Does the fact that many non-human animals have pituitary disprove Cartesian Dualism?

[FlatAssembler]

On the Philosophical Vegan forum, we occasionally get members who subscribe to Cartesian Dualism. Descartes (also known by his Latin name Cartesius) held that only human beings have souls, and that other animals are unconscious and don't feel pain. He also held that the pituitary is the antenna with which the brain and the soul communicate.

And I think one of the most obvious flaws with Cartesian Dualism, which was obvious even in Descartes'es time, is that many non-human animals also have the pituitary.

I asked a question about how Descartes responded to that on Philosophy StackExchange (which, thus far, has 8 more upvotes than downvotes), and, apparently, Descartes didn't write a response to that argument.

I think that Cartesian Dualism was ridiculous even in Descartes'es time, and that it is even more ridiculous now.

[Anomalocaris]

The validity of Descartes dualism doesn’t depend on Descarte’s supposition about the role of the pituitary gland in dualism.    So contradicting the Descarte’s pituitary supposition does not actually contradict Descarte’s dualism hypothesis itself.

[FlatAssembler]

The validity of Descartes dualism doesn’t depend on Descarte’s supposition about the role of the pituitary gland in dualism.    So contradicting the Descarte’s pituitary supposition does not actually contradict Descarte’s dualism hypothesis itself.

But it does make the anti-vegan claim "Only human beings have souls, other animals don't feel pain." look pretty baseless, doesn't it?

[Anomalocaris]

Since it is a dubious proposition to begin with, it can hardly be used to show anything else to be baseless.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The validity of Descartes dualism doesn’t depend on Descarte’s supposition about the role of the pituitary gland in dualism.    So contradicting the Descarte’s pituitary supposition does not actually contradict Descarte’s dualism hypothesis itself.

But it does make the anti-vegan claim "Only human beings have souls, other animals don't feel pain." look pretty baseless, doesn't it?

I think the best way to disprove the notion that animals don’t feel pain is to look at an animal in pain.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

But it does make the anti-vegan claim "Only human beings have souls, other animals don't feel pain." look pretty baseless, doesn't it?

I think the best way to disprove the notion that animals don’t feel pain is to look at an animal in pain.

Boru

Well, it is hard to tell what's a response to pain and what's a reflex. There is considerable debate whether fish feel pain or whether insects feel pain, even though they obviously have reflexes.
As far as I can tell, most neuroscientists think all the mammals except naked mole rats, all the birds, and perhaps octopuses feel pain, and that other animals don't.

[Anomalocaris]

define “feel pain”

[FlatAssembler]

define “feel pain”

I think we all know what we mean when we say "feel pain", there is no need to define it. Some things, such as "knowledge", are difficult to define, but we all know what they mean, and asking somebody to define it is derailing a discussion.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

define “feel pain”

I think we all know what we mean when we say "feel pain", there is no need to define it. Some things, such as "knowledge", are difficult to define, but we all know what they mean, and asking somebody to define it is derailing a discussion.

It’s not derailing at all. In fact, it’s a very pertinent question. 

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

I think we all know what we mean when we say "feel pain", there is no need to define it. Some things, such as "knowledge", are difficult to define, but we all know what they mean, and asking somebody to define it is derailing a discussion.

It’s not derailing at all. In fact, it’s a very pertinent question. 

Boru

So, you are a rationalist rather than an empiricist? You think that the more our philosophy looks like the Euclid's Elements, the better? Well, I am telling you, that way of thinking is useful in geometry, but almost everywhere else though, it leads us nowhere.

Some arguments for fish not feeling pain are "It appears as though type-c neurofibres are necessary to feel pain, because people with congenital analgesia have a smaller proportion of the type-c neurofibers. And fish have little or no type-c neurofibers." and "Fishes with a hole in their fin continue swimming as normal.". Completely empirical, not trying to rationalistically define pain.