yes i agree, but humans also are capable of hatred simply for the sake of hatred

I want to discuss koko the monkey. This monkey is fluent in American Sign Language, with common use of 1000 different symbols. When koko was young, she had a kitten. I am not sure how, but this kitten was accidentally killed. For several months, koko showed all the signs of depression and grievience that humans show. koko has gotten over it, and got a new kitten, but every once in a while, she will start to act very solemn and will talk about how much she misses her first kitten and how much she loved it. It was long hypothesized that emotions were the barrier between us and the rest of the animal kingdom, but these days, any reputable psychologist, anthropologist, or any other social scientist will tell you that the only difference is that animals do not have any OBSERVABLE culture on the same level as we do. Animals undoubtedly have emotions. You can argue all you want, but I'll trust my professors and the other experts. Also, realize that there is an extremely thin line between emotion and instinct (if not non-existent).

Hitler carried out the ultimate hate crime: He hated himself.

Did he say that? Wish he'd shot himself earlier would have stopped us all from agreeing with him.

would she be like that in the wild? or because of human influence was she trained to know emotion...Apes are very close to us in design(monkeys are just monkeys)...so that does not suprise me. However does she take the inititive to learn, or is it those who teach her? I think it is something like one chromosome that separates us from the lesser primate world...that's what sets us apart...but let me know when she writes a speech thanking the world for making her famous...

She would be like that in the wild. She wouldn't have a means of commuicating her emotions, however. Raw emotions cannot be learned, but what situations spark what emotions can be. For example, a Western person would be upset by the death of a close relative, but there are several cultures where an individual's death is celebrated. This is the result of enculturation. Every human has the capacity to be sad, happy, angry, etc., but our culture determines in what situations we feel these emotions. This is a hard fact of social science. So even if it were human influence on koko that made her emote towards her kitten, that fact would be irrelevant. You CANNOT "teach" a being to have emotion. You can only teach them when a particular emotion is appropriate. In other words, even if koko was enculturated, the raw ability to experience emotion was always there. You might also want to consider that emotions are caused by chemical reactions in the brain, usually the same chemicals that make our brains work in the first place. If something has a brain, you can be guaranteed that it has neurotransmitters. If it has neurotransmitters, you can be guaranteed that their levels fluctuate from time to time. This fluctuation is called emotion. Oh, also, I'm not sure exactly what type of primate koko is. I know that she is not a monkey, I was just using that term generically. Apes are very close to us, but I understand that chimpanzees are closer. The average chimpanzee has the mental abilities of a 3 year old human. We also share 97% genetic similarity with them. I think koko is a chimp, but I'm not sure.

I'm sorry, koko's a Lowland gorilla. Here's an intersesting koko story:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,11950,00.html

http://www.onemonkey.org/history/000831.html
For this link, scroll down until you come to the picture of koko. Read the whole article about her, it's basically transcripts of conversations she's had and things she's said. It's really interesting.

my point is that she had that influence as a child, she was basically raised human...she learned how to convey all she "knows" from humans...any social animal has the capabilities of acknowledging the loss of a mate...various birds including swans will not mate again at the loss of one...pedators have been known to mourn the loss of cubs...does that mean they are experiencing love in a right or wrong capacity or just attached for maternal/partner instinct..how many animals do you know hate, joy, jealousy, lust? these are all exclusive to humans...

Ok then, prove to me that human nature isnt just a learned trait in humanity as it is with this animal.

I am going to try and make this as clear as possible. The maternal/partner instinct IS an emotion. Instinct alone cannot alter the behavior of an animal; there must be motivation to follow instincts (note: motivation/motive and emotion are exactly the same thing). If your instincts tell you not to enter a room, you will feel fearful. Your instincts will say, "This is not a good situation; now how can I get this dumbass not to go in that room? *snap* I'll make him scared!" INSTINCTS ARE PERCEIVED BY US AS EMOTION. THAT IS HOW WE KNOW WHAT OUR INSTINCTS ARE TELLING US.
Hate is a variance of anger. I dare you to pull a tiger's tail and tell me he doesn't get pissed. His instinct may be to protect himself, which he would register as anger. In self-protection scenarios, anger is a very good emotion because it causes andrenaline and endorphins to rush through the body, which aid in combat.
Joy. Have you not seen a kitten sleeping with its mother? Sure, the instinct could be protect me/feed me/play with me, but the animal registers it as happiness.
Jealousy. Two animals fighting over who gets to impregnate a particular female. Happens all the time. Instinct=spread my alleles. Registered as=She wants mine, not yours!(jealousy)
Lust. Basically same as above, but jealousy is a hybrid emotion between anger and sadness. Lust is a variance of love, any animal that has a reason to have children will experience it.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. Instincts and emotions are never, ever, experienced independently of each other.

