Fire up your hate machine kitschbot, Trent’s got some unpopular things to say this week. My wife insists our cat loves us. Most of the time I pretend he does.
I’ll be sure to keep everyone informed about where and when they can see the Bob & Bob and movie.
I was thinking “OH GOD YES!!” the whole time i was reading this. I surely love animals (i don’t even eat ’em anymore), but it totally bugs me when people anthropomorphize them as opposed to liking them for what they are. Personally i think there’s nothing lost by acknowledging them as fun little robots as opposed to lionizing them as noble, pure-hearted WonderCreatures. So yeah, i loved this comic obviously. Richard Dawkins would love it too, which is awesome.
Similar concept from Y: The Last Man.
http://i.imgur.com/O6iac.jpg
No hate machine this time, I’m with Trent there. That kind of delusion is what drives people to attempt to kiss their dog while it’s feeding, resulting in horrible scars on the owner’s face. True story by the way, I forgot if I read it in the news or it happened to a relative of someone I know, all the same really.
Also, I am really flattered to be named and challenged. 🙂
You know when a cat rubs itself all over your legs? It’s not actually showing affection, it’s marking you as property.
Oh man! Very reminiscent of the book “Escher, Godel, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.” I’m gonna say that Trent is a rube goldberg for turning human food into human poop. Just replace a cat’s owner with breasts – two bags of mostly positive stimulus that he associates with food/safety – hah! Well done on this comic!
@Winston Rowntree: Exactly. No one loves animals more than I but I don’t have to trick myself into thinking they’re something they aren’t. I hug on my cat because it makes me happy – I don’t imagine it does anything for him. It’s funny that the ability to athropomorphize is an aspect of the kind of abstract thought that makes humans uniquely human. It’s still stupid though.
@hi: That is pretty awesome. I was going to include some indication that this idea might extend to people as well but couldn’t find a way to do it that was funny. Ultimately I think people are different in that we are aware of our own existence and can contemplate our own death – but whether or not this ability allows us to escape or rise above our biological imperatives is another issue.
@kitschbot: I just love that you said you hated Trent. One of my all-time favorite comments. I just saw a TV show the other day where this guy kept a tiger in his NYC apartment and a women handled poisonous snakes everyday. They insisted they had a special relationship with the animals and the animals would never hurt them. It didn’t turn out well for them.
@Brotoflatron: I think about this everytime my cat does this. I still like it.
@SoldierMD: I had not heard of “Escher, Godel, Bach” it looks awesome. Thanks for making me aware of it! As I said to hi, we may very well be human poop-machines but we can question whether or not we are, which (whether or not it amounts to anything) is a difference between us and the cat-poop machines.
Oh! My boyfriend is reading “Escher, Godel, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid”. I only stole it long enough to read the first chapter, but I thought it was very well written. It explores some very unique and cool ideas.
I think that we are certainly more capable than cats are of questioning whether or not we are poop machines; however, I bet there is an alien race that would argue that we are not smart enough to be considered intelligent life, and so we would be fit to raise as cattle. I think your comic reminds me of the book because it is almost the opposite of a point in the book – that there is a spectrum of consciousness. This comic points to a consciousness cut off point that we surpass to become self-aware. If another animal came along that surpassed our understanding of the self, arguably, they could say that we aren’t anything more than poop machines. Cats might consider themselves more “alive” than mice… This is a really stellar comic.
Nerd here. It’s actually “Godel, Escher, Bach” commonly referred to as “GEB” in many circles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
*edit* This probably makes me sound like a douche, but I have a copy of the book on my shelf. 100% unread.
Ok. I have a couple issues with his point. 1)Why is cognitive ability equated with love or affection. In humans, love is not a function of decision making but rather hormones and neurotransmitters. Why assume that the cat doesn’t have these? From what I understand the domestication of pet animals has been about emphasizing the immature elements. All dogs are puppies compared to non domesticated canines and their play habits and relationships to people and other animals are those of puppies. This is also true of cats and kittens. This is functional for us people because a puppy or kitten is not going to challenge it’s mother as a peer. In humans, the mother child relationship is AWASH in hormones, designed to keep ladies from abandoning our kids, and to keep the kids from wandering off before they can care for themselves. I can only assume there are analagous processes in the tiny brains of cats and that our affectionate relationships with them activate these processes.
