It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by dontreally

You may have done some good research and careful analysis but even that cannot simulate for you what it would be like to think as a dog, whose front half of their brain (as I understand it) is devoted to the sense of smell. If a person says "I can experience the worlds just as a dog does" I have to cry out because with the differences in our brains I don't even believe it is possible to think as a dog thinks. Can you also think as a plant, then? They are conscious in their own way - they even have memories.

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by jeantherapy

Good question.

Dogs -- well there was a fascinating study on the domestication of dogs creating docile behavior and it's due to changes in the neurohormones.

Oh wait first I found this:

Nick Redfern has pointed out the Defense Intelligence Agency tracking Soviet Psychotronic experiments documenting a nondual telepathic communication between animals at the point of death, indicating some sort of afterlife communication. Redfern states:

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.”
Nick Redfern, “Animals and the Afterlife,” May 7th, 2011, Mysterious Universe.

O.K. now this:

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.

The Nova documentary Dogs and More Dogs (2004)

I wonder if the color of a cat's coat affects its adrenaline levels?

I mean my sister's cat is black which would decrease the melatonin levels while increasing the melanin levels I think.

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.

So this pdf doesn't mention cat behavior based on cat coat color

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.

Wow sure enough -- but no mention of hunting instincts

Wild cats hunt alone while domesticated cats will hunt in groups.

The Unsociable Cat For years, "experts" have told cat owners that domestic cats are solitary creatures ... live in harmonious groups: playing, sleeping and evening hunting together.

So anyway -- yeah apparently the coat color is not a limiting factor for cat hunting.

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.

Wow I didn't realize cat hunting was even legal in some states

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.

more here
edit on 27-8-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:24 AM
The more I interact with and learn about animals, the more I oppose maltreatment in every form. Maybe we should go as far as abandoning lab rat practice.

Certainly, chimpanzees should never be experimented on.

Shut down zoos?

Then again, I often find my natural reaction is to swat the mosquito....

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:31 AM
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Right in Buddhist monasteries it's one of the codes to not swat mosquitoes.

Qigong master Chunyi Lin said he made a field of energy to keep the mosquitoes away from his students while they were outside meditating -

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:47 AM
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Yes, but birds and mice are cat's natural food, not corn gluten meal and chicken flavour.
It's the food chain. That is life.

On a seperate note. I also live in Canada and regarding the horse meat.
I had an aunt and cousins who have eaten horse... but that was 20 years ago.
Its not common, and rarely practiced. Oh, and Canada is a big country.. we don't all live around Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Yeah, when I'm in a thoughtful state I don't harm anything.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Working on it.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by ollncasino

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

Maybe they knew it was their time. And they faced it with dignity and calm. Could imply quite a deep reasoning. Or total denial. Shock. Also human concepts.

Rudolph Hess wrote of people walking into concentration camp showers at Auscwitz to be gassed. Most knew what was up. They even threw their kids back out the doors as they were being shut. The "trouble makers" were weeded out early in the process. Some calmed others down to make it easier (if thats possible). His descriptions of this can be found in his book and the Nuremburg trial transcripts. He was Commandant of Auschwitz.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:55 AM
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.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:21 AM
Oh Dogs are better than cats. Still i do like cats they are natrual pysics.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:52 AM
reply to post by Char-Lee

That is two of the best pics I've ever seen. Especially the second one. CLASSIC!

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:38 AM

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:

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.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:00 AM

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.

Then please read the rest of my post, and address the part where I am critical of these studies that define "consciousness" or "sentience" or whatever quality they are trying to pin point by cherry picking criteria to skew their results (either way frankly).

I did read the article, and this study is no exception to that trend. It seems to me that either you did not read my post completely, or you are cherry picking aspects yourself to skew perceptions in an attempt to make a point.

I will stand by what I said. Consciousness is circumstantial in the individual that may or may not possess it, and subjective in who may have it and how the observer attempting to find it defines such things. .

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:17 AM
I have spent much time observing my dogs over the years (and generations of dogs), trying to understand them. I love dogs, and am generally very close to at least 1 of the 2 that I always keep (i keep 2 because I think it inhumane to prevent them from interacting with another dog).

Until very recently, I considered dogs to be conscious, aware, and empathetic. But I considered them incapable of abstract thought. An evidence of this, to me, was that they couldn't comprehend using a finger to point with. They would look at the end of the finger, not the object being pointed at (even "pointers", a breed that I have been around more than a few of).

But a few weeks ago this changed. I had just left out the back door to go to work. I went out the back gate and got in my truck, then realized i had forgotten something. So i went back in the gate and started walking towards the back door. At this time my wife lets the dogs out (they had heard me and got interested with what was going on back there). They met me as i was rounding the corner, and had to skid to a stop. This tells me that they expected something (that they could run around the corner unimpeded). To expect something is to think in the abstract, to imagine the scenario happening a certain way.

Now, it may not be complex abstract thought, but it is abstract thought nonetheless And, it occured to me that the abstract thought is an artifact of memory.

Which has had me thinking about all manner of things. Perhaps I will write an article on this subject for my blog....

....which reminds me:

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..

Since i have a character count limitation, I will let you click through to read the rest of my thoughts on The Internal Dialogue in animals at my blog, if you are so inclined.

