Can insects feel pain, or have emotions?
- Thread starter frogwoman
- Start date
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
'I am a strange loop' by Douglas Hofstader deals a bit with this.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Well the book itself asks the question of how can Consciousness, an 'I', come into existence out of nothing.
It is in the prologue he asks whether other lifeforms have consciousness as we do.
We can probably all agree that a tomato does not have a conscious mind, and does not feel pain as we do.
He argues there seems to be a sliding scale, from tomatoes, mosquitoes, guinea pigs, pigs, dogs, humans etc. Different sized 'Souls' or 'I'. (for want of a better term!).
He even argues for Humans with different sized 'Souls' or 'I's
Anyway, it is all about being 'self referential' or a strange loop, and what we able to percieve.
Consider a Mosquito. What kind of representation of the outside world (outside of itself) does it have?
Does a Mosquito divide the external world into mental catergories like "chair", "curtain", "wall", "ceiling", "Dog" etc etc?
In other words does a mosquitoes brain incorporate symbols for such relatively hight abstractions?
It seems pretty unlikely. A mosquito would only need catergories such as "potential source of food" and "potential place to land", and it may also be aware of "potential threat", which might be triggered by a rapidly moving shadow or visual contrast.
It seems a mosquito would probably not be aware of itself within in the world.
Now consider a Dog. A Dog, it seems, would have a higher level of perceptual sophistication. Most would agree that pet Dogs show a range of perceptual catergories, such as "my paw, "my tail", "my food", "my water", "indoors", "outdoors", "dog door", "human door", "my little owner", "my big owner" and so on and so on.
A dog seems to have some sense of itself in the world, as it recognize, for example, its own tail when it chases it, or its own paw when it licks it clean, or something.
In any case, the emergence of this kind of reflexive symbolic structure, at whatever level of sentience it first enters the picture, constitutes the initial spark of 'I'-ness
(its all far more scientific and well argued than I am badly portraying it to be - Apologies to Douglas Hofstader for butchering his ideas).
So my answer to your question is that, No insects would probably not feel pain, as they would (generally speaking) not even be aware they exist in the world.
It is in the prologue he asks whether other lifeforms have consciousness as we do.
We can probably all agree that a tomato does not have a conscious mind, and does not feel pain as we do.
He argues there seems to be a sliding scale, from tomatoes, mosquitoes, guinea pigs, pigs, dogs, humans etc. Different sized 'Souls' or 'I'. (for want of a better term!).
He even argues for Humans with different sized 'Souls' or 'I's
Anyway, it is all about being 'self referential' or a strange loop, and what we able to percieve.
Consider a Mosquito. What kind of representation of the outside world (outside of itself) does it have?
Does a Mosquito divide the external world into mental catergories like "chair", "curtain", "wall", "ceiling", "Dog" etc etc?
In other words does a mosquitoes brain incorporate symbols for such relatively hight abstractions?
It seems pretty unlikely. A mosquito would only need catergories such as "potential source of food" and "potential place to land", and it may also be aware of "potential threat", which might be triggered by a rapidly moving shadow or visual contrast.
It seems a mosquito would probably not be aware of itself within in the world.
Now consider a Dog. A Dog, it seems, would have a higher level of perceptual sophistication. Most would agree that pet Dogs show a range of perceptual catergories, such as "my paw, "my tail", "my food", "my water", "indoors", "outdoors", "dog door", "human door", "my little owner", "my big owner" and so on and so on.
A dog seems to have some sense of itself in the world, as it recognize, for example, its own tail when it chases it, or its own paw when it licks it clean, or something.
In any case, the emergence of this kind of reflexive symbolic structure, at whatever level of sentience it first enters the picture, constitutes the initial spark of 'I'-ness
(its all far more scientific and well argued than I am badly portraying it to be - Apologies to Douglas Hofstader for butchering his ideas).
So my answer to your question is that, No insects would probably not feel pain, as they would (generally speaking) not even be aware they exist in the world.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
frogwoman said:That's very interesting, thanksAnd its not badly argued at all - I understand exactly what you are saying
You should read the book, its fascinating!
Some interesting stuff summarising Hofstader's ideas, Dillinger4. I hadn't come across them before.