2)Also, “love” is a mental model that most humans barely have a handle on. Ask a teenager how to tell if they are in love, or what true love means… Who is to say that the impulse of pleasure from being fed, entertained etc. by a person even at it’s most simplified can’t be considered love. That is like saying autistic people are incapable of love because their sense of empathy isn’t standard. Just because your brain is different doesn’t mean the overall concept is any less relevant. I love tuna sandwiches. I love my boyfriend. My cat loves me. It is an experience. To argue a specific definition for love is kind of to take the concept out of the practical context of human (or cat) experience.
I’m so pleased with the discussion here!
@kitschbot & emulsifier: The apparent ubiquity of this book is surprising to me – probably because I just heard about it. I feel like I really need to read it now.
@SoldierMD: I absolutely recognize the possibility of a “higher” level of consciousness. Of course if I could imagine what this level might consist of I’d have reached it. I do subscribe to the consciousness “cut-off” idea at least when it comes to non-human animals. There may be levels of self-awareness among humans but animals exhibit no evidence of any.
@lestamore: Whether or not cats can “love” certainly depends on one’s definition of “love”. If you postulate a strict pleasure/pain model of experience then cats are absolutely included – supposing an awareness of the pleasure/pain isn’t a requirement. Self-awareness is the key for me. Love as I conceive of it does require choice and moral action and certainly self-consciousness and ability for abstract thought. The argument can be made that humans are too only a collection of biochemical reactions and “love” as we commonly imagine it is an illusion but I reject this idea specifically because it negates freewill and subsequently all morality. My affection for moral indignation won’t permit me to excuse all the atrocities and annoyances of the whole human race. To use your example of motherhood, while there are hormonal origins of and influences on motherly behavior the fact remains that some mothers do abandon their children or abuse them etc. – in my opinion there are bad mothers. There are no bad cats. My cat is neither aware of me or itself. Pets really aren’t that different from those digital “pets” – an accurate computer simulation of a cat wouldn’t differ from a real cat in any significant way and it’s hard to imagine a computer program “loving” you even if you do “feed” it and meet all its needs. For me there’s no way to elevate what my cat feels for me to “love” without lowering what I feel for other people to a level that’s totally unacceptable. But that’s just me. Great comment! Thanks so much for reading and writing!
p.s. And as to your point about people with disabilities I would say that there are levels of mental disability that would preclude one from experiencing “love” in the way we normally think of it. However since people are capable of love and we can never know exactly what another person’s experience is I think we’re obligated to assume everyone can love. A lot of people will disagree with me on this point but I think belonging to the human species is in and of itself sufficient for one to receive a full measure of human rights. While it must be true that there are individuals whose disability makes them exactly as self-aware as a cat it can never be safe to make this assumption and treat the person as one would a cat. People are always people and cats are, sadly at times, always cats. In my opinion, of course.
This is an interesting discussion, considering psychopaths exist.
This is kind of ironic/hypocritical, considering the immediately previous comic you posted.
By your reasoning as far as making decisions goes we’re the same as cats, biological Rube Goldberg mechanisms.
If animals are “fun little robots” how are we any different? We are, just as much as they are, biological Rube Goldberg devices. We just think we’re different because if we didn’t, there’d be no point in living and our minds won’t allow that.
And why won’t they? Because we’re programmed to keep replicating and killing ourselves would get in the way.
lol, the cat with the champagne reminds me of front row joe
Found your site on the Comic Aggregator and I totally dig the artwork and content. This strip is pretty relevant for me!
My understanding of my cat’s “love” is that I am, in fact, a bundle of mostly positive stimuli she associates with food/safety. Also, I am warm and soft to sit on. When I am in a bad mood and she comes over to do things I register as “adorable” and “loving,” she has merely perceived some sign (probably odor) that I am likely to scratch her behind the ear in the spot that she likes.
However, when I am constantly anxious about what others expect from me, and what I expect from myself, it’s awfully reassuring to know that there is one being who “loves” me simply because I exist, have the standard physical characteristics for my species, and scratch her behind the ear. And, in the end, I “love” her because she exists, has the standard physical characteristics for her species, and does things that amuse me.
The nice thing about such a simplistic relationship is that there’s really no baggage to speak of.
