Did velociraptors have emotions or were their brains simply not at that stage yet?

Did velociraptors have emotions or were their brains simply not at that stage yet?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The closest analog we have to Velociraptor brains are crocodiles

    Crocodiles probably don't have emotions.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >make a post when thread had only a couple
    >come back
    >has over 100
    You guys are impressive

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      sadly it's just the same 2 posts repeated 50 times each.

      Anon seems hellbent on convincing me that the standard english definition of the word "emotion" is wrong

      he doesn't understand I don't agree or disagree. I don't even care. I'm just saying he doesn't understand it. And you can't talk about stuff when you're using your own made-up language.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >100 post
        >I dont even care

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I care that the anon has a valid opinion and lacks the words to express it.

          that's interesting. He's not getting into new territory though. Most of this was hashed out by Descartes in the 1600's.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if you are quoting descartes on animal behavior you have left orbit of planet science and gone full pseud.

            What actually interests me is anon's inability to understand groups and subgroups.

            He doesn't understand that pain is one type of nociception but not all nociception is pain
            He doesn't get that hamburgers are one type of sandwich but not all sandwiches are hamburgers.
            He doesn't know that fords are one type of truck, but not all trucks are fords

            this is a rare disability, and one bugguy also displayed.

            I am interested if anon is bugguy, or just another autistic moron with a very mysterious defect that happens to be exactly the same as bugguy's. And if so, what are the odds? Does Wauf attract this very specific and rare sort of moron for some reason? Or is this brand of stupidity actually much more common than I expect, but I don't often find myself in a position to observe it.
            either way, a fascinating thing.

            this self important rant really confirms your NPD diagnosis homie you talk like my ex who ended up on meds for this shit get help homie.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >if you are quoting descartes on animal behavior you have left orbit of planet science and gone full pseud.
              I'm citing Descartes on the nature of consciousness and existence.

              >this self important rant
              100 posts in and anon never once indicated they understand that anger is being treated as a subgroup of arousal, and that doesn't mean all arousal is anger.

              A normal person would at least indicate they understand the opposing position. It's rare for someone to be so completely disabled they can't even understand the idea they're trying to falsify.
              That is an exceptional moron. Not even a normal run of the mill moron. Someone so off the charts stupid they're probably not even human.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What actually interests me is anon's inability to understand groups and subgroups.

          He doesn't understand that pain is one type of nociception but not all nociception is pain
          He doesn't get that hamburgers are one type of sandwich but not all sandwiches are hamburgers.
          He doesn't know that fords are one type of truck, but not all trucks are fords

          this is a rare disability, and one bugguy also displayed.

          I am interested if anon is bugguy, or just another autistic moron with a very mysterious defect that happens to be exactly the same as bugguy's. And if so, what are the odds? Does Wauf attract this very specific and rare sort of moron for some reason? Or is this brand of stupidity actually much more common than I expect, but I don't often find myself in a position to observe it.
          either way, a fascinating thing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >is this brand of stupidity actually much more common than I expect, but I don't often find myself in a position to observe it
            the simple fact that it's ALWAYS present on Wauf

            and NEVER present on other boards

            indicates it is just one person or bot here.

            that person or bot goes by lots of names. Bugguy, morrisonbro, paleoschizo, totally-not-paleoschizo, bugguy, or morrisonbro

            but in reality the constant presence on this board and complete absence on other boards indicates it is just one person or bot.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anything that has sense organs has emotions, as emotions are just positive and negative correlations to sensation.
    The question you're asking is if they have personalities.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >emotions are just positive and negative correlations to sensation.
      completely untrue anywhere outside of Wauf and reddit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Completely true neurologically. Even aplysia has self-referential sensation, thus emotion.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Completely true neurologically.
          not at all. Neurologists are deeply interested in the differences between subjective experience and underlying biological process.

          the failure to identify the differences doesn't negate them to anyone aside from the deeply autistic OCD types who have no curiosity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Who are these neurologists you know personally science man?

            Emotion is a biological process. Each emotion is a unique one. It doesn’t stop being an emotion because you’re totally unaware. In that case, you are simply unaware, but still emotional.

