Does my dog love me ?

[Gillianren]

Nonsense. Pain is a physical sensation, and merely tracking the animals' nerves proves that one wrong. We don't have a physical explanation for love.

[Swift]

Our cat Maki is in her spot on my lap as I read this thread, which seems appropriate.

As others have said, we (and I) don't know and probably never will. But most of the cats and the one dog that have been part of my family have displayed behaviors of bonding and attachment that I think are best described as love.

“A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself.”
Josh Billings (American Humorist, 1818-1885)

[kevin1981]

Swift, your computer table looks to be in a state of high Entropy !

[Swift]

Swift, your computer table looks to be in a state of high Entropy !

I know where everything is.....

The cat did it....

OK, I'm just a slob.

[kevin1981]

I know where everything is.....

haha organized chaos

[Jim]

“A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself.”
Josh Billings (American Humorist, 1818-1885)

Interesting that you should quote this. I make the dog adoption flyer for our group, and that's the heading on it.

The individual flyers have something similar, "Adopt me and I will love you forever." Don't know who said that one first. (Oh, if you click that link, the dogs don't really write that stuff. I just imagine what they'd say if they could.)

[starcanuck64]

Our cat Maki is in her spot on my lap as I read this thread, which seems appropriate.

She's a beauty...

[Goldstone]

Nonsense. Pain is a physical sensation, and merely tracking the animals' nerves proves that one wrong. We don't have a physical explanation for love.

Yes we do. They are called hormones.

[Goldstone]

The hormone responsible for our kind of love is oxytocin.

[Gillianren]

We don't know that for sure, actually.

[HenrikOlsen]

The hormone responsible for our kind of love is oxytocin.

So what's doing it at times other than childbirth?

[Swift]

A related question, did an elephant love a dog? LINK

The Elephant Sanctuary south of Nashville is more than 2,000 acres of elephreedom. But for this resident, named Tarra -- there's not enough room in Tennessee to escape the bad news she got last week.

Rob Atkinson, Sanctuary CEO, said of Tarra "Certainly her whole demeanor changed...she became more reserved, quieter, she was depressed."

All the symptoms you'd expect to see in someone who lost a good friend...which is exactly what happened.

For nearly a decade, Tarra had been best friends with a dog named Bella. A dog who wandered onto the sanctuary grounds and into the heart of this gentle giant.

Tara clearly loved her little dog, and Bella obviously bonded right back.

They were so close, in fact, that when Bella got injured a few years ago and had to spend three weeks recuperating in the Sanctuary Office, guess who held vigil the entire time? 22-hundred acres to roam free, and Tarra just stood in the corner - waiting. The home video of their reunion shows how inseparable they'd become -- and remained, right to the end.

[Goldstone]

We don't know that for sure, actually.

The brain responds to all sort of stimuli. I know this as a biological fact and love is yet another emotion caused by a physical stimulus. Period.

[tnjrp]

So what's doing it at times other than childbirth?

Recent research seem to indicate that oxytocin's role is far more important than that of a mere "child-care faciliator". It may have started out that way of course back in the history of evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

We do know a good deal about what our bodies do when we experience love. However there is always the possibility that Real Love is something else than an emergent form of chemistry interpreted in the brain. So despite animals having similar chemical reactions as us one can always argue that they don't experience love at the phenomenal level although they display affection at the access level. Similary they feel pain but it can be argued they don't suffer.

[Goldstone]

Recent research seem to indicate that oxytocin's role is far more important than that of a mere "child-care faciliator". It may have started out that way of course back in the history of evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

We do know a good deal about what our bodies do when we experience love. However there is always the possibility that Real Love is something else than an emergent form of chemistry interpreted in the brain. So despite animals having similar chemical reactions as us one can always argue that they don't experience love at the phenomenal level although they display affection at the access level. Similary they feel pain but it can be argued they don't suffer.

Indeed.

[Noclevername]

However there is always the possibility that Real Love is something else than an emergent form of chemistry interpreted in the brain.

There's always the possibility, but there's not the evidence.

This thread has gone from "do dogs love" to "do humans love". It would be nice to think that we're somehow special and "above" other animals, but unless it's backed up by some evidence it's just speculation.

[tnjrp]

Those who subscribe to the "hard problem of consciousness" would likely claim there is no evidence that emotions are produced by chemistry. The problems with discussing consciousness (C) in general specifically arise from this lack of definite bridging evidence from access C to phenomenal C, to use the simple two-field division of the types of C. The hole in the evidence is easily big enough for philosophers (at the more respectable end of the spectrum) to drive a huge truck full of deep - or deepity - thinking about thinking (and emoting) through.

So the question is indeed, "what are emotions really?"

