[MD] Animals and Emotions Another Go-round

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Joseph]
Hi Arlo and All, I want to discuss evolution in DQ/SQ 
terms.  Imho evolution is an hierarchical order in existence.  Each 
level has its proper DQ.  At the inorganic level imho the DQ is gravity....

[Arlo]
I'd say that each level can be "defined" by the variance in agency 
patterns have at that level to respond to DQ. I don't think "gravity" 
is DQ, I think the inorganic level is (partially) defined by seeing 
"gravity" as a specific response those patterns have to DQ. In other 
words, "how are patterns able to respond to DQ?" is a basic question 
for analyzing the levels.

I'd say an atom has very little variance in its agency, its range of 
possible response to DQ is very small. As more complex inorganic 
patterns attain greater variance (a greater range of possible 
responses), we mark a radical jump in this variance by demarcating 
the emerging patterns as "biological".

[Joseph]
Emotions are always dynamic and undefined.

[Arlo]
I'd agree that emotions precede rationality, but I'd say this is 
because of emotions biological foundation. At high enough levels of 
biological complexity, a neural-physiology will respond to certain 
experience(s) by flooding the biological patten with adrenaline. This 
occurs seemingly "instantly" before any symbolic manipulation or 
review of the experience can be formulated. Often, the 
physiologically induced "fear" will occur without an intelligent 
redescription of the "reason" possible.

On that level I'd say that, prior to more sophisticated 
socio-intellectual inculcation, emotions experienced by (sufficiently 
complex biological) animals tend towards the "rough". Humans, and to 
some degree sufficiently socially-mediating animals such as apes, 
dolphins or dogs, are able to experience a wider range of emotions, 
and also a greater subtle or "shade" of each emotion. This is because 
of the assimilation of a shared history that then informs how 
particular experiences are responded to, even on the 
bio-physiological side. (I do think there is social->biological 
feedback wherein the lower patterns are actually effected by the 
higher patterns).

I remember once watching a dog react to its mother's death. It had 
been circling the room nervously, crying, and stopping to lay down 
next to his mother, licking  her at times. It was obviously 
distressed. If this isn't "emotion", and is just some clockwork 
physiological wiring, then how can you say that watching the distress 
of a human as its parent dies is anything other than this as well? 
How can you attribute the distress of a human in this situation to 
"consciousness", but to this dog its just something like an 
input-output predictable biological function; emotionless and consciousless?

Like I said, I don't think all biological organisms experience 
"emotion", or even experience it to the same degree, or with the same 
variance. Before a certainly level of biological complexity in 
neuro-physiology is reached, emotion may not be possible (say among 
ants, or goldfish). And once that threshold is breeched, and emotion 
is possible, it begins as very rough and very un-nuanced. As even 
more biological complexity is met, and these organisms start 
mediating their experiences socially (and later intellectually), 
greater depth and variance of emotion becomes possible.