            You can be without experience. Your experience is biased and the terms were set by everyone else. You must also acknowledge that you can experience without being, and that you may have been fundamentally robbed of experiencing something you sometimes or always are by the way you have been conditioned to filter and organize information and construct your experience.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The conscious, subjective component of an emotion is generally regarded as its central, key feature.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The unique physical symptoms of an emotion define it regardless of the self reported mental state. The self reported mental state, however, can redefine and control the emotion, and alter the biological state to form a unique and individualized variant upon realization. And that word, realization, should be taken literally. Now, could your self reported mental state be limited, to use computer terms, by being set up with a different programming language, with its own library of functions and terms?

                Yes.

                Are you confused because you don’t have a word for the basic form of each emotion? Yes. So confused you’d call clear anger and happiness both “arousal”. To make YOUR emotions special, rather than realize what you’re experiencing is experience, not the emotion. Fool. This is why you lack in so many other areas.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The unique physical symptoms of an emotion define it regardless of the self reported mental state.
                the mental state is a required aspect of the emotion, and must be present to define it.

                Denying this doesn't do anything except waste your time lecturing people who don't care on a topic you don't understand.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, it does not. An emotion is a physiological state. Not a mental one. You can be sad without feeling sad. Your left arm could be up your own butthole without awareness.

                So if the entity doesn’t know its own state and you fully refute it, what makes it real and continues to name the world without your almighty ass or mine? You hate the answer so much you’ll just appeal to your imaginary universally liked experts that all the important people agree with.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >An emotion is a physiological state. Not a mental one.
                fifth time

                no scientists uses this definition. Not one.

                and you're shouting into the wind because you don't understand where they're coming from.

                to improve an idea you first need to understand it. You don't.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You say this to everyone without ever backing yourself up. You just like to appear intelligent.

                This is a philosphical line: it doesnt matter if YOU are aware of it. Something else is. Each emotion can be defined and reliably identified regardless of how you experience it. Your experience of each emotion is also rather limited by the biology underlying it. All of reality is existing with or without human eyes on it and each living things experience is bounded by its biology, which still functions in absence of its experience. Your consciousness is up for external debate but your emotions are as simple as the position of your eyelids however you would like to describe them. The interesting part is we can’t tell if you can think your body into doing things or if it would do those things anyways and your mind justifies things that are already set in motion.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You just like to appear intelligent.
                If anything I look like an idiot arguing all day with a moron, whether I'm right or wrong.

                I am trying to help you by explaining that you cannot change the state of science by misunderstanding it and then complaining about it for decades on Wauf

                and you'll never be listened to outside of Wauf because you don't understand the conversation.

                in fact I don't believe you're capable of understanding it. All you do is tell me your ideas without giving any hint that you understand the thousands of people that disagree with you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Again with the vague posturing and backing yourself up with some ghost you think is impressive and not a single source on this science of yours

                An emotion can and often is present without any consciousness of its presence on the part of the body that has it. Call the knowing a feels, call the having an is, but they’re different concepts even if it’s hard for a wordcel.

                >Consciousness of the emotion haver is not required for the emotion to exist
                sixth time

                by definition emotion is a conscious experience.

                No. It isn’t. Emotion is not a conscious experience. It exists whether you recognize it or not. Only by admitting this can you examine it thoroughly enough to begin to discern an explanation of a predetermined course of events from an act of free will. Emotion is not a conscious experience, and finding where the emotion changes without explainable cause is the interesting part, because that’s where we can say a conscious experience as we expect it exists and a human is higher than computer identifying itself in a network and announcing its intents.

                What if, for some reason, that point only occurred when we looked for it, in everyone? In some people but not others? You’d never look because you just assume the emotion isn’t there unless the creature describes it to you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >backing yourself up with some ghost
                I backed myself up with the sources you cited

                >The conscious, subjective component of an emotion is generally regarded as its central, key feature.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >what makes it real and continues to name the world without your almighty ass or mine?
                for the third time,

                behavior

                phenotype

                whether consciousness is real or not, it produces real changes in behavior. Explaining those behaviors requires accepting the idea of an unreal (emergent) "thing" influencing the results.

                it's not magic, it's just a matter of emergence. Consciousness is more like a recipe than a rock.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Consciousness of the emotion haver is not required for the emotion to exist

                You hate this because it means your entire state was already determined without your conscious input and it hints at an omnipresent and omniscient truly free will. If anything is emergent, it’s this, from the entire planet or more.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Consciousness of the emotion haver is not required for the emotion to exist
                sixth time

                by definition emotion is a conscious experience.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                also, if consciousness is not real, then neither is emotion.

                biological states are easy to measure, but consciousness and emotion are not. Because one of these things is empirical, and the other emergent.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I had a dream last night that I got fricked by a raptor, so I say yes

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fact:
    You can be angry without knowing it. Everyone else can tell even if you can’t. Does that mean you are calm and just oddly sweaty? No.