Rather simplistic. Yes, one can argue that a cats behavior – like that of every living and non living thing – is determined through certain laws. Then you are a Determinist, something we share. But: That doesn’t mean that the cat is a simple robot, that it can’t feel emotions that are maybe very similar to those that we feel. I would agree with you that cats almost certainly don’t have any grasp of complex concepts like we do, but it is not impropable that they might feel affection. You don’t have to be aware of the concept or definition of a feeling to actually feel it. (Often it takes time for us to even grasp that we are already in love with someone). Considering that cats live alone – if in a natural habitat – and seem to be without any inclination to keep their sexual partners near for a prolonged period, I would say that they almost certainly don’t have feelings we would recognise as love, but that is just a thought. Apart from that: Morality doesn’t require free choice, good and evil are concepts that work rather well without the concept of free choice and it is a philosophical sin to reject an idea or concept just because it doesn’t suit another concept you hold dear (-> especially if this concept happens to stand on poor grounds). Oh – and there indeed animals that are self aware and a lot more that recognise you, personally, as an individual, can hold grudges, or positive memories bound to you. Heck, they even have some grasp of your wishes or intentions (dogs, crows, for instance). We are talking science here, not personal opinion. It is true that one must not anthropromorphise animals, but one also must not denie our common ancestry, in body and mind and thus aknowledge the similarities that do exist.
@lestamore: Yes indeed, we are just as much rube goldberg machines as cats are.
@Henry Tennenbaum: EXACTLY. Finally, someone who isn’t all “I’m human, I must be SO special”
@b.patrick: You’ve never met a bad cat? You should really gather more data on animals. Get to know a few animals raised by homeless people. They can get extremely neurotic and sometimes violent. Of course your fat middle class cat is gonna act like a fat middle class cat.
You also seem to have some idea that violence is a human thing. Read up on chimp attacks, read up on chimp raiding parties. Read up on how male dolphin groups will kill other dolphins, even mothers and calves.
Just because an animal doesn’t have a voice and thumbs doesn’t mean it’s much different than you. Much of what makes humans so human is cultural influences and upbringing. Oh, and teamwork teamwork teamwork. Our culture and societies and the more and more complex division of labor combined with recent mechanization is what puts us ahead of the rest of the animal kingdom, and that just wouldn’t be possible without thumbs and language. Humans have not evolved much in the past 100,000 years, yet the first known civilization is less than 10,000 years old, or as Newton put it “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
@Henry Tennenbaum and Janus Duo: I must respectfully disagree. While humans may be just as powerless against our own instinct as animals, the difference is humans alone are capable of contemplating this question. I would say that language/abstract thought/reason (three ways of saying the same thing, in my opinion) IS the only thing that separates us from the (other) animals but it is a significant distinction. Humans ARE so special in this regard. I would also say that determinism does eliminate morality and that animals exist outside of morality. They’re incapable of making moral judgments. I have met “bad” cats – bad in this sense meaning they wouldn’t make very good pets. I think all animals are “bad” by human standards – they’re 100% selfish and thoughtless and completely ruled by instinct without reason. And I don’t feel like violence is uniquely human at all. Quite the opposite, I feel like when humans are violent they’re indulging the basest and most animal-like aspects of their nature.
The key for me is self-awareness. To date, no animal has ever exhibited self-awareness (contrary to Henry Tennenbaum’s assertion). Without a comprehension of “I” there can be no “I feel affection for this person.” Humans do think in terms of “I”. Animals can’t. Do animals exhibit human-like behavior? Of course. Can we learn about humans from observing animals? Certainly. In the end are humans really that different from their animal brethren? Not by much, but I was trying to point out one way in which we ARE different and what that difference means when considering our relationships with our pets.
Thanks for taking the time to think about this comic and comment! I love it! By all means always feel free to tell me I’m way off, totally wrong, horribly ignorant or even a crappy cartoonist.
In response to your assertion that animals have never demonstrated self-awareness I would like to know what problem you have with the standard Mirror Test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
Also http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html is a great piece on self-awareness in the bonobo chimpanzee.
I would also like to bring the case of Alex, the African Grey who was involved in animal intelligence studies. He even figured out the concept of the number zero, even though it is actually a relatively recent mathematical concept.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyX6u_pHo44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
There are many more examples I could give you from animal research but these are the few off the top of my head with quick googling for the links. I didn’t realize when I made my initial comment that you were the artist. I understand the amount of work it takes to get to the stage where you can produce work of your quality, and have plenty of appreciation work as art. I’m a musician myself. I appreciate you openness to criticism. 🙂
Contrary to what you say, at least some animals indeed do exhibit signs of self-awareness/conscious thought, Dolphins, Magpies and of course apes just some of them. They recognise themselves in mirrors, for instance.
