www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Felix wrote:Hi Susie,

I am not being rude, but this is just fanciful. Your sentence is loaded with human emotive responses to a series of experiences that we would expect to be thoroughly enjoyable. The butterfly needs warmth in order for it to biologically function. Butterflies do not perceive flowers to be beautiful. They do not posses the ability to react to them in such a way. Butterflies do not taste sweetness - they do not have taste buds as we would understand them or the thought processes to 'think' "hmmm this nectar tastes goood". You have fallen into the trap of allowing the insect to experience human emotions. Butterflies are simply reacting to a series of stimuli that trigger a reactive response.

Felix.

Just to clear up a couple of points. I didn't say that a butterfly would perceive a flower was "beautiful". I do not think butterflies can think. I think butterflies can feel.

Guy,

I think your view is totally beautiful

Eris

I have often seen a butterfly's response to well being that might be perceived as pleasure. A peacock basking in the sun will often wave its wings slowly, as if to suggest that it feels good. OK, it could be responding to temperature stimulus because it is too hot or too cold but in those cases it usually reacts totally differently. Too hot, it closes its wings and faces the sun to present the smallest surface to it. Too cold it opens them to face the sun full on.
Also, watch a common blue feeding. It often rubs its wings together whilst doing so, as if to say, "This nectar really hits the spot!" If it's a male, It could be working double time, rubbing its wings together to release pheronomes to attract a female, but I like to think that it is a primitive expression of contentment.

I think we have come back to the basic argument here - a similar question as to why birds sing? Because they can, seems to be the answer!
Whether they sing because they "enjoy the sun" on a beautiful morning or simply as a response to the sun coming up, no one can prove one way or the other! So for the romantics, we could say to "Greet the dawn"; for the rationalists, "a conditioned response to a change in light"

NickB wrote:I think we have come back to the basic argument here - a similar question as to why birds sing? Because they can, seems to be the answer!
Whether they sing because they "enjoy the sun" on a beautiful morning or simply as a response to the sun coming up, no one can prove one way or the other! So for the romantics, we could say to "Greet the dawn"; for the rationalists, "a conditioned response to a change in light"

The problem is, precisely the same applies to other people too. They report subjective, emotional states like pleasure &c. but their speech is, in the end, merely a behavioural manifestation, subject to interpretation and interpolation. The only rationally consistent attitude towards others (of any species) is the loneliness of solipsism. For myself, I find solipsism undermines my basic engagement with the universe around me and I prefer to take a few irrational moral risks. Those include ascribing emotional existence to my non-human friends and trying as hard as I can to understand their emotional existence. Sleeping every night with a cat in my bed and a dog by my side gives me the edge on quite a lot of theoreticians in this respect!!

Guy

[quote]They report subjective, emotional states like pleasure &c. but their speech is, in the end, merely a behavioural manifestation, subject to interpretation and interpolation. The only rationally consistent attitude towards others (of any species) is the loneliness of solipsism. For myself, I find solipsism undermines my basic engagement with the universe around me and I prefer to take a few irrational moral risks. Those include ascribing emotional existence to my non-human friends and trying as hard as I can to understand their emotional existence[/quote]

Thats easy for you to say..............

True, saying it is easy!! Living it is slightly harder - I've been vegan for 25 years, don't drive and don't use medicine of any kind (because of animal testing). But it's worth it. My dog loves me. Not sure about the cat, but he does purr a lot.

The simple truth is that engagment with others requires imagination, not just reason. Where there is imagination there is the possibility of being wrong. But where there is no imagination... well, don't go there.

Guy

Interesting... Why does solipsism have to be the only alternative to ascribing emotional existence to my non-human friends? Talk about two extremes!

What ever happened to a reasoned approach based upon current scientific thinking? I just can't accept that simply because something is a bit lovely that it has to have an emotional existence or some idea of enjoyment. Do tape worms enjoy their meals? do they have a nasty streak? and what about that little nematode that burrow into African Children's eyeballs and causes blindness? does it feel no guilt or shame...?!

padfield wrote:[The problem is, precisely the same applies to other people too. Guy

Hang on, I thought we were talking of ascribing feelings to butterflies or birds, not humans,
who do convey emotions by a variety of means, not just vocal...