    Fact: You are aware of many of your own states that are not emotions. A dog knows where their nose is. Is that an emotion? No.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You can be angry without knowing it
      we call this arousal, because anger requires awareness.

      we use one word for unconscious states, and another for conscious states. Only conscious states are emotions.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You call this arousal when you want to dehumanize, but the fact is, it is anger. Anger is a BIOLOGICAL state.

        We do not have room for your morally convenient philosophy here. If everyone but you is aware of your anger, it does not cease to be anger. It just makes you stupid.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Anger is a BIOLOGICAL state.
          anger is the biological state of arousal combined with the biological state of being consciously aware of arousal.

          Without awareness we call it arousal.

          you can try to change the language and the underlying philosophy, and you might even succeed in convincing a few people here.

          however your opinion is unacceptable to the experts on the topic and will continue to be ignored.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Awareness is irrelevant. Anger is a unique biological state that can be measured by an external consciousness. Maybe that makes it anger, but the one experiencing it doesn’t have to “experience” it to experience it. It’s the quotes experience that gives it the ability to halt or elevate the state without external input, but the state is what it is, not a mere heightened energy level. It is purely physiological and your desire to draw a philosophical line that makes your emotion special is irrelevant. Your emotion is the same as a dog and your awareness defines control and reason rather than simply being. You should come up with a new word for this emotion-plus if you don’t already use it but the biological anger state does not become anything else without self measurement of the state, nor are all conscious things emotions.

            The quoted experience, that is not purely biological. We can’t replicate it or predict it. We can’t measure it but it measures itself just fine. Debate it all you want but it is self evident when something has it.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Awareness is irrelevant.
              we're back to the start

              that's a definition literally nobody else agrees with.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    all animals have emotions. Abstraction and conceptualization and deliberation are the mark of superior intelligence.
    a fly fricks because it feels good. One doesn't need to understand feelings to feel them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >One doesn't need to understand feelings to feel them.
      a definition no scientist agrees with

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        an unbiased scientist would agree. anyone who remembers being a child would agree.
        an atheist pseud with preconceptions and secular morals based on intelligence rankings would come up with some dumb shit like “NOOOO U NEEDS THA LANGUAGE TO FEEL HAPPY” to avoid memeing themselves between picking veganism or another religion that lets them eat chicken

        many such cases in the west… see “dogs arent self aware” despite countless videos of dogs passing the mirror test. because IQ cultists need them to be dumber so they dont have a virtue meltdown with no god left to back up their morality.
        >NOOOO AM I LE RACIST SLAVEHOLDER NOW? NOOOO

        all of western animal cognition study picks a side: protty heresy where animals are machines made by god and they really want science to agree, and iq cult where intelligence determines the value of life and they are desperate for animals they “abuse” to have none

        its like “science” and african intelligence but reversed (they want african intelligence to be “temporarily embarrassed” to maintain their current morality)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >an unbiased scientist would agree. anyone who remembers being a child would agree.
          no true scotsman

          the fact that scientists don't agree with you indicates there's some information you're not considering that they are.

          it does not imply that you know more than scientists.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >all of western animal cognition study picks a side:
            both sides agree you're wrong

            the major animal rights advocates all agree you're wrong. The people on your "side" say you're wrong.

            it is likely they say that because you are wrong.

            Here’s the narcissisric nociception schizo desperate for the dog he abuses to be a robot so he’s not a bad person

            Does bugguy miss the authority of his janny job?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I am a student of Grandin

              the greatest animal rights scientist in the world

              and even she doesn't agree with your "definition" of emotion. You don't win arguments by making shit up.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >i follow a presumptuous pseudoscientist
                >u need to rite le poem defining happy to feel happy
                presumptuous moron

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't "follow" her, I attended her courses. She was my professor, I am her student.