Language is a way to convey information, both consciously and unconsciously, to other members of the same species, using a set of symbols that are alterable. Putting something into words can help us concentrating our thoughts and through the words of others our own thoughts can be changed and new ones may appear, but it is not he same as reason or abstract thought, even if that has been argued in the past.
Reason is, mostly, recognised as a human trait, as it relies on language and logic. The idea here being, that reasoning differentiates from other forms of tthought because it is consciously controlled and able to produce new forms of insight.
Abstract thought, on the other hand, is the act of categorising some things (thoughts too) into other, higher categories and using these thoughts. It is something, I would argue, some animals must possess, as it is fundamental to a lot of basic actions we see them perform that can’t simply reduced to the behavioristic model of simple action/reaction and instinct.
Concerning morality: There are models that explain morality without the use of “Free Thought” – itself a rather rickety concept – e.g. the biological one. Here morality has developed through evolution as a way (of course without any actual goal, I hope we all understand natural selection to this degree) to damp excessive egoistical behavior and encourage cooperation. Those who lie to or betray others are punished by a group (e.g. through shunning), making it less propable that this continues in the future, as it mostly doesn’t pay off. Of course, because of this there is a strong evolutionary pressure to improve methods of deceit and to detect deceit, but I digress.
Reprocity goes a long way to explain a lot of our behavior and that of animals. You feel the urge to punish someone for wronging you. maybe because he took something of you or hurt someone in your family? You want to take revenge? Makes sense, as this kind of reaction really puts a lot of individuals off, if they get the idea to do this kind of stuff. The same goes for acts of goodness, only the other way around. You think that revenge is a bad thing? I agree, but this is a fairly new cultural development most people have a hard time honoring. Morality is influenced by culture, but its roots are evolutionary.
The point is, that moral behaviour is nothing that relies on something other than their biological nature, even if humans possess a highly complex and sophisticated variation of it, influenced, even if less than most people think. by their unique cultures. And if the morality of humans is mostly biological in origin, what would make it so impropable that at least some animals may possess something very similar, even if it might not be as sophisticated?
Animals are, in a sense, 100% selfish, as all living things are. But not directly. A lot of animals do protect their own offspring, sometimes their siblings, from agressors and other dangers. From time to time they are highly altruistic, sacrificing themselves for another individual (mostly mothers for their children) for the wellbeing of their children. They help strangers, give others food, etc.. But: In absolut terms, meaning from a genetic view, not from the view of individuals, they are selfish, as are all humans, as they pick their alliances nearly always with an eye on their degree of kinship, even if they (including humans) are not conscious of this. This even goes for strangers, as we are more likely to help those to whom we are stronger related (really). Of course, we do have culture and, at least in the last few hundred years, our “moral circle” has, thanks to our ability to abstract and some really nice cultural developments, expanded and we now may even include those that we would have scorned a few decades before.
That animals are thoughtless is evidently wrong and at least some of them are not completely ruled by instinct. Concerning reason, I am myself not sure. I reason is a faculty that – like almost any other – can exist to a certain degree, in humans and in animals, and that the fact that animals may not be on the same level as we are doesn’t tell us that they don’t reason at all.
“Do animals exhibit human-like behavior? Of course. Can we learn about humans from observing animals? Certainly. In the end are humans really that different from their animal brethren? Not by much, but I was trying to point out one way in which we ARE different and what that difference means when considering our relationships with our pets. ” I completely agree with these sentences.:)
I hope I made myself clear, as this is not my first language. I apologise if my word choice comes across as crude.
@Henry Tennenbaum and Janus Duo: Man, you guys took me to school a little bit. I hesitate to admit that I was aware of the mirror-test but was operating under the misinformation that no animals had passed. That fact shook me a little. I would love to discuss this further but honestly I’m afraid I’d be burning up some good ideas for comics where I can add some emotional and aesthetic elements to bolster my increasingly weakened positions (I’ve got some ideas regarding Helen Keller, Thomas Hobbes, and Raskolnikov – keep an eye out for them). Wow, awesome awesome comments. Thanks so much. I can already tell I’m going to be thinking about this for days.