well, i do agree with your jusitification that animals do convey emotion but in defense of Jordyn i think your justification about instincts/emotions being intertwined is flawed......for is far as i understand it instinct is the primal function of life....except for all that organism physical bullshit.....anyway, if instinct and emotion are intertwined then instinct is no longer the primal function......that means emotions are older than conscious thought as we know it, but without a conscious ability to recognize or understand emotion, how do you explain it then?

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to ask. I'll do my best to address your concern. Instinct is a primal drive. It is subconcious and we cannot control it. In order for any subconcious drive to alter behavior, it must manifest itself in concious thought somehow. In the case of insticts, they make themselves known to the concious mind through emotions. Think of it like this: You are a subconcious drive (instinct). Your computer is the concious, decision-making part of your brain. You need a keyboard to tell your computer what to do (emotion). I'm not too sure about what you're saying regarding the "emotions are older than concious thought" part, but I will offer this:
1. Instinct occurs
2. Instinct triggers appropriate emotion
3. Emotion triggers appropriate behavior
4. Problem solved
That would be the sequence of events. So instincts are still the wheels on the car, nothing else matters if they aren't there. Even the most primitive animals on the planet have at least a Hindbrain, which is capable of concious thought. Without concious thought, a being would not have the ability to perceive time or space, which means you would have a machine. Neither instinct, emotion, nor concious thought are worth a dime without the other two.

*gives a meddle for Justin's brave fight against the bullshitting hoardes*

back to the nature or nurture arguement...i'm in support of nurture...babies in orphanages that don't get the emotional touching necessary for development are found lacking in emotional, intellectual, and basic functional capabilities...how can animals that are left to their own devices after weening fair better than a human baby?

all your points on animal behavior justin are instinctual...they have no thought, no malice, no ego...they are just creatures doing what they need to survive, the best male breeding with the best female ensures the best offspring... to address your point red, i do believe in human intervention for emotion...at some point in our evolutionary history the mothering instinct turned into something more grand...i love my children for who they are, not because they are necessary for my survival...

and tentacle, no need for insults, if you can't address the points in a mature manner, than don't bother! anyhow you spelled medal wrong...he is giving a good arguement, you are meddling, would you like people telling that your belief and opinions are b.s.?

I`m not, in fact you proved my point for me.
There`s enough cases of socalised animals and feral children to prove the nurture arguement, at least as far as emotional deevlopment is concerned.

i never said i was against the nurture theory...i just do not think animals can have the human equivelency of emotions, if any at all...the animals do not conciously live their life how they think they should...you can take an animal out of the wild, but you can't take the wild out of an animal...how many feral children have there been, i've heard of one case of a girl who was raised by wolves(social pack creatures like all dogs) there was nothing human about her except her physiology...

Thats not as bad as the boy forcably to live in a chicken coop then.
I suppose examining the human animal you`d never hear of anyone saying that we are ruled by own instincts deep down and merely seek to cover that fact in our over complications. Emotion does not need conciousness to exist, not in humans or animals.

but that is exactly what separates us from the animals...ask an animal why it does something, do you think they will be able to give you a reason...would they even be able to formulate a thought...emotion does need human thought! otherwise how would we as animals be aware of the fact they were emotion? Do you think koko knows what an emotion is?

I think nature/nurture play equal parts, but that's just my opinion. Human babies need a tremendous amount of time to become fully developed. Technically, we are all born prematurely. Because the human brain is so large, we must be born before it is fully developed. Otherwise, the human female's pelvis would have to be so wide that she would be unable to walk bipedally. In psychology, we were taught that 1 month in the womb is equivalent to about a year outside, developmental-wise. That is why human children are so helpless and require so much care before they are fully functional. No other animal has this trait, as their young are typically reared fully mentally developed, which is why they can go off on their own at such an early age.

As stated above, the human brain is extremely powerful, and thus extremely complex. We have the highest brainweight to bodyweight ratio of any animal. Nothing else even comes close. A complex brain requires many more neurotransmitters. This would mean that the emotions we experience are indeed more varied and probably more powerful than in other animals. I feel that emotional development can be directly linked to intellectual development, but that is just another opinion. It