                I disagree with her on lots of things. But I don't disagree on her definition of emotion, (it requires awareness of the quale),
                and I don't expect you know more than her on the topic.

                in fact I think you're a stupid wienersucker who can't tell someone who thinks you're an idiot from people that abuse animals. You're so stupid you think anyone that disagrees with you must hate animals. It never crosses your mind that you might be mistaken, or that there might be information you're ignorant of.

                But the world needs its morons, and Wauf certainly needs them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You followed a b***h that looked like chris chan's mother lmao

                She sounds just as moronic too

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You followed
                no, I paid her to teach me animal anatomy and behavior.

                I am merely remarking that no scientist agrees with you

                even the ones on your side

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yep larping narcissist confirmed. The delusions of grandeur and permanently condescending tone typical of bugguy/paleoschizo and Wauf‘s other larping narcy marcys sells it.

                Disregarded. See a shrink.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your views are ignored by the scientific world because you're ignorant of certain facts. There's no nice way to say this.

                >If you're not autistic you're probably not smart enough to understand science
                From the simple fact that autists majority of the time come with cognitive development issues I can tell you the inverse is true lol

                Just because almost all scientists are autistic doesn't imply that all autistic people are scientists

                as any autistic scientist would immediately understand, and any autistic moron would fail to grasp.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Didnt read
                You are a larping narcissist lol

                Dont forget to make more grandiose claims and pretend you’re a condescending super genius sheldon cooper. Lel.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Didnt read
                yes

                you write a lot of stuff scientists will never read.
                Scientists write a lot of stuff you will never read

                that's my point.
                Wauf is completely disconnected from reality
                nothing you say here matters to anyone ever.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >condescending “you do this people smarter than you such as me do that you dont matter”
                Yes, EVERY narcissist says things like this. Even the aggressive low IQ ones. It’s literally the only way they can argue: “u aint shit!” because their entire world view is “i am the best person here”

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What is Waufs obsession over narcissists recently. Even in the /misc/ embassy threads. Is this schizo posting this shit everywhere?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sitewide domino effect caused everyone to wake up and start recognizing the sheer volume of NPD fricks using the ease of larping as anonymous to fuel/maintain their delusions of grandeur. Your condescending tone and persistent larping as a high flying academic when you’re really a nerd who browsed pubmed last friday is a bigger NPD red flag than avatargayging.

                Really, the internet in general has been bait and culture medium for NPD fricks since the start of the social media era.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It bothers you because you know I'm right

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Just because almost all scientists are autistic doesn't imply that all autistic people are scientists
                I didnt say that, you stated that autists are naturally inclined to academic pursuits such as science to hand wave autism as insult. I pointed out how that logic is moronic, literally as well as metaphorically.

                Keep seething kwk

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you stated that autists are naturally inclined to academic pursuits
                no, I stated that academics are usually autistic

                if you can't see the difference, you are moronic.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which does not change the fact that autists majority of the time have developmental disorders. Most autists stuggle academicaly. Besides this ignoring the main point of the issue, being that I am using it as an insult weighted with these factors and it clearly has left its mark for you to be this defensive over it.

                You and your idol are both autistic homosexuals, suck my erect penis.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All animals as complex as a rat at least have emotion

                It is self evident and easily observed.

                The lady you’re larping about is a serial meat industry shill. It’s where her money is. She profits from exploiting what animals are and aren’t aware of so she is right sometimes but the disdain she has makes her often wrong when its not something relevant to her profession, which is tricking cows into not knowing they are about to die.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the disdain she has makes her often wrong when its not something relevant to her profession
                the definition of emotion is central to her profession. As is the question of which animals, if any, have emotions.

                that's literally her job.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Her profession is that the mind is a black box and her only concern is keeping animals from being spooked by occluding the world and introducing calming stimuli
                Her opinions outside of this are biased pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophical speculation.

