Animals Are As With-it as Humans (Animals Are Conscious)

reply to post by tkwasny

This work encouraged us to do the first study of sleep, to our knowledge, in the platypus. In the platypus we saw sleep with vigorous rapid eye, bill and head twitching, identical in behaviour to that which defines REM sleep in placental mammals. Recording of the EEG in the platypus during natural sleep and waking states revealed that it had moderate and high-voltage cortical EEGs during this REM sleep state. The platypus not only has REM sleep, but it had more of it than any other animal. The lack of EEG voltage reduction during REM sleep in the platypus, and during the REM sleep-like state of the echidna, has some similarity to the sleep seen in neonatal sleep in placentals. The very high amounts of REM sleep seen in the platypus also fit with the increased REM sleep duration seen in altricial mammals. Our findings suggest that REM sleep originated earlier in mammalian evolution than had previously been thought and is consistent with the hypothesis that REM sleep, or a precursor state with aspects of REM sleep, may have had its origin in reptilian species.

pdf on the origins of dreaming REM sleep

Yeah there's a great book on this --

Animals also dream. By destroying neurons in the brain stem that inhibit movement during sleep, researchers found that sleeping cats rose up and attacked or were startled by invisible objects—ostensibly images from dreams. By studying nonprimate animals, scientists have discovered additional neurophysiological aspects of REM sleep.

Jonathon Winson pdf

The absence of REM sleep in the echidna suggests that this stage of the sleep cycle evolved some 140 million years ago, when marsupials and placentals diverged from the monotreme line. (Monotremes were the first mammals to develop from reptiles.) By all evolutionary criteria, the perpetuation of a complex brain process such as REM sleep indicates that it serves an important function for the survival of mammalian species. Understanding that function might reveal the meaning of dreams.

REM sleep could have provided this new mechanism, allowing memory processing to occur “off-line.”

The subjects of dreams are broad-ranging and complex, incorporating self-image, fears, insecurities, strengths, grandiose ideas, sexual orientation, desire, jealousy and love.

Well if that isn't consciousness I don't know what is! haha

when the hippocampus, which continues to develop after birth, becomes functional, REM sleep takes on its interpretive memory function. The waking information to be integrated at this point in development constitutes the basic cognitive substrate for memory—the concept of the real world against which later experiences must be compared and interpreted.

So yeah this really is the secret of the sense of self during "real time" Waking state -- only after the hippocampus develops for long term memory storage during REM sleeping dreaming state. Otherwise the animal just stays in the theta state while awake -- in which case the normally subconscious direct perception information would have to be processed consciously in "real time." This is the case with the Echidna that has a larger prefrontal cortex than humans relative to the brain size! But since the Echidna does not dream then it is limited in brain function to the limbic brain functions.

Without theta rhythm during REM sleep, the echidna would not be able to process information while it slept. (The echidna does, however, show theta rhythm when foraging for food.) For higher capabilities to develop, the prefrontal cortex would have to become increasingly large—beyond the capacity of the skull—unless another brain mechanism evolved.

So for the Echidna reality is like a lucid dreaming state with all the subconscious direct perception information being processed "consciously" in real time. It's a lot of information to take in at once so that the subjective experience of time is different -- this is why dreams can last in "real time" a very short time but are experienced as lasting a long time. Similarly in waking altered states as in trance meditation time seems to slow down -- or lasts longer -- because all the subconscious information is also being consciously processed in "real" time.

Originally posted by freedomSlave
Funny I stumbled on this thread while my wife was watching the mysteries of the animal mind on the cbc.


nature of things


Personally I have always had more respect and compassion for animals . I have found wild animals are at times more human than human with feral children that have been taken in and raised as their own with their own off spring for example. But food is food and we need to eat if only we could kill only enough for what we need , sadly there there is so much wasted for nothing .

edit on 26/8/12 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)

Strange my husband and I have not NEEDED meat for many many years and are healthier and happier for it.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


That Grizzly Man dude had some serious problems -- please don't let him get in the way of actually learning about bears.

reply to post by tkwasny


You didn't hit any nerve. It's just what you said was a pure sentiment - and not logical thought. You couldn't write out a logical thought because there isn't any logical connection between being involved in a dream and having knowledge of the fact that you're dreaming.

reply to post by Char-Lee

Maybe you can tell me why you won't eat your dog or cat? The pig is just as loyal and they have saved owners lives before therefore showing their deep effecton. what makes only the dog, cat and horse and some "pet" birds the lucky ones.

You are assuming that I wouldn't eat 'my' dog or cat. I am assuming that some of the Chinese takeout that I have eaten wasn't cat, but I can't be sure.

I do not own a dog at this time, and I dislike cats intensely. I would have no problem eating a cat, even if I somehow had one as a pet. I would eat a dog too, might eat a lot of them if they tasted yummy enough.

Dogs are eaten as food in Korea and other countries. Horse is eaten in Canada and France, I'm guessing that horses don't feel too special in those countries.

Just to be clear. I love animals, I'm a major animal lover. I have a 3 year old dog who I find it hard not to spoil with affection. Nonetheless, I will not be moved by a nonsensical sentiment like "animals are the same as us" - when such a statement is illogical, unphilosophical, and patently ridiculous.