🙂
This is true. But it would be equally true if you simply replaced the term “cat” with “human.” It is just easier to be objective about a cat.
Awesome: the comic, the philosophy, and the conversation. Glad I found it!
Though this may be way late, I gotta say, Mr. Patrick, I’m digging your style and your points. I’m glad someone can verbalize this over-extension of animal ‘personalities’.
Can I throw in the mix the idea that maybe the relevant difference between people and animals is the ability to act beyond self interest? Perhaps that can help, for this conversation, define love: I wouldn’t die for a movie I ‘love’, but I would die for my wife, etc.? The argument I see coming is that animals may also sacrifice themselves for their ‘loved’ ones, to which I would reply that this is most likely a mis-judgement of the particular circumstance by the creature rather than altruism: [in dog-thought] “my food supplier/safety provider is in danger! It would be worth it to fight this bear!” As mentioned elsewhere, what animal truly understands the consequences (death) involved? I think that we can all agree that even if this delineation exists, it is not one that people in general are inclined to follow, making each person no more ‘human’ than the most altruistic action they are able to practice.
No response necessary (I just wanted to think out loud), just keep the comics coming!
I wasn’t surprised to have to scroll past so many comments to post my praise here. I would rather try to explain my views on Atheism to a knife-wielding religious zealot in a locked room then have the headache of trying to convince a woman that her cat doesn’t love her. I appreciate my dog and my cat for what they are and I amuse myself by assigning them human characteristics. I also amuse myself by holding my hand up in front of a projector and making funny shapes, but I don’t pretend that I’ve created a new form of life when I do it.
Actually, the parts of the brain responsible for emotion are what’s most similar between cats and humans. So they most likely do feel attachment in the same way. Having language doesn’t really affect that.
You are 100% wrong. Your cat does love you. It doesn’t do it to get food. Cats (and dogs) don’t have the necessary intellect to link cause and effect beyond an interval of a few seconds, so unless you are in the habit of feeding it *immediately* after it behaves affectionately, it couldn’t possibly have linked those two. Also, cats don’t have such an advanced theory of mind as we do, as in, they can’t think “if I make this person like me then they’ll do good things for me”. And lastly, there are cat behaviours that can’t be explained by your reasoning (such as, them bringing you their kill, aka food – why would they feel the need to feed you if they saw you as a source of food?).
On another note, I can’t understand the people that claim love is a choice or a conscious decision. I know I can’t decide/choose to love someone. It just happens.
I just love that this — with all the crazy stuff that goes up here — this is the most controversial comic.
@TentacledBeast: You bring up some interesting points but I remain unconvinced and my official stance is as always: your cat doesn’t love you. As I write this my own cat is looking at me expectantly having followed me around all day for no other apparent reason than that he wants to be around me. Nevertheless, and while I may love him, he feels nothing for me that could even approach what I think of as love. I love your tendency to comment! I hope we see more of you around!
Science just proved that what you say in this comic is not true
Animals do have conciousness
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
I completely agree with what the character Trent and his creator b.patrick said on this one. Animals may have ’emotions’ in a chemical/mechanical sense, and they may even be similar to humans biologically and exhibit similar neurological behaviours, but they cannot ponder or consider it as humans can. Humans have something spiritual, commonly called a soul, which animals do not. It is this which allows us to be self-aware in a way that animals aren’t, and to wonder things about our existence and the universe like ‘why.’
For those who want scientific evidence and explanation for the existence of the human soul, I leave you with this:
http://anti-matters.org/articles/8/public/8-8-1-PB.pdf
There is nothing special about humans and thinking we are something more than the rest of the animals is fucking stupid.
I thought it might be interesting to point out that actually, cats have twice as many neurons as dogs. The popular wisdom that they might be smarter than dogs is likely true.
Anti-anthropomorphizers still have an easier time believing dogs exhibit more complicated emotions than cats, however. And I believe this “anti-anthropomorphizaiton” to be actually a cover for our intense anthropocentrism. We may have complex cognitive powers, perhaps even the MOST complex cognitive powers – but we are not the only ones with cognitive powers whatsoever. We are certainly not the only ones with millenia-old limbic systems, which are responsible for the complexity of our emotions and emotional attachments.