                You know this as well as I do because you only ever googled her larpy boy

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                She's written a dozen papers condemning fishing, a handful condemning ranching, and dozens on emotions in animals

                you don't know this, and won't learn it even after I tell you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >opinion papers
                Yeah like you’re posts ya larping narcy marcy

                So, does bugguy miss the authority of his “janny” “job”? I forget if he’s a headmate you have or your discord friend (probably both)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I haven't heard from bugguy in almost a decade.

                you?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Her opinions don't matter except to demonstrate that scientist who favor animal rights also don't agree with Wauf's definition of "emotion."

                nobody does. Your friends think you're wrong and so do your supposed enemies.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That’s not a response to

                [...]
                Argument from authority
                Argument from populace

                Ad hominem is valid when it questions motivations, as humans are irrational themselves and their reason can be evaluated unreasonably. This shit is never valid, unless you would support lysenko as long as everyone else did.

                There is a prevailing culture. There is an imperative in this culture to preserve it in order to prevent a moral crisis. This is a potential motivator in mistaken philosophical views and tests that are designed to fail (mirror spot test only, self inspection ignored, no attempt to discern brain activity patterns of self recognition, no mind paid to spot tests possibly demonstrating automatic grooming pantomime behavior)

                it’s you doubling down on attempts at hurtful language because your ego gets gut punched every time you read “n a r c” and the worst insult you can conceive of, due to your disorder, is “no one likes you”

                Its sad to watch knowing you actually think that is hurtful rather than motivational and fortifying.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >American doctor of animal science, author, and """autism activist"""
                Who would have known why schizo anon likes her

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Most biologists are autistic. Grandin isn't some weird exception. She's pretty normal for a scientist.

                If you're not autistic you're probably not smart enough to understand science.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If you're not autistic you're probably not smart enough to understand science
                From the simple fact that autists majority of the time come with cognitive development issues I can tell you the inverse is true lol

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >all of western animal cognition study picks a side:
          both sides agree you're wrong

          the major animal rights advocates all agree you're wrong. The people on your "side" say you're wrong.

          it is likely they say that because you are wrong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >an unbiased scientist would agree. anyone who remembers being a child would agree.
            no true scotsman

            the fact that scientists don't agree with you indicates there's some information you're not considering that they are.

            it does not imply that you know more than scientists.

            Argument from authority
            Argument from populace

            Ad hominem is valid when it questions motivations, as humans are irrational themselves and their reason can be evaluated unreasonably. This shit is never valid, unless you would support lysenko as long as everyone else did.

            There is a prevailing culture. There is an imperative in this culture to preserve it in order to prevent a moral crisis. This is a potential motivator in mistaken philosophical views and tests that are designed to fail (mirror spot test only, self inspection ignored, no attempt to discern brain activity patterns of self recognition, no mind paid to spot tests possibly demonstrating automatic grooming pantomime behavior)

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              it's not an argument from authority if I cite more than one authority.

              In that case it's an argument from expertise

              anon says he knows better than every scientist alive. Anon says he is all-knowing and infallible. Anon also says that other people are narcissists with delusions of grandeur.

              the simplest explanation is that anon is the narcissist schizo he accuses others of being. Whether he's wrong or right is impossible to determine, all that matters is all the experts agree he's wrong, and he thinks he knows better than them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The reason anon is wrong is by definition, not opinion.

                It is semantics. Emotion is the conscious experience of a physical or mental state.

                The reason we define it this way is because we are not conscious of most of our physical or mental states so we don't consider those emotions. I am not experiencing the emotion of having cancer, though it is entirely possible I have cancer and don't know it.

                Not all physical or mental states enter conscious awareness, and those that don't enter awareness are not emotions.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Not all physical or mental states enter conscious awareness, and those that don't enter awareness are not emotions.
                It is useful to distinguish between those states we're aware of, and those we are not.

                But this means the state is not the same as an emotion. An emotion consists of both the underlying causative state, and the conscious awareness of it.

                everyone that realizes most states don't produce emotions because most states don't enter awareness, will agree that awareness is a requirement of emotion.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                but the expertise is philosophizing pseuds, not materialist neurological study, so its just “society holds these pseuds in high esteem, listen to them!”

                The reason anon is wrong is by definition, not opinion.

                It is semantics. Emotion is the conscious experience of a physical or mental state.

                The reason we define it this way is because we are not conscious of most of our physical or mental states so we don't consider those emotions. I am not experiencing the emotion of having cancer, though it is entirely possible I have cancer and don't know it.

