Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Big Fella on March 28, 2011 at 6:16am

"what exactly is the biological benefit for these emotions?"

 

Perhaps that we don't kill and eat those animals that are beneficial to us? Dogs, sheep, cats, goats, rabbits etc. can be useful for humans up until the time where we have eaten them. Perhaps the emotional attachment allows us to choose the best possible moment to kill (or not to kill) the animal.

 

I have a rabbit at home, although I think he's quite cute and cuddly I can't really say that I love him. I need to form an emotional bond with the animal before that happens. I don't stop to think much about whether or not this is normal, abnormal, good or bad, it just is. Emotional attachments are usually just that, attachments based upon emotion, all the rest is just guesswork I suppose.

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on March 28, 2011 at 12:12pm

It might just be our brains 'think' other animals are replacement for humans but I wonder: what exactly is the biological benefit for these emotions?

 

TB, your question seems to indicate to me that you're seeking an answer as to why we would form these bonds, as if you are assuming there was a direct benefit to them. I don't think that is the case. First, we need to examine what emotions are.

 

Emotions are physical responses to our engagement with the world. When something frightens us, we have a physical response, such as increased heart rate, opening of the blood vessels in the skin, dilation of the pupils, opening of the mouth and sometimes a vocalization, and sometimes even release of the sphincters which control our bladder and bowels. There are many different stages on the scale, but we all understand what it means to be afraid. Our engagement with the environment creates a physical response, these responses are emotions.

 

Feelings are our purely subjective experience of emotions, and these will vary from person to person, though there are certainly many commonalities. Some people HATE being frightened, while others kind of like it and may watch scary movies because of it, or take on daring acts such as skydiving.

 

When we engage the world around us, we can't help but have emotional responses. Take for example your coworkers at a new job. You don't know these people at all, but in no time you start building emotional responses to them. You may like them, hate them, trust them, loath them, or whatever -- but in one way or another you are going to build these emotional responses.

 

For this reason, we can't help but create emotional responses to the animals we engage as well. We touch them, feed them, bathe them, medicate them, etc. This is why we have emotional ties to them.

 

We even build emotional bonds with inanimate objects, such as a family heirloom or a prized car.

 

So, in the end there is no specific reason why we form emotional attachments to animals, not in the sense that there must have been an evolutionary benefit to that traight in particular. I think of it more of a by-product of our emotional selves.

Permalink Reply by T A A on March 28, 2011 at 3:15pm

Yes indeed emotional responses can be quite physically disabling, but you forget to mention that a majority of emotions which lead to physical emotional responses are actually 'intellectual' emotions. Some people puke when they see blood, but most don't. The response is biological but the instigation emotion is totally intellectual/societal/conditioned. Many allergies and asthma have also been evidenced to be physical responses to 'intellectual'/conditioned emotions. A lot of what neuroscience and evolutionary psychology are researching these days is attempting to blur the line between biological causation and learned causation. And unfortunately their blurring of the linguistics of these areas is detrimental to effective communications.

 

I think your analogy with our love and emotional bonds with inanimate objects is absolutely perfect! (including money and societal comforts :)

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on March 28, 2011 at 3:32pm

Yes indeed emotional responses can be quite physically disabling

 

Yes, but don't take my example (of fear) to mean that I only meant to imply that they were disabling. I was just choosing one in order to describe the physical reactions. Indeed, different emotions created different physical responses, which is how we distinguish one from the other.

 

The response is biological but the instigation emotion is totally intellectual/societal/conditioned.

 

As I understand it, emotions are purely physical and biological. I think what you are describing here are feelings -- our subjective experience of emotions -- which can indeed by shaped by thought or culture, and expectation, too.

Permalink Reply by T A A on March 28, 2011 at 6:25pm

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary... one can affect emotions through thought processes, it is the entire basis for counselling people who suffer from various "emotional' problems, doing 'happy' things can actually make you 'happier'. Being depressed is not a 'feeling' it is an emotion, a state of mind, where the intellectual can affect the physical. But a debate on the semantics of the words is not really worth it...

 

My point is that the intellectual affects the physical.

 

Taking an opposite example than fear... Some women can even give themselves a physical orgasm without any physical stimulus, and some people have orgasms in their dreams, without physical stimulation. Thoughts affect biology, not reliably, not always, but they have that capacity. The emotion is not the orgasm, the emotion is the state of mind that the person places themselves in to achieve the orgasm, with intent.

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on March 28, 2011 at 6:47pm

The response is biological but the instigation emotion is totally intellectual

 

I think I misread you a bit, because you did say that the response was biological, which was what I was emphasizing too.

 

But a debate on the semantics of the words is not really worth it...

 

I think it is not just semantics. I think those who study this stuff for a living make those distinctions quite clearly. I could be wrong, of course.

 

and some people have orgasms in their dreams, without physical stimulation.

 

But is the biology driving the dreams, or the dreams driving the biology? In other words, to teen boys have wet dreams beause the hormones are driving the dreams, or because the dreams are driving the arousal. I think the former is likely true.

Permalink Reply by T A A on March 29, 2011 at 3:18am

well, ok, pubescent boys might not have been the best example! :)

Permalink Reply by T A A on March 28, 2011 at 2:34pm

In early humanity we kept certain animals to help in the hunt and later on they became status symbols. It's only the last few centuries that pets have come about. Pets "just for the fun of it" is a completely modern societal concept. I think you are on the dot with the replacement theory. We humans have a fundamental need for intimacy, and when humans can't fill that gap in our life, we replace it with animals. But animal intimacy is but a projection of our intimate feelings onto them. We can imagine they are 'thinking' anything we'd like them to be thinking. The biological part of your question is not grounded tho. Pets have have only been trinkets in recent years, they used to have an actual use, and when their function was utilitarian, the "relationship" was entirely different. So there's no "biological" issue at stake here, it's entirely sociological.

Permalink Reply by Lara Kearns on March 28, 2011 at 8:12am

I agree.  I love my animals more than some people love their children.  If I hear or see an animal abuse situation it ruins my entire day/week since thats all i think about that entire week/day.

Permalink Reply by Richard Raymond on March 28, 2011 at 9:40am

When I came across your post it caught my eye right away. I'm 62, male and retired. But I totally agree with you about animals. Having been through two divorces, a ten year relationship and several other shorter ones, I've come to the conclusion that I am an out and out animal lover. I've never been hurt or deceived by an animal and the pets I've had have all been great companions....which is more than I can say for most people I've encountered.

Permalink Reply by T A A on March 28, 2011 at 3:02pm

Because saving an animal is easy, saving humanity is such a grand task ;p   So we take the easy path. The 'system' we live in is one of domination of the few rich over the many poor. To make little children not starve one has to fight the 'system'. And most people are not inclined to this, most people are fighting to preserve their own little comforts. Animal love is completely non-threatening and easy and allows us to preserve our little comforts. Well ok, except for the crazy old cat ladies who's life is eventually ruined by cat feces overtaking their home... :(

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on March 28, 2011 at 3:04pm

+1

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page