I am not sure whether some representation of the self in the world is necessary to have experiences or not, i.e. that in order to experience pain, a creature has to be able to have thoughts along the lines of 'this is happening to me'.
Insects and other creatures with simple brains face tasks in which some kind of self-representation is probably implicit, such as the formation of mental maps of their surroundings and navigational strategies like deduced reckoning. A 'you are here' arrow is always useful in finding your way around, although of course that doesn't necessarily require consciousness.
IMO consciousness is linked to learning. Its function might be to enable certain forms of learning by providing an arena in which different sensory inputs and internal stimuli such as memories can be weighted and integrated at the same time.
So a yardstick for consciousness in other animals might be what forms of learning they are capable of.
I am not sure whether some representation of the self in the world is necessary to have experiences or not, i.e. that in order to experience pain, a creature has to be able to have thoughts along the lines of 'this is happening to me'.
Insects and other creatures with simple brains face tasks in which some kind of self-representation is probably implicit, such as the formation of mental maps of their surroundings and navigational strategies like deduced reckoning. A 'you are here' arrow is always useful in finding your way around, although of course that doesn't necessarily require consciousness.
IMO consciousness is linked to learning. Its function might be to enable certain forms of learning by providing an arena in which different sensory inputs and internal stimuli such as memories can be weighted and integrated at the same time.
So a yardstick for consciousness in other animals might be what forms of learning they are capable of.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
That's also very interesting - so would a ladybird (for example) have a map in its head of where it was, going something like - "my leaf - other leaf - aphid" etc ...
The thing is I have seen insects violently struggling to get away from things like spiders - if they didn't have an awareness of what was happening this wouldnt happen surely?
The thing is I have seen insects violently struggling to get away from things like spiders - if they didn't have an awareness of what was happening this wouldnt happen surely?
frogwoman said:
Re ladybirds or other insects: it might be that whatever way-finding calculations the creature uses involve some representation of 'here' rather than 'I am here'. But even this does not have to imply that the creature is conscious of such calculations.
Struggling insects certainly look like they want to get away. But one could imagine programming a robot insect to propagate waves of vigorous activity along the body when there is a mismatch between what its eyes detect and what its legs are doing, i.e. walking but not moving forward, hence stuck, hence start wriggling as this is the way to get unstuck.
Whether insects are conscious of being stuck or caught is impossible to answer. It might just look like it because our brains are designed to think in terms of intentions when we see organisms doing certain things that imply goals: eg that wasp wants to sting me, that spider wants to climb out of the bath.
It's a great and tantalising mystery IMO.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
frogwoman I have to come back on this issue of insects feeling pain.
Many insects have their sceletons on the outside of their bodies, compared to humans who have their sceletons on the inside. Nerve endings I think do not propagate inside bone and so insects that have external sceletons do not have nerve cells on the outside of their bodies. (note this is all assumptions and may be wrong) however this does not mean that insects do not have nerve cells in their soft tissues inside their sceletons and where they may indeed feel pain.
Why however is feeling pain important. We feel a lot of things from our networks of nerve endings, we can detect heat cold breeze pressure touch liquid etc etc all sorts of things including pain. But does feeling pain benefit us greatly, it certainly serves as a warning, touch the hot pan, feel heat or burning (or do we feel pain) warns us to back away from the hot pan, so that feeling can act as a warning. But is it pain or is it a sensation of extreme heat leaving a lingering feeling of something else.
If insects do not feel pain, in the way that humans apparently do, perhaps that is somehow to their advantage.
Many insects have their sceletons on the outside of their bodies, compared to humans who have their sceletons on the inside. Nerve endings I think do not propagate inside bone and so insects that have external sceletons do not have nerve cells on the outside of their bodies. (note this is all assumptions and may be wrong) however this does not mean that insects do not have nerve cells in their soft tissues inside their sceletons and where they may indeed feel pain.
Why however is feeling pain important. We feel a lot of things from our networks of nerve endings, we can detect heat cold breeze pressure touch liquid etc etc all sorts of things including pain. But does feeling pain benefit us greatly, it certainly serves as a warning, touch the hot pan, feel heat or burning (or do we feel pain) warns us to back away from the hot pan, so that feeling can act as a warning. But is it pain or is it a sensation of extreme heat leaving a lingering feeling of something else.