People make this confusion because when a dog shows them love and tenderness, they take this instinctual response to kindness showed to them - and so a feeling of love of the dog for the owner - for a self willed expression of love. It's not. It's obvious that it isn't.

When my dog encounters people who act shady around her, she responds in like to their instinctual response: she barks or snarls at them. If, however, you approach her with kindness, she'll pick up that emotional approach and respond in like.

When she anticipates my going up stairs as indicating it's time for a walk - her logical faculties are serving an instinctual desire: to go for a walk. This again is no proof of self consciousness, but an unconscious process that facilitates the fulfillment of an instinctual need.

All this wonderfulness we experience with animals, ironically, is only recognized with regard to how they make us feel - and so elicits sentimental statements - but their stupidity, the proof that in their behavior alone they demonstrate for us how different we are from them - doesn't seem to trigger an intellectual reference point.

This could be because: this society is obsessed with emotion - and so fervently accepts those facts of experience which unites man with animals - and at the same time ignores those facts of experience which clearly separates us from them.

It's annoying for me to see this one-sidedness towards animals. As if what we possess in experience and outward expression doesn't cement in fact the clear difference between man and animal.

reply to post by butcherguy


I live in Canada and have never seen nor known anyone to eat a horse.

As for eating cats and dogs. Already, I have a compunction about eating animals - but the thought of eating animals who are so close with humans - like cats and dogs and horses, is completely immoral.

There are lines to be drawn. Cows, Goats, Sheep, and poultry, have always been traditionally eaten. In fact - in terms of spiritual experience - one should never eat an animal without having the proper viewpoint of what the act of eating an animal ultimately signifies: the ingestion and integration of it animating energy, or its "soul" if you will.

In ancient Jewish practice, for instance, and St. Augustine mentions this, the sacrifice of an animal - a kosher animal - symbolized the giving up of ones own vital animal self - the animal serving vicariously as an incarnation in objective terms of an internal reality - to God. In this sense, the animal is no longer the animal in it's individuality, but universalized by man in it's relation with a metaphysical cosmos: the soul of the animal is 'raised' aloft, and likewise, the soul of man. Also, there's a belief - still believed - that the physical form of an animal corresponds to it's spiritual qualities - its characteristics/behaviors - and when a human being eats this animal, those forms/energies become integrated at the material level (as food for the body) and the spiritual level, as food for the soul. Thus, before hunts, the ancient Egyptians would often eat alligators in order to imbibe the qualities that animate an alligators experience, and so improve their hunting abilities.

Sheep, Cow, Goats, Deer - these are animals which possess qualities that conduce towards 'civilizing' men. And so they are eaten. Dogs, Cats - and other such animals, have not been traditionally eaten because they are scavengers, firstly, and secondly, they connect with humans at a deeper level then other animals do.

Whether you agree with the logic of this or not, there is a clear mark of respect and care shown for the animal.

Conversely, to just an animal in an animalistic state - is to defile the memory of the animal.

Originally posted by dontreally


When my dog encounters people who act shady around her, she responds in like to their instinctual response: she barks or snarls at them. If, however, you approach her with kindness, she'll pick up that emotional approach and respond in like.

When she anticipates my going up stairs as indicating it's time for a walk - her logical faculties are serving an instinctual desire: to go for a walk. This again is no proof of self consciousness, but an unconscious process that facilitates the fulfillment of an instinctual need.

All this wonderfulness we experience with animals, ironically, is only recognized with regard to how they make us feel - and so elicits sentimental statements - but their stupidity, the proof that in their behavior alone they demonstrate for us how different we are from them - doesn't seem to trigger an intellectual reference point.

This could be because: this society is obsessed with emotion - and so fervently accepts those facts of experience which unites man with animals - and at the same time ignores those facts of experience which clearly separates us from them.

Arent humans the same? Except we can read dictionaries and puff up our egos with education and unproven philosophy. The highest form of arrogance is to assume ANYTHING is fact.

reply to post by dontreally

I live in Canada and have never seen nor known anyone to eat a horse.

Well, I guess that proves it, eh?
ETA: You said 'eat a horse', maybe you meant that you never saw one person eat a whole horse?
Or does this prove that you aren't aware of what goes on in you own nation?

But in Canada, a country rarely considered exotic, you can get raw horse in Vancouver (at Yoshi’s, a Japanese restaurant), horse steak in Toronto (at the bistro La Palette), and horse anything in Quebec—even a fast-food chain, the Belgian Frite Alors, sells horse tartare. (Horse is free of tuberculosis and tapeworms, and thus safer than beef to eat raw.)

chow.com

reply to post by dontreally

As for eating cats and dogs. Already, I have a compunction about eating animals - but the thought of eating animals who are so close with humans - like cats and dogs and horses, is completely immoral.

They eat lion in Africa. Think they are immoral for doing that? What if they are starving? Is it immoral then?

Originally posted by freedomSlave

Originally posted by psyko4570
reply to post by smyleegrl

 

When I got over to it I noticed our little 'weenie' dog had left a 'present' at the base of the blackberry. Did he know how important the plant is to me and intentionally try to help with fertilization?

Nah I am sure that present was just for you lol

Thats reality for you. Oh well, I dont think a mushy fantasy ever hurt anybody...get it? Mushy..ha

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Greetings, ATS!

Mods, wasn't sure where to put this, so please move if necessary. Thanks.

So I stumbled across a very interesting article on discoverynews and thought I'd share. If it turns out this is true, wow.

An international group of prominent scientists has signed The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in which they are proclaiming their support for the idea that animals are conscious and aware to the degree that humans are -- a list of animals that includes all mammals, birds, and even the octopus. But will this make us stop treating these animals in totally inhumane ways?

While it might not sound like much for scientists to declare that many nonhuman animals possess conscious states, it's the open acknowledgement that's the big news here. The body of scientific evidence is increasingly showing that most animals are conscious in the same way that we are, and it's no longer something we can ignore.

This is big news. In the past, we've always assumed animals were somehow less aware, less conscious than humans. But that may not be the case (although anyone who's spent time with animals knew this already)

The declaration made the following observations:

Studies of non-human animals have shown that homologous brain circuits correlated with conscious experience and perception can be selectively facilitated and disrupted to assess whether they are in fact necessary for those experiences

Wherever in the brain one evokes instinctual emotional behaviors in non-human animals, many of the ensuing behaviors are consistent with experienced feeling states, including those internal states that are rewarding and punishing.

Pharmacological interventions in non-human animals with compounds known to affect conscious behavior in humans can lead to similar perturbations in behavior in non-human animals.

So my question to you is this, ATS. Does this change the way you view animals? Should it change the way we treat animals, such as animals raised and slaughtered for food? Will it impact the way we treat animals?

Can't wait to hear your thoughts!

The Time Will Come...When All Good Things Will Be Restored...
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. Romans 8

reply to post by psyko4570

Arent humans the same?

In what sense are you saying we are same? Our self consciousness makes us different, because we are free to choose, whereas animals are not.

Before we will something, we may meet an instinct to act in a particular way; upon reflection, the human being can oppose that instinct to act, and act differently. By doing so man proves his ability to act free from external determination.

Apply the same test to an animal. An external stimuli enters the animals attention: can it stop and reflect on this particular determinant? Can it change course independent of outside coercion? And choose something different??

This is a MAMMOTH difference. This is what makes human beings able to drastically influence their environments, to build societies, create cities, and improve its outward condition in the world; while animals show their own fruits - which is the what God made them do: to be animals, to follow their immutable instincts.

This is what makes man a bit of God here below. We are creators.

reply to post by butcherguy


It's just not apart of the culture as eating dogs and cats is in China, is what I was trying to say.

reply to post by butcherguy


When one is starving, that modifies the situation, obviously.

reply to post by dontreally


In ecology species have their population grow exponentially and then achieve "carrying capacity" and then "overshoot" which causes "population collapse."

For humans we use exponential growth of logarithmic technology which is then achieving "carrying capacity" of the whole planet. The rate of species extinction is the fastest rate in the history of all of life on Earth due to humans using exponential growth technology.

So humans have just expanded the normal population growth that is exponential along with exponential growth or logarithmic-based technology -- and so now carrying capacity of humans plus the technology is taking down all ecology on Earth.

People think they are "in control" and have "free will" but actually we are limited to the laws of ecology just like any other species of life on Earth.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by butcherguy

 

It's just not apart of the culture as eating dogs and cats is in China, is what I was trying to say.

I know that is apparently a part of the culture in Quebec, maybe it is a French connection. It is so much a part of the culture there that they serve it in fast food restaurants.
The reason that I am aware of them eating horse meat there is that much of the horse that they eat comes from the US. There is a problem with that, in that horses are not raised in the US with the anticipation that they will be used as human food. They have drugs and antibiotics administered to them when they are ill, and if they are not going to recover, are shipped off to be slaughtered in Canada.

reply to post by dontreally

In what sense are you saying we are same? Our self consciousness makes us different, because we are free to choose, whereas animals are not.

The title of the thread states that 'animals are as with it as humans'.

You think that they are not, see we have common ground!

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

However, that does not mean we must not use them for science. Humans have dominion over all the animals to use as they see fit. As long as we are not unduly cruel to them, we should be able to use them for testing to help humanity as a whole. iIsee nothing wrong with that at all.

Thanks a lot for that, Dr Mengele. Is rubbing shampoo with methylparabens on monkeys still cruel if they die of a lethal injection first?

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by psyko4570

 

Arent humans the same?

Our self consciousness makes us different, because we are free to choose, whereas animals are not.

Before we will something, we may meet an instinct to act in a particular way; upon reflection, the human being can oppose that instinct to act, and act differently. By doing so man proves his ability to act free from external determination.

No disputing this. Though I do not base my agreeance on the existence of a diety.

But can we at least consider that an animals conciousness and mode of operation is simply different and not a lesser one? Like a handi-capped person who never mentally develops past the 'age' of two in thier mind, yet thier body is fifty. Does that make them less human justifying thier death to make more room for those of us that are 'superior' to them?