I think the answers to human consciousness lie in our ability to study other animals in context with ourselves. In so doing we might notice elements that are obscured by our own interactions with our consciousness. Kind of like lifting the veil of compound ignorance.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:57 AM
This thread made me think of the first time i found out my parents think only humans have a sole.
I was stumped, i hold my parents in high regard and think they know much about the spiritual world, but i could not believe they just not wanted to accept that an animal could posses a sole.
So I don't have many reasons to think otherwise, but i just know they do.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by ollncasino

Well I can understand why people would think a sheep is unaware of something horrific happening right next to it but if you know sheep they are very stoic by nature, it is a survival response to draw no attention that could cause them to be the next victim. I have a pet sheep, a three year old ram named Duncan. [ Google image search 'Deprizio tiger sheep' if you would like to see him
) Admittedly he is less emotionally responsive than say a cow but he clearly has a range of complex emotions. People who work butchering animals have to switch off to some degree to the possibility the animals in their charge have awareness and feel fear and pain.
I fully accept that animals are as aware and emotional as human beings, my personal belief is that their understanding is limited as a child's would be.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by jeantherapy

Did I deny that they were conscious in their own way??? Of course they are! My argument has been in opposition of the claim that our consciousness is the same as theirs. That is all I'm saying. This is after all what this thread is about.

A dogs consciousness is drastically different from ours - and fundamentally more primitive. Yes, they have a profound sense of smell which allows them to locate things with remarkable ease. This is an impressive natural ability, no doubt, but would you even dare put it on par with human beings?

If were going to just outright claim that animals and us 'are the same' - that is blatant whitewashing of real fundamental differences. Why not say a Ferrari is the same as a Honda civic?? Go. Argue with someone that there shouldn't be any difference is price between these two cars, because they are both 'cars'.

What we share with animals is a physical body and a very rudimentary set of homologous organs which govern emotional responses. This doesn't translate into: our experience is the same. It doesn't mean "our consciousness is similar". It simply means what philosophers have always been able to deduce: that a part of our spiritual nature - our instinctual, natural part - is paralleled in the animal kingdom. This scientific discovery merely pinpoints the organs and processes at the biological level.

To go from this to "see, our consciousness is the same!" is obscenely superficial.

When we say animals are conscious - yes - they are conscious of the plethora of instincts that come in and out of them. They have memories, but their memories are tinged by the instincts in which they serve: for example, my dog recalls that if I send her away once or twice from the dinner table while I'm eating, that on the third attempt, she will be likely to get some food. This is a sophisticated recall of hers, but I also realize that what motivates this initiative is her desire for food. In other words, animal instinct is always very self-centered. Most of all, however, there is no recognition of self - there is no sense of responsibility.

These are integral aspects of the human experience. To just wash these abilities away and ignore what makes us different and just acknowledge what connects us and not what separates us, is not only unscientific and biased, but an offense to human beings.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

That's funny... we have tons of stray cats in Milwaukee! We also have fox and coyote and I can't imagine a stray downbred cat to be able to hang with those truly wild beasts, unless it can get up a tree...

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:44 PM

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.

Of course, what I said is simply this: we will never understand what it is like to think as a creature whose sensory experience is guided by smell first - dogs perceive a world that we cannot, it is really that simple.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by dontreally

Most of all, however, there is no recognition of self - there is no sense of responsibility.

I disagree. Dogs, in particular, take their responsibilities very seriously. And there is definitely a recognition of self. I don't know how many dogs you've shared your life with, but there isn't one doubt in my mind that they have a sense of responsibility -- depending on their breeding (genetic traits), they are born to certain tasks.

Loyalty, protection, gathering of the 'pack', monitoring the cats' whereabouts (barking at them when they get on the counter), warnings to their humans and the dogs around the area.

Pride, sorrow, shame, grief, a sense of humor and justice, awareness of disruption, tension, human mood swings...all of those things.
Just yesterday our two dogs wanted their "morning chewies". Normally, they get exactly the same kind of chewy at the same time, and both are required to sit to receive them. The female, a shepherd type, likes to bury hers in bedclothes, or leaves, or couch cushions, while the lab/shep eats his immediately. Often, she will "tease" him when he's finished his and she still has hers.

She prances around proudly with her chewies. Yesterday, however, we had only two larger chewies, one with knotted ends about 4 inches long, and one about a foot long, both about 2" in diameter. I had two pencil-sized ones as well, but decided to try an experiment.

I gave the female the smaller, knotted rawhide, and the male the longer, larger one. She made it very clear that this was unjust. She even went to my husband to 'protest' and "tattle on me", then to the chewy cabinet, then gazed at the empty bags, clearly thinking, "Hey! Wait a miinute here!! That's not fair...isn't there a bigger one in there for me?"

There wasn't. So, I gave her one of the pencil-sized ones. She then had two. Still didn't make her satisfied.

A while later, she needed out, and dropped her still completely intact knotted chewy on the floor before stepping out the door. The male went to pick it up, to "steal it" from her. I saw him, and said, "Hey hey! No, no. Gimme that." He stopped dead in his tracks, turned around, and dropped it in my hand.

They really crack me up.
I'm sorry you aren't able to appreciate the full sentience and capacity of dogs

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:47 PM

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.

I saw a priest on television say that we could do whatever we wanted to animals because they have no souls and only humans are created in god's image. I almost punched a hole through my tv.

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in