[Goldstone]

Those who subscribe to the "hard problem of consciousness" would likely claim there is no evidence that emotions are produced by chemistry. The problems with discussing consciousness (C) in general specifically arise from this lack of definite bridging evidence from access C to phenomenal C, to use the simple two-field division of the types of C. The hole in the evidence is easily big enough for philosophers (at the more respectable end of the spectrum) to drive a huge truck full of deep - or deepity - thinking about thinking (and emoting) through.

So the question is indeed, "what are emotions really?"

To me, emotions are simply, conscious reaction to physiological stimulation of electrical signals interpreted by the brain, orchestrated by complex chemical reactions.

[Gillianren]

The brain responds to all sort of stimuli. I know this as a biological fact and love is yet another emotion caused by a physical stimulus. Period.

The first half is a biological fact. The second half is yet to be determined, and you can't make it a fact by pairing it with something that is.

[Goldstone]

The first half is a biological fact. The second half is yet to be determined, and you can't make it a fact by pairing it with something that is.

Rubbish. All of it is biological.

[starcanuck64]

Like strings I think love is still a philosophical issue not a scientific one. Does my pet love me, if you interpret it that way then who's to say you're wrong.

All I know is some of the animals I've been fortunate to know have shown what I can only interpret as love.

[Goldstone]

Like strings I think love is still a philosophical issue not a scientific one. Does my pet love me, if you interpret it that way then who's to say you're wrong.

All I know is some of the animals I've been fortunate to know have shown what I can only interpret as love.

My heart strings do.

[starcanuck64]

My heart strings do.

do what?

Love by it's very nature is subjective, not objective. And until we get to the point where we can determine in extremely fine detail the thought processes of individuals then all we're doing in trying to describe love is use a very blunt instrument on something that in biological terms is highly refined.

[Goldstone]

do what?

Love by it's very nature is subjective, not objective. And until we get to the point where we can determine in extremely fine detail the thought processes of individuals then all we're doing in trying to describe love is use a very blunt instrument on something that in biological terms is highly refined.

I don't know any more...

I am so not coping right now.

[Gillianren]

Our current understanding of brain chemistry is very primitive. It's entirely possible we'll be able to work out what chemicals produce "love," "hate," and so on (why assume only love is physical?), but it's also possible that at least some of it will turn out to be as much a learned response as anything else.

[transreality]

So who is learning it from what? So it possible not to learn this capacity? any evidence?

if we do it, and dogs do it then it is a behaviour inherited from before our common ancestor.

Encouraging the reader to 'love' a character is a common trick in literature, generally it stems from an urge to protect...

[starcanuck64]

Dogs and cats have been bred for thousands of years to be part of human societies, as a result they've taken on some of our attributes. Wild cats don't vocalize like domestic cats do, the theory being some cats could mimic the sounds made by human babies making them more appealing to their owners and less likely to be turfed out. Dogs have been bred to live and work closely with people and in recent times to fill the role of companions.

A girlfriend of mine had several dogs when we met including a Husky-Wolf cross. It was independent, intelligent and fiercely loyal but I'm not sure I'd describe it as loving. The Border Collie she adopted after the wolf cross died however couldn't stand to be apart from people and was constantly seeking and giving attention.

[transreality]

Maybe learning to love humans is something learnt from humans, but, these animals and many others would appear to love their offspring, including badgers, whales and cheetahs that have never been domesticated. Do mouth-brooding fishes and spiders devoured by their young yearn to protect their offspring at cost to themselves; most likely.

[Bammard]

Discussion was really interesting about the intentional behaviours of pets. But let me ask another funny quest.
Hope everyone won't mind.
We can see that every pet has a relation with its owner and there is not doubt. Dogs, cats, parrots and other pets
recognize their owner. Whats about the hens and chickens?
I never observe this quality in them honestly. !

[primummobile]

Discussion was really interesting about the intentional behaviours of pets. But let me ask another funny quest.
Hope everyone won't mind.
We can see that every pet has a relation with its owner and there is not doubt. Dogs, cats, parrots and other pets
recognize their owner. Whats about the hens and chickens?
I never observe this quality in them honestly. !

I think this stuff requires a certain level of intelligence. Having grown up on a farm, I can tell you that chickens are about the stupidest animals on the face of the planet. Surprisingly, (or maybe not) goats and hogs are as intelligent as a dog, if not more so.

Dogs are the only non-primate animal that immediately looks to the left side of a person's face to see what our mood is. Dogs are very perceptive of our emotions, and it's difficult to believe that they don't have emotions of their own. When I'm sad my dog knows it immediately and she is all over me, crying and trying to lick my face. I don't think any land animals outside of primates and maybe elephants have any ability to feel complex emotions like shame or vengefulness. But I'm sure that most of them feel some form of simple emotions. That includes love.