                Not all physical or mental states enter conscious awareness, and those that don't enter awareness are not emotions.

                Here, a pseud philosophizing. Emotion is not the awareness of the state. It is the state. You also have states you are conscious of that are not emotions. This is a fact of neurology, inconvenient to your philosophy.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You also have states you are conscious of that are not emotions.
                this doesn't change the fact that every human emotion includes awareness of the state.

                these aren't mutually exclusive. Your brain isn't functioning properly if you think they are.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It is a literal material neurological fact that you can have an emotional state without being aware of it. It is clear to everyone but you that you are angry, or sad, but you can be in a trance according to your own subjectivity.

                This is inconvenient to your philosophy. The fact is that emotions are biological, chemical states and your mind is too small to realize that they exist outside of your mind as much as your stomach does. This might disturb you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It is clear to everyone but you that you are angry, or sad, but you can be in a trance according to your own subjectivity.
                subjectivity is also defined by conscious awareness.

                these definitions are circular, but everyone agrees on them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You can be angry without knowing it
                we call this arousal, because anger requires awareness.

                we use one word for unconscious states, and another for conscious states. Only conscious states are emotions.

                >EVERYONE WE EVERYONE WE
                narcissism
                see: the royal we

                Also it is self evident that animals have emotions

                Occam’s razor: it is angry because it is acting angry
                Soibois cope: well ackshually anger is technically…

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >narcissism
                it's narcissistic to consider yourself smarter than the experts, and incapable of error or ignorance.
                >Also it is self evident that animals have emotions
                I never said it wasn't

                I said not ALL animals have emotions.
                which ones have emotions is a topic of enormous debate.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If emotions were a simple biological state there would be no debate on the topic, as all animals have those states.

                The fact that no scientist agrees that all animals have emotions should indicate to a reasonable person that emotion is not being defined as a biological state all animals share

                that's moronic.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The fact that no scientist agrees
                source?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the entirety of ethology

                go read all of it and prove me wrong.

                the first dozen papers you read will agree with me. The first 100 will also agree. The first thousand will agree, and the 10,000 after that.

                there is universal agreement on the definition of "emotion."

                it spills over into the common sphere as well. Every dictionary and encyclopedia uses a definition requiring conscious awareness.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There is a prevailing culture of PHILOSOPHY but that’s not necessarily neurological reality

                It’s a human need to say “well, my feelings are special”
                You literally can’t understand an emotion being there without being felt and i wonder how often you’ve confused yourself by having but not feeling an emotion at some point - probably way more than you think

                Each emotion is physiologically distinct, has unique brain activity associated with it, and has unique brain structures required to have it, but get this:
                All of that still works if you are totally unconscious of it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >that’s not necessarily neurological reality
                neurology tries to reduce emergence and fails

                once it stops failing it will come into agreement.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The emergent property isn’t part of neurology. You’ll never get this.

                The emotion is mechanical. Your awareness is not, and people can tell because they can only take your word for it. Your awareness has less to do with biology and more to do with why an electron can pass through something it shouldn’t have because we believe it did.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The emergent property isn’t part of neurology.
                it becomes a biological problem as soon as it produces real behaviors

                if neurology refuses to accept that, we will never bridge the gap between the reality of neurology and the reality of behavior. Scientists don't get to dismiss reality just because it doesn't have a convenient mechanical explanation. In fact those are the parts of reality scientists are most interested in.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s not a biological problem, it’s a physics problem with implications for biology. Learn to keep up.

                Also learn to separate science from adjacent philosophical debates in the same field. You don’t stop being angry because your entire body is going through the motions of anger. You’re unconscious but angry. You don’t stop feeling pain when you are reacting to it by every measurable way with your higher mind absent. This is a very possible state. It just requires you to expand your definition of yourself beyond a region of the brain shitting words into imaginary ears. Maybe then you will gain some idea of how animals think and feel and why damn near every mammal has emotions familiar to us, and most importantly, ones the experience of you can not comprehend and can hardly measure properly and thus slap a generic term on to spare yourself a sense of wonder - and guilt.