The point about solipsism is purely that the ascription of subjective states to any other creature, human or non-human, involves something of a leap of faith, generally mediated by instinct, language, analogy and empathy. Pure objective empirical and logical reasoning can't lift you out of the morass of solipsism. That's not just my view - it is a widely held philosophical position - probably the predominant philosophical position, though there are still a few freaky Cartesians around who would contest it! Once you've broken the barrier and begun admitting the subjective existence of others, including emotional states where appropriate (subjectivity does not necessarily imply emotional states), it is highly irrational (and I would say indefensible) to stop at Homo sapiens.

That's all I wanted to say, really. Like Felix, I don't regard tapeworms as having emotions (though I still respect them by default). But the dogma that we can't talk about emotion in any other species than humans is just foolish, humanist nonsense! Down with Descartes, long live Darwin!! That's what I say. Emotion didn't begin 200 thousand years ago with modern humans - it's been around for a great deal longer than that.

If anyone wants a real philosophical debate on this (because this is a butterfly forum and not really the place!) I'd be delighted to engage in an exchange of e-mails!!

Guy

It seems a shame to take this discussion off the board, Guy. I'd love to know more of your point of view (as long as no one objects, of course).

Thanks Susie! When it comes to moral judgments, I really do think compassion, imagination and common sense trump philosophy and science (and, dare I say it, most religion) any day! Philosophers have made some tragic errors (like the evil Descartes, whose teachings that all non-human animals were senseless automata were used to justify the most horrific vivisection without anaesthetic). Nevertheless, I would find it an interesting exercise to compress some of my writings on moral philosophy into an essay on anthropomorphism and post a link to it here. Full arguments are better than one-liners in debates like this. I'll probably do that tomorrow morning. No promises, because it's my birthday today and my dog and I are sharing a barrel of beer (she doesn't drink).

Guy

padfield wrote:... because it's my birthday today and my dog and I are sharing a barrel of beer (she doesn't drink). Guy

Happy Birthday, Guy!

Bryan

Happy Birthday Guy!

padfield wrote:Thanks Susie! When it comes to moral judgments, I really do think compassion, imagination and common sense trump philosophy and science (and, dare I say it, most religion) any day! Philosophers have made some tragic errors (like the evil Descartes, whose teachings that all non-human animals were senseless automata were used to justify the most horrific vivisection without anaesthetic). Nevertheless, I would find it an interesting exercise to compress some of my writings on moral philosophy into an essay on anthropomorphism and post a link to it here. Full arguments are better than one-liners in debates like this. I'll probably do that tomorrow morning. No promises, because it's my birthday today and my dog and I are sharing a barrel of beer (she doesn't drink).

Guy

Happy birthday Guy - and I look forward to reading what I am sure will be an informative essay!

Cheers,

- Pete

Happy Birthday (for yesterday) Guy..!

I too look forward to reading your essay, but it would be good to keep the thread on topic. Going back to the original debate; I take it that you will be firmly grounding your suppositions in an insects physiological and neurological make up, you will be citing evidence that can point to the elements of an insects micro/neuro biology that suggest an ability to experience emotions such as enjoyment and happiness.

No one is arguing that mammals such as dogs, dolphins, tigers and mice don't exhibit clear emotional responses, after all, they have brains and a nervous system as we would recognise them. It was the concept of a butterfly, beetle, a book louse, sheep tick (an arachnid) or indeed any insect 'feeling good' that sparked the debate....

Felix.

Thanks for the birthday greetings, all!

I had a late start this morning but I did begin penning an essay and it will be posted on my website in due course, linked from here. It deals with both ends of the spectrum, from higher mammals to insects (and beyond), because the 'don't anthropomorphise' dogma is widely applied to the higher mammals too. That means some of it is 'off thread' from your point of view, Felix, and you might regard it as attacking straw men, but 'what I have written, I have written' (as a certain, notorious gentleman in the past once said...).

And no, it won't cite evidence that insects have feelings &c. because no such evidence currently exists!! It does, however, discuss the philosophical significance of such evidence, and the forms it could take.

And don't expect too much! It is really little more than a polemical summary of ideas, because a morning is not quite long enough to do better than this!! You might find it interesting, or you might not, but do remember, in any comments, that I, at least, do have feelings...

Guy

Happy Birthday for yesterday Guy.

Denise

my dog and I are sharing a barrel of beer (she doesn't drink).

I hope that you also shared some dog food (that you don't eat).

I just looked up the meaning of 'solipsism'

...or perhaps I should follow Descartes advice:

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things"