like i’m watching blue planet and i’m yelling at the tv!

there’s all these yimmer yammer hand-wavey scientific rigor lines where it’s like ‘we may believe that these animals do on occasion have a base brain-related impulse that allows them to experience feelings somewhat like to those of friendship’ or whatever in the script on top of footage that they then describe as ‘it seems as though these two groups [of fish, different species] are old friends…’ in an almost whimsical manner.

can’t they give them some credit! they have eyes and a face, why is it so insane to think they can’t experience friendship or love or joy just like us? ‘buhhu uhhh its only accurate science if we only observe observable behavior’ why?? you’re neglecting a whole part of any living thing’s experience! inner life can’t be hand waved away! even for a mollusk!

and people loved doing this on reddit as well – oh actually your cat doesn’t understand love or joy or humor, it is simply reacting to the physical warmth of your lap, they don’t actually care for you. don’t worry, depth and emotion does not exist!

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    First of all: please let us separate this. What one believes isn’t science. Science does not care for your (or a mollusc’s) feelings. It cars about what’s the provable truth (except when the science is psychology or behavioral biology, then it cares very much about your or the mollusc’s feelings). So if it can’t be proven, science will ignore it.

    Secondly: there is something you need to take into account herey and that is cognitive abilities. It doesn’t matter how the behavioral response of an animal is, if said animal lacks the horsepower to interpret those feelings. Do you feel bad for a computer when it encounters an error? Of course not. Why would you? It lacks the cognitive ability to suffer from that error. Same goes for animals. Dies it feel compelled to be in a group? Maybe. But does that mean that inside the animal’s head it goes “oh, finally a group, I’m so safe now. I was really hurting being alone and all” or is there just a little mechanism that goes “Func_Search_Group exited with status code 0”?
    We don’t know. All we know is that both exist. Dish forming swarms show more of the latter, while dogs display more of the first. if there is no psychological response to any given feeling, we can’t attribute emotions to it. Furthermore, all of this is only applicable if we assume that the way our mind works is the only way. Some animals might have a psyche that’s so far removed from ours that our metrics just don’t apply. We don’t know.

    Of course there are tons of animal behaviors we wrongly Attribute to instinct or reflex when they are actually emotionally driven. Yet we don’t know what those are, so we cannot just run around and play pretend because it makes us feel cozy.

    We humans are actually a good example of that. At birth, we are just a bundle of cobbled together reflexes that get replaced by cognitive ability over time.
    I’m holding my three weeks old toddler in my arms right now and since he is actually a human,. observing his behavior is relatable to menand easy to interpret since he’s hard wired to communicate everything bad by crying immediately.

    Yet, there is tons of behavior he shows that’s actually reflexes and his brain will not start the same reaction as a more developed human brain would.
    Take shock as an example. He is literally impossible to upset by shock. If he feels like he’s falling or something else catches him by surprise, he’ll react by the so-called Moro reflex and try to grasp anything in his reach. It’s the same reflex we see in chimp babies. It’s meant to make the baby cling to it’s carrier’s fur. Yet, he himself doesn’t react at all. He looks midly irritated at best, if he doesn’t just continue sleeping and that’s all. His brain does not process this shock emotionally like we would, yet his body goes into full blown panic mode, desperately grasping around. No suffering, no anxiety, nothing in terms of emotions at all (and believe me, a baby will not hide those. He cries if his intestines are starting to digest the milk he just devoured)

    If this kind of disconnect between behavior and psyche is common in humans, it is likely to be common in other species as well, especially when those species lack the ridiculous large and energy hungry brain humans have decided was a good idea?

    Is it actually the scientist neglecting the mind of an animal or is it you wishing for a mind to be where there is none? The answer is somewhere in the middle.

    Oh and the cat example: that’s a result of the very mistake you made: people have somehow collectively decided that cats lack any social behavior and thus anything they do that looks like socializing must be something else, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Cats absolutely do socialize just with less to no empathy for their friends. That’s why we can only call true what’s observable.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      Science does not care for your (or a mollusc’s) feelings. It cars about what’s the provable truth (except when the science is psychology or behavioral biology, then it cares very much about your or the mollusc’s feelings). So if it can’t be proven, science will ignore it.

      Can you prove that you are sentient/sapient?

      • Norgur@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s one of those questions that’s all too often used for some cheap attempt at a trap. The question is what sort of proof is acceptable in which line of science. You can’t prove sentience in the absolute way physics can prove things. That’s just natural for scientific disciplines like psychology. Furthermore y you’d first have to define what constitutes sentience/sapience

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I think that’s kind of the point though, we could meet space traveling aliens and deem them non sapient beings without emotions using the same logic we apply to animals because there’s no empirical way to prove that any creature isn’t just the sapience equivelent of a chinese room.

          • Norgur@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            There is, though. The easiest one being that a sentient creature will react differently to it’s outside world, most importantly in an unpredictable manner. Think about a fish reacting to it’s surroundings and then picture a cat. One will very likely do the same thing given the same circumstances. The other won’t.

            • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              So would a fish that’s eaten a device that administers a small electric shock at random intervals and with random intensities. I don’t think that eating such a device made the fish suddenly sentient, but it would suddenly change the outcome of your test.

        • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          The only trap here is that my point was that it’s not ignored by science. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Just because we have no way of proving a theory, doesn’t mean we don’t try and find ways to do so. We still make hypotheses and theories even if we have no proven way, or understanding of how we might prove them. That’s still science.

      • jmdatcs@lemmy.tf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        That’s a tautological statement. We define words like sentient and sapient in terms of what we are.

        Saying “this lifeform that we can’t communicate with in any meaningful way (for these purposes) has emotional or cognitive experiences that we would recognize as meeting those definitions” isn’t falsifiable and therefore isn’t science.

        If at some point someone invents a human to mollusk translator so we can discuss our experiences, this topic can be revisited.

        Until then words like “may” and “possible” should be used.