If insects do not feel pain, in the way that humans apparently do, perhaps that is somehow to their advantage.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
We can only ever speculate, I am afraid.
Personally, I dont think an insect has much in the way of spatial awareness. I wouldnt say it has the concepts of 'here' or 'over there'.
Personally, I dont think an insect has much in the way of spatial awareness. I wouldnt say it has the concepts of 'here' or 'over there'.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
articul8 said:
I don't know about emotions, but I think ants will have concepts of things that could be interpreted that way.
For example, most ants will have a concept of the Queen. If the Queen is in danger, they may have reactions to protect her, or whatever.
I have no idea whether this is comparable to human emotions though.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Dillinger4 said:
Ants must have some idea of what they are doing in their lives, worker ants know to do their work, a concept of tribe or species or group, as red ants fight black ants they do not get confused, they know who the enemy is, and there must be some intelligence, perhaps quite a bit, for them to go about their organised lives.
The fact that they do not or may or probably do not have all the senses that a fully functioning human has is not really relevant, a wasp I think has only compound eyes yet they fly about and detect landing spots hover around the coca cola can etc .. the eyes are obviously fit for purpose.
Add to that, that insects live in organsied societies and they are not to be underestimated. More intelligent than a tomato, yes of course, ability to feel emotion like a human can, probably not.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
weltweit said:
Well, naturally, it would depend what you mean by 'significant' but I (as would Douglas Hofstader) would argue that a Human is.
Of course, this could purely be anthropomorphism, depending on your definition of 'significant'.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
My point I guess is that humans have this view of themselves as being the most important animal on the planet. The human way of life is now threatening the existance of many other species of animal but interestingly not the existance of things like ants.
Ants have already populated the earth and pretty much all its far flung corners, so who is living more sustainably, ants or humans? to my mind the ants win that argument, their organisation, their society if you will is sustainable across the planet, human organisation or civilisation does not seem to be superior to that of the ants, despite that humans feel emotions!
Ants have already populated the earth and pretty much all its far flung corners, so who is living more sustainably, ants or humans? to my mind the ants win that argument, their organisation, their society if you will is sustainable across the planet, human organisation or civilisation does not seem to be superior to that of the ants, despite that humans feel emotions!
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
weltweit said:
I suppose, but that just seems like the opposite side of the coin to anthropomorphism, to me.
I don't know. I would never put species in terms of 'importance' or whatever, because I don't know, there is no real scientific method of measuring such a vague term.
However, what I will argue is that, at least it seems, that humans have a larger amount of 'Consciousness' than an ant. Or else we would have observed ants performing plays and creating art and whatever.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Dillinger4 said:
Humans in most cases have managed to lift themselves above the daily hunt for food and in their then found leisure time have sought out all kinds of other things to occupy their time. Me I am not sure that "conciousness" is defined by an ability to produce or appreciate art but what I do think is that aliens studying the earth with a powerful telescope would look at human cities and would see lots of humans scurrying about their business all wearing uniforms suitable to their positions etc etc .. then the aliens would zoom in further and look at an ant heap and would see .. .. .. the same thing .. ants busily scurrying about their business to keep the ant city going.
Yes if you look into humans in the micro it is interesting that we seem to like things like art, Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests such things come when food and shelter are already taken care of, the starving do not appreciate art. Ants perhaps have not or maybe cannot rise above food and shelter and perhaps yes perhaps they would not anyhow have the ability to appreciate things other than their apparently simple but organised existence.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
weltweit said:
I disagree.
But I don't know where to start.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Dillinger4 said:
How about at the beginning
?What about this wonderful thing art that apparently seperates humans from the beasts.
What does it consist of? Well I would argue that art consists of a veritable industry of people creating things that will tempt the "already fed" and "already clothed" humans from their excess cash. The fact that humans have excess cash is, and cash in itself, a very unique property of human civilisations. Anyhow the art business is populated by producers, dealers, agents, galleries, theatres, all intending to exchange what they produce for the excess cash that groups of humans have after they have fed and clothed themsleves.
If you planted a monet and a childs watercolour on a wall in front of an Australian Aboriginals dwelling, both equally framed, what would you expect the Aboriginal to say about them both. Would you, no could you expect him to discern that the monet was worth more than the childs watercolour? Art in my opinion is learnt and taught by and to those with leisure and with more money than they need for basic survival.