                Have you never thought of how many “human emotions” are not actually emotions either? I don’t think you’re ready to have that conversation. You’re too limited by language. The only midwits who can get this are people who were able to develop an inner pseudosensory experience from a state of aphantasia (where unconscious you are, still conscious)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no, you made a claim. Show proof of your claim

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                or, get this:
                each emotion is a unique biological state and not having anger is like not having a specific finger, regardless of how aware your self talking CNS is of that finger (by the way, it can be very simply surgically altered to not be, and even miss out on emotions you clearly express - and have despite not knowing it)
                you are saying that a limb you cant feel isnt a limb and that an unfelt limb is something else, but its clear to everyone else you have it and it moves

                this is coincidentally one theory of how octopi may perceive (or rather, don’t) their own bodies.

                You can’t actually comprehend unconsciousness.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not interested in arguing your philosophy or semantics

                I am merely pointing out that nobody in science shares them. Thus everything you say has no consequence.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your “science” is immaterial by definition and by the reality of you just making it up and saying “go chase that goose for me”

                It’s not science. It’s philosophical debate. The material reality is your emotions are there even with your consciousness severed. An emotion and the experience of it are separate and the experience is extremely arbitrary and unprovable except by you, whether you are a person or the chinese room. What is known for sure is it is possible with or without a little brain damage for a person to show and express all signs of a unique emotion without expressing or remembering an iota of consciousness. Anesthesia frickups result in this all the time.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It’s not science. It’s philosophical debate.
                Yes
                I said it's semantics

                and I explained why the scientific definition is vastly superior to your definition by being more useful.

                try to keep up.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I told you that your “science” is so immaterial you are referring to imaginary priests and insisting that you share your opinion with very important people. You’re just being your usual narcissistic self.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >insisting that you share your opinion with very important people
                nope, I am telling you that you're the narcissist that disagrees with literally every expert alive and dead and somehow thinks that makes your opinion better.

                no curiosity, no self-awareness.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >with literally every expert alive
                literally false
                here, just the first think I grabbed from google
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6041721/
                I didn't even look at the authors or where it was published. Just the fact it exists and the references to multiple studies on animal emotions is enough to prove you're full of bullshit,

                or look even something from over 20 year agohttps://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/50/10/861/233998

                or how about this?
                https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00016-z

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                neither one states that all animals have emotions.

                neither one states that emotion doesn't require awareness.

                It’s not a biological problem, it’s a physics problem with implications for biology. Learn to keep up.

                Also learn to separate science from adjacent philosophical debates in the same field. You don’t stop being angry because your entire body is going through the motions of anger. You’re unconscious but angry. You don’t stop feeling pain when you are reacting to it by every measurable way with your higher mind absent. This is a very possible state. It just requires you to expand your definition of yourself beyond a region of the brain shitting words into imaginary ears. Maybe then you will gain some idea of how animals think and feel and why damn near every mammal has emotions familiar to us, and most importantly, ones the experience of you can not comprehend and can hardly measure properly and thus slap a generic term on to spare yourself a sense of wonder - and guilt.

                Have you never thought of how many “human emotions” are not actually emotions either? I don’t think you’re ready to have that conversation. You’re too limited by language. The only midwits who can get this are people who were able to develop an inner pseudosensory experience from a state of aphantasia (where unconscious you are, still conscious)

                >Also learn to separate science from adjacent philosophical debates in the same field.
                Since there is no scientific answer, scientists instead start with a philosophical argument.

                protip: they don't start with your empirical argument because it's useless.

                if all animals experience emotion then human behavior has no possible explanation.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Emotion doesnt require awareness

                Your idea of emotion does because you apparently can’t comprehend a lack of self awareness or you’re just a hopeless moron who lost an argument already and is appealing to imaginary experts he, the best person on earth, has intimate knowledge of (delusions of grandeur)
                You don’t really know how small and stupid we are. But if you calm down for a minute you’ll realize you’ve mistaken emotions for self control and come to the uncomfortable realization that everyone else already defined our entire experience for us.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Emotion doesnt require awareness
                again, for the fourth time, it does.
                by definition.

                it is defined by awareness
                if it lacks awareness it is not emotion.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >because, it is, ok!
                Being is possible without knowing
                Knowing is possible without being
                And the gradations in between, are frightening.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                biologists aren't even slightly frightened by the idea that a non-existent being might feel things while an existing one might not.

