Animal minds: The case for emotion, based on neuroscience

Q3 Psychology
O. Turnbull, Anna-Lorena Bär
{"title":"Animal minds: The case for emotion, based on neuroscience","authors":"O. Turnbull, Anna-Lorena Bär","doi":"10.1080/15294145.2020.1848611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Do non-human animals have minds? This scientific question, with important ethical implications, can be answered differently depending on the criteria used: in particular, whether we conceptualise animal minds through the lens of intelligence, or of feelings. This paper surveys the animal minds literature, and related philosophical issues. We review four core components of mind (consciousness, affective valence, agency, and intelligence), and their neurobiology. We survey current scientific evidence for language, tool use, problem-solving, theory of mind, self-awareness, and the behavioural and neuroscientific aspects of emotion. In overview: some animal species have fairly impressive intellectual abilities, but these are found only in a few species, often only in some species members, and only after substantial practice. Therefore, if mind is defined strictly by intelligence, then most non-human animals might be argued not to have minds. However, this paper argues that intelligence is a poor proxy for mind, and that we are better placed to debate the case for mind based on emotion. Viewed this way, there is evidence from a vast array of vertebrate species, where emotion is universal within those species, with none of the practice needed for intelligence. Jeremy Bentham was indeed correct when he pointed out that the critical issue is not merely the evidence, but the question of how we frame our thinking about non-human animals: are we to decide about animals based on their rationality, or on their capacity for feeling?","PeriodicalId":39493,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychoanalysis","volume":"22 1","pages":"109 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15294145.2020.1848611","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychoanalysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15294145.2020.1848611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Do non-human animals have minds? This scientific question, with important ethical implications, can be answered differently depending on the criteria used: in particular, whether we conceptualise animal minds through the lens of intelligence, or of feelings. This paper surveys the animal minds literature, and related philosophical issues. We review four core components of mind (consciousness, affective valence, agency, and intelligence), and their neurobiology. We survey current scientific evidence for language, tool use, problem-solving, theory of mind, self-awareness, and the behavioural and neuroscientific aspects of emotion. In overview: some animal species have fairly impressive intellectual abilities, but these are found only in a few species, often only in some species members, and only after substantial practice. Therefore, if mind is defined strictly by intelligence, then most non-human animals might be argued not to have minds. However, this paper argues that intelligence is a poor proxy for mind, and that we are better placed to debate the case for mind based on emotion. Viewed this way, there is evidence from a vast array of vertebrate species, where emotion is universal within those species, with none of the practice needed for intelligence. Jeremy Bentham was indeed correct when he pointed out that the critical issue is not merely the evidence, but the question of how we frame our thinking about non-human animals: are we to decide about animals based on their rationality, or on their capacity for feeling?
动物心智:基于神经科学的情感案例
摘要非人类动物有头脑吗?这个具有重要伦理意义的科学问题,可以根据所使用的标准得到不同的答案:特别是,我们是通过智力还是情感的视角来概念化动物的思想。本文对动物心理文学及其相关的哲学问题进行了综述。我们回顾了心智的四个核心组成部分(意识、情感效价、能动性和智力)及其神经生物学。我们调查了语言、工具使用、解决问题、心理理论、自我意识以及情绪的行为和神经科学方面的最新科学证据。概述:一些动物物种具有相当令人印象深刻的智力能力,但这些能力只在少数物种中发现,通常只在某些物种成员中发现,并且只有经过大量实践。因此,如果心智是由智力严格定义的,那么大多数非人类动物可能会被认为没有心智。然而,这篇论文认为,智力是心智的一个糟糕的代表,我们更适合讨论基于情感的心智。从这个角度来看,有来自大量脊椎动物物种的证据表明,情感在这些物种中是普遍的,没有智力所需的实践。杰里米·边沁(Jeremy Bentham)指出,关键问题不仅仅是证据,而是我们如何看待非人类动物的问题:我们是根据动物的理性还是根据它们的感受能力来决定动物?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuropsychoanalysis
Neuropsychoanalysis Psychology-Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信