So the art industry is like any other, it is striving to produce things that it can sell for money to feed and clothe itself.
Just dont ask me about comedy, I have no idea how that happenned and I doubt the ants do either
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
You are right, feeling pain doesn't have to be important, however it does serve as a general marker of "consciousness" and helps us to empathise with them. It has animal rights implcations as well - like would we be so quick to step on an ant if we knew that the ant could feel what we were doing. 'weltweit said:
And as for the whole question of art etc - yes, this is undoubtably something that probably separates us from all animals and especially insects. However, can a dog or a monkey appreciate a beautiful painting, or music? Birds can sing but their songs normally have a specific purpose such as to announce the fact that they have woken up or are looking for a mate, or just to signify happiness. I don't know if a bird can appreciate the "quality" of birds' songs in an artistic sense
Most people would agree that monkeys and other higher animals such as dogs can form attachments, etc. Can something like an ant afford to be able to appreciate art or music? Its goal is survival as there are so many different dangers out there. Humans have made our environment very safe in comparison to that of most wild animals' so we have a lot of "luxuries" that other creatures do not have. For example, we don't have to spend a large part of our day foraging for food or avoiding being killed by parasitoids.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Dillinger4 said:
You may be right. I've heard that any ladybird can only see about 3cm in front of it at the most. Does that mean that insects rely heavily on other senses, such as touch, and a sense of smell? These are very "immediate" senses if you see what i mean - you're either touching something or your not, and once you have crawled over/around it the sensation has passed.
I'm not sure most insects can form attachments although it could certainly be possible. Is it possible to think of other insects as your "friends" during a lifespan that only lasts a few weeks and probably involved a fair amount of cannibalisation during the larval stage. However I have heard that ladybirds display kin recognition - they avoid eating eggs and larvae that were part of the same batch as they. I presume the same is for other insects as well. Is this an instinct for the survival of the parents' "line" or a choice - because they will if there's nothing else to eat!
There are a lot of strange insects like scale insects which crawl around during the larval stage and then females stay immobile once they have become adults, laying eggs and sucking sap out of plants. I'm not sure what kind of an existence that is - can that be reconciled with any form of "consciousness" or even emotions? It's not any kind of life that I can understand - but are they aware of this, do they even need to be?
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Also I think the whole notion of importance for species is ... extremely difficult to quantify.
We might think that humans are the most important species, but only because we are humans. It would definitely depend on the kind of animal you were as to whether you would agree or not.
I imagine for instance that dogs would say humans were the most important species, simply because humans have the biggest impact on their lives, whether they were wild or domestic (the wild ones in terms of scavenging for food and also because of the destruction of habitats etc).
However I think that if you asked a lot of insects I reckon they would say that either wasps or ants were, because wasps and ants had the biggest effect on their lives and seemed the most "sophisticated". Could a beetle or a butterfly understand the complexicties of human life? It wouldn't have any experience of it, but it would almost certainly have knowledge about wasps, in a way that we might not.
That's a good point about intentions, btw. We do tend to view actions in terms of whether they were intended - "it WANTS to fly away", and tend not to think about mechanical instinctual reasons for things. This is probably because we have difficulty understanding the world in any other way apart from our own tbh, and we don't really have many instincts (that we know of).
We might think that humans are the most important species, but only because we are humans. It would definitely depend on the kind of animal you were as to whether you would agree or not.
I imagine for instance that dogs would say humans were the most important species, simply because humans have the biggest impact on their lives, whether they were wild or domestic (the wild ones in terms of scavenging for food and also because of the destruction of habitats etc).
However I think that if you asked a lot of insects I reckon they would say that either wasps or ants were, because wasps and ants had the biggest effect on their lives and seemed the most "sophisticated". Could a beetle or a butterfly understand the complexicties of human life? It wouldn't have any experience of it, but it would almost certainly have knowledge about wasps, in a way that we might not.
That's a good point about intentions, btw. We do tend to view actions in terms of whether they were intended - "it WANTS to fly away", and tend not to think about mechanical instinctual reasons for things. This is probably because we have difficulty understanding the world in any other way apart from our own tbh, and we don't really have many instincts (that we know of).