                it's literally the foundation of most of our science.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >non-existent being
                This phrase really exemplifies your errors. You can not comprehend unconsciousness. It’s where you draw the line of existence and you are clearly so confused you’ll forever miss out on valuable information.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                reverse it

                consciousness is empirically non-existent. Ironically enough unconsciousness is far easier to measure.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >an atheist pseud with preconceptions and secular morals based on intelligence rankings would come up with some dumb shit like “NOOOO U NEEDS THA LANGUAGE TO FEEL HAPPY”
          moron. I was the original poster and I'm an atheist.
          The whole idea of animals have no emotions is religion based, coming from the notion that god made man in his image and animals are just tools to serve him

          >One doesn't need to understand feelings to feel them.
          a definition no scientist agrees with

          >an unbiased scientist would agree. anyone who remembers being a child would agree.
          no true scotsman

          the fact that scientists don't agree with you indicates there's some information you're not considering that they are.

          it does not imply that you know more than scientists.

          >a definition no scientist agrees with
          source?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Religion is one bias
            There are also religions that assume animals are actually humans in limited bodies
            There’s also the secular moral code based on the IQ cult - “these animals are nonhuman persons, these animals are fair game”. These people really like the mirror test because it is accurate in convenient ways, by favoring animals that are close to humans, or charismatic to them. It really falls apart, however, when you ask if an ant is really self aware, or if a modem that can output its own mac address is.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              those biases are religious in origin, in the west culture is heavily shaped by religious thinking, even people who aren't religious themselves end up internalizing some ideas or concepts.
              Sure, there are other biases as well, but that anon who starts screaming about atheists just comes off as an idiot

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The intellect cult isn’t based on religion. It implicitly classified some animals as “other people”. Watch out for those guys who say “sentient beings”, and i shudder as i say this - “harkness test”

                Unless you think heinlein was some kind of prophet and the amorphous new agey cultural complex is a religion? It has definite origins in mid 20th century scifi and is pushed by people who grew up reading it, using its terminology.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ah yes those homies who think the real star trek is here at home and we already made first contact with the vulcans when we discovered resident orca
                they even have the uss enterprise and the prime directive
                >no interfere with monke!

                i wish this was a joke because it sounds like one but people really think earth is actually a scifi novel and we are not alone here. conveniently it allows them to justify eating a chicken and putting down their cat without making one single reference to any established religion.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The intellect cult isn’t based on religion
                no, what I'm saying is that they've internalized some values and cultural aspects of abrahamic religions, specifically that humans and animals are 2 completely separate things, so even if they aren't consciously acting on the basis of religion their fundamental understanding of reality is still colored by the culture they grew up with, and then they use post-hoc knowledge to rationalize their beliefs in other ways.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then how do they classify a fricking dolphin as a person smartypants? It’s sci fi inspired wanderlust coping with being stuck at home
                >aliens where?
                >oh i know, we have intelligent life here!
                >time to get all capn kirk with this fish
                And so they gave a dolphin LSD and handjobs

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you're too caught up in whatever imaginary debate you are having with other people, to me it looks like you're just throwing words around.
                try to make some order in your thoughts and put them in a coherent and logical manner

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >these animals are nonhuman persons, these animals are fair game
              Makes sense though. A chicken is not the same as a man. This is a valuation that most humans make intutively. Until an animal can develop nuclear bombs they are morally and physicaly not equatable to humans

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      starfish don't

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i hate this shitty design jw gave to the raptors

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Depends what you mean by “emotions”. Do you consider the urge to eat, sleep and frick “emotions”?

      I think the blue is kind of cool

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Do you consider the urge to eat, sleep and frick “emotions”?
        ultimately it doesn't matter what someone who isn't publishing scholarly research on emotions thinks the definition of emotions is.

        Wauf often comes up with views that nobody in the real world accepts, and these views simply don't matter. Usually the views are arguments from ignorance, and are thus ignored.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Go look at how cranes and hawks behave. Ancient raptors are somewhere inbetween them. We know this from fossilized tracks and nests. They couldn't have been all that much unlike some modern birds, because the behavior requires the intelligence and social drive. It's like observing bone layouts and being able to tell how something had to have walked.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All animals are as smart as humans, they just express it differently.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Birds only have very basic/primitive emotions so I doubt the dinosaurs had more than that if any.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *