It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nick Redfern, “Animals and the Afterlife,” May 7th, 2011, Mysterious Universe.
The report carefully notes: “Dr. Pavel Naumov, conducted animal biocommunication studies between a submerged Soviet Navy submarine and a shore research station: these tests involved a mother rabbit and her newborn litter and occurred around 1956.” The document continues: “According to Naumov, Soviet scientists placed the baby rabbits aboard the submarine. They kept the mother rabbit in a laboratory on shore where they implanted electrodes (EEG?) in her brain. When the submarine was submerged, assistants killed the rabbits one by one. At each precise moment of death, the mother rabbit’s brain produced detectable and recordable reactions.” Demonstrating the sheer level of secrecy surrounding this particular affair, the DIA recorded that: “As late as 1970 the precise protocol and results of this test described by Naumov were believed to be classified. Many can be found in Soviet literature with dogs, bears, birds, insects and fish in conjunction with basic psychotronic research. The Pavlov Institute in Moscow may have been involved in animal telepathy until 1970.”
They checked the foxes' adrenaline levels—that's the hormone that controls the “fight or flight” response—and they found they were far lower than normal. RAY COPPINGER: That would explain the tameness, they're just not afraid because they're not producing as much adrenaline. But where does the multicolored coat come from? And somebody says right off the bat, “Hey, adrenaline's on a biochemical pathway that also goes to melanin, also has something to do with the animal's coat color.” So there's a correlation between coat color now and the adrenal gland.
Melanoblasts also differentiate into neural cells involved in sound detection in the ear. Loss of melanoblasts can result in deafness – an example of pleiotropy, where one gene can affect different and seemingly unrelated processes.
Among the things she points out are that coat coloring pigments (melanin) are produced by the same biochemical pathway in the brain as dopamine, a substance that plays an important role in brain activity. Therefore, coat color may influence behavior. One study suggested that cats carrying the non-agouti allele—a type of gene that produces solid coat colors (usually black cats)—may be more tolerant of crowding and the conditions of urban life, as well as having a greater amicability. In other words, black cats may adjust more readily to living in groups.
The Unsociable Cat www.feralcat.com/sarah4.html For years, "experts" have told cat owners that domestic cats are solitary creatures ... live in harmonious groups: playing, sleeping and evening hunting together.
South Dakota and Minnesota both allow wild cats to be shot. Some estimates indicate 2 million wild cats roam Wisconsin. The state says studies show feral cats kill between 47 million and 139 million songbirds a year. Cat fanciers turn out At Monday night’s meetings, animal lovers held pictures of cats, clutched stuffed animals and wore whiskers as they denounced the plan. Few hunters publicly spoke in favor of the plan, first proposed by Mark Smith, a La Crosse firefighter. Smith had faced death threats over the plan.
For example, the neurotransmitter dopamine and the hormones noradrenaline and adrenaline, which are involved in the stress response, have the same biochemical precursor as the melanin pigments (Anonymous 1971, Ferry and Zimmerman 1964). In addition, dopamine directly influences pigment production by binding to the pigment-producing cells (Burchill et al. 1986). Dopamine indirectly influences pigment production by inhibiting pituitary melanotropin, also known as melanocyte stimulating hormone (MSH), which is responsible for stimulating pigment cells to produce pigment (Tilders and Smelik 1978). Therefore, by breeding only the most docile animals in a group, humans select for physiological changes in the animal's hormonal and neurochemical systems, changes that impact morphology and physiology -- including fur color. A change in fur color during domestication may therefore be an incidental byproduct of selection for tameness.
One of my friends used to work in a abattoir. He told me that sheep had no concept of death - they would stand there undisturbed as other sheep were killed around them
Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by smyleegrl
Hmph, I didnt know people questioned if animals were conscious or not. For me, its always been a given, I grew up with a lot of pets though. Its pretty much impossible to spend a lot of time around animals and not realize they are somewhat aware. We should treat them ethically simply because we have the capacity to understand concepts like ethics and morals.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by Bluesma
Originally posted by redhorse
Sentience is highly circumstancial I think. My horse is self aware, and overall just as "conscious" as I am. I don't think that all animals are like this however;
If one reads the article in question and further ones about this study, it becomes clear that what is being refered to as "consciousness" is affect- the ability to feel; to have emotions, in response to perception.
I have always considered that dogs are of a high level of intelligence. You often hear it stated relative to humans, but I think that is wrong. You cannot say a dog is “as smart as a 7 year old”, because they aren’t. There isn’t a comparison, really.
That isn’t to say that dogs are stupid. Just that you cannot measure their intelligence on a scale that would be used to measure a human. It is a different type of mindset, and a different type of intelligence...snip....
In this vein, I declare that dogs are highly intelligent beings. Just not in the way we would normally classify. But their ability to process the massive inputs of sensory data related to smell and hearing (standing out among their other 3 normal senses), combined with the increased snesory input from organs such as whiskers, and organs on their paws, increases the workload on a brain that is notably smaller than ours.
I think the key difference here is that dogs are not prone to abstract thought. They are very concrete. The difference being, concrete thought is “here and now”, whereas abstract thought involves conceptualizing the future and making plans around it. This is not something a dog is prone to, although you will see it on occasion.
A good example of this is that most dogs (not all) are very poor at identifying human intent while pointing. If you point at something, they tend to just look at the end of your finger. Some hunting breeds, when in rural areas, may develop such abstract thinking skills (as a by product of rural, hunting life).
I say all of that to get to my point: i have been pondering this difference in thinking, trying to understand a dogs mind more. Trying to figure out how to think like a dog, if you will I think it would be a great exercise in probing my own consciousness.
Today it occured to me what the difference is: the internal dialogue..
Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by jeantherapy
I see what my dog is thinking by observing her expressions, and her body english. Some traits are easy... wagging tail. Others are more difficult to discern (laughter). There are highly developed mores and "be-attitudes" in higher life forms. As long as they can form facial expressions I can read them. You must pay attention and be really observant.
Most of all, however, there is no recognition of self - there is no sense of responsibility.
Originally posted by gigaherc
Some of them, especially those called Christians, treat them in worst ways because thay claim animals have "no souls". So yes many people question animals' conciousness. I see it every day.