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Nah, I know 
I don't think butterflies would think wasps were SUPERIOR to them. I think they'd just think that wasps were more important than them in the ecosystem and also be rather scared of them - because of what wasps can do to caterpillars. I think the average butterfly would hate wasps even more than humans do to be honest.
That brings up another point - I heard that caterpillars instinctively hide on the bottom of leaves whenever wasps land on a plant. Obviously there is a capacity there for fear and recognition of a particular insect's scent or whatever. Could insects feel anger towards anything - towards a plant for not yielding any aphids/caterpillars/honeydue etc or towards a particular animal or species of animal? In other words could a butterfly think "My god I hate wasps?"
I don't think butterflies would think wasps were SUPERIOR to them. I think they'd just think that wasps were more important than them in the ecosystem and also be rather scared of them - because of what wasps can do to caterpillars.
I think the average butterfly would hate wasps even more than humans do to be honest.That brings up another point - I heard that caterpillars instinctively hide on the bottom of leaves whenever wasps land on a plant. Obviously there is a capacity there for fear and recognition of a particular insect's scent or whatever. Could insects feel anger towards anything - towards a plant for not yielding any aphids/caterpillars/honeydue etc or towards a particular animal or species of animal? In other words could a butterfly think "My god I hate wasps?"
Callie
Pivoting
ahh but if they dont have the whole memory thing going on hwo would the butterflies remember?
they dont seem to have long standing relationship with their offspring, infact their probably dead by the time their babies are born and munching on leaves
maybe thats what allows them to keep going? they dont know of undertand what predatory insects do so still make lots of babies anyway instead of giving up
they dont seem to have long standing relationship with their offspring, infact their probably dead by the time their babies are born and munching on leaves
maybe thats what allows them to keep going? they dont know of undertand what predatory insects do so still make lots of babies anyway instead of giving up
Callie
Pivoting
things to google (cos im lazy and aint typing it all put of the book!!)
sensilla - hairlike structure associated with a nerve cell for mechanoreception
they have good auditory reception via sensilla - tympanal organs may detect airborne sound
taste and smell via chemoreceptors - in ants these are on the mouth parts, bees and wasps have them on the antennae, butterflies/moths/flies have them on the legs!
some can detect odors over several kilometers
^ associated with host-parasite relations, mating, habitat selection
then i got bored of the text book
sensilla - hairlike structure associated with a nerve cell for mechanoreception
they have good auditory reception via sensilla - tympanal organs may detect airborne sound
taste and smell via chemoreceptors - in ants these are on the mouth parts, bees and wasps have them on the antennae, butterflies/moths/flies have them on the legs!
some can detect odors over several kilometers
^ associated with host-parasite relations, mating, habitat selection
then i got bored of the text book
weltweit
Well-Known Member
frogwoman said:
Yes, that is exactly my point, humans, in the industrialised west at least, have escaped the brutal cycle of the daily hunting and gathering of food. And human society has developed to permit excess of basic needs in a large part of society. Humans, being inventive creatures, have fashioned other non essential objects to tempt people to part with their excess cash and this industry is art and all that surrounds it. The art industry is unlike any other, it trains its targets from an early age to appreciate finer works and to see and agree to their value, there is no intrinsic worth to any Picasso sketch except that a large group of humans has been persuaded that it has great value and they have agreed.
At present it appears that humans are the only species on the planet that has escaped this daily need to hunt and forage for food and thus is also the only species who has developed activities to take up this extra leisure time and excess value that the society has created.
Humans are industrious, like ants, they cannot just sit still and enjoy the sunset, hence the feverish scutting about, frantic production, buying selling and activity that is the art industry. Totally unnecessary yet pursued with all the vigor of any activity that humans take part in.
Busy busy creatures humans, like ants.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Callie said:surely the best way to be is to think that your species is superior?? if you have sentient thought thats a very negative position to put yourself in 'im a butterfly but like that wasp, hes way cooler than me'
But are humans superior to anything, how, why, in what significant way are humans superior to anything else?
Surely an equally valid view to take is that all life is equal, a life is a life, a life force, an elephant on the serengetti, neither superior nor inferior to a human in London, or an ant in Sheffield.
Lots of humans think that as they have pretty much populated the planet and found protection against most predators, dominion over the beasts etc they must be the superior species. But ants have populated the planet, earthworms for that matter also.
