by me. Interestingly the dog demonstrates little interest in my youngest soon who plays with her all the time and even less interest in my 19 year old soon who has absolutely nothing to do with her. She wont even come to him when she is called with out serious cajoling.
I am surprised but probably shouldn't have been that this discussion has gone on as long as it has and that so many people really believe that animals are capable of exhibiting emotions. Again, they are behaviours that we misinterpret as emotions because we are trying to find a label for what we see that we are comfortable with and that we want our pets to feel for us. We ourselves are being overly emotional in suggesting our pets have emotions but nontheless understandable because it is human nature to look for reciprication of our feelings about our pets and other things that matter to us in the natural world.
At this point I would love to have some input for someone qualified in neurological sciences that could give us a definative opinion as to whether animals even have a brain function in what ever hemisphere that would allow them to feel anything on an emotional level. Particularly I am looking for the capacity for awareness of emotion for with out the awareness it is a baser response.
We can keep going around and around and we can keep looking at each other even more incredulously but I really think some solid factual input now would be really good. So I am now stepping out of this thread until such time as someone can contribute something that is not emotional and has some basis in scientific fact, whether it be favouring my view or otherwise. And please no more "did you see the WHATEVER ANIMAL on such and such it could do so and so. If anybody has definitive evidence of any animal performing a function that requires abstract thought the condition required to recognise and interpret and label emotions please let me know.
As I final comment I know my view is quite conflicting with a lot of people's view here on this forum. I have not been discourteous, rude or denigrated anybody else's opinion on this topic at a personal level. Please show me the same courtesy. Failure to adhere to this will result in my hunting you down and resoundingly beating you mercilessly to a pulp. Baser response applies, "rage".
).
