How does one actually know what the cat is feeling?

[GlassOnion]

No one is getting out of here alive.

[Downunderwonder]

Originally Posted by AaronMB

I'd a cat that was sick and in pain...when it was time I got to hold him. It took but a short while, but in the time that 'it' started flowing in his veins and the time that it took over, he was definitely happier as he became more relaxed - and in less pain, no doubt. He purred, stretched and attempted to nuzzle as he had done when he was healthier.

Do I know what he felt? No. But I knew the behavior of that 16 year old cat well enough to recognize relief when it came for him.

That's nice to know.

[Tituscrow]

Originally Posted by MysticMichael

Certainly all living things are sentient and conscious, to one extent or another. And all living things exist simultaneously as spirits, and as corporeal beings.

If we limit our own consciousness, by skepticism and disbelief, to only those things that we can perceive concerning the natural world, via our five natural senses, we then fail to perceive a great deal of the flow of information that happens all around us, at all times, in the spiritual realm. This would likely include any "psychic" or "telepathic" communication that occurs between animals or between plants...or between us and the animals and/or plants - if we would permit it...

MM

Hogwash.

[Downunderwonder]

There goes a conflict of belief systems.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I've had two pets euthanized and both were sedated before the fatal dose was administered. I'm confident neither one felt anything...which also makes the question moot.

Been there done that sans the "final dose", as I wrote earlier. It's really rather pleasant. I have no issues whatsoever euthanizing a sick animal.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by MysticMichael

Certainly all living things are sentient and conscious, to one extent or another. And all living things exist simultaneously as spirits, and as corporeal beings.

If we limit our own consciousness, by skepticism and disbelief, to only those things that we can perceive concerning the natural world, via our five natural senses, we then fail to perceive a great deal of the flow of information that happens all around us, at all times, in the spiritual realm. This would likely include any "psychic" or "telepathic" communication that occurs between animals or between plants...or between us and the animals and/or plants - if we would permit it...

MM

Hmm...I'm absolutely 100% sure that there's more to "reality" than what we can decipher with our 5 senses. I have no doubts there, but personally I'm not so sure that we could tap into a different "reality" simply by suspending skepticism. The suspension of all skepticism is just as limiting as a strong skepticism in all things unseen IMO. Balance. It's all about balance...

[scorpionldr]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

This is a legit question.


I ask this question based off of a tb members comment who described how a cat feels as it's being euthanized.

you can't. Cat gets pumped full of a bunch of drugs and goes. well, guess the only way for someone to know is to try it..........

[HaMMerHeD]

Originally Posted by MysticMichael

Certainly all living things are sentient and conscious, to one extent or another. And all living things exist simultaneously as spirits, and as corporeal beings.

If we limit our own consciousness, by skepticism and disbelief, to only those things that we can perceive concerning the natural world, via our five natural senses, we then fail to perceive a great deal of the flow of information that happens all around us, at all times, in the spiritual realm. This would likely include any "psychic" or "telepathic" communication that occurs between animals or between plants...or between us and the animals and/or plants - if we would permit it...

MM

Uh...No.

"Spiritual realm?" Nonsense. Prove to me that *ANYTHING* exists as a "spiritual" being outside the corporeal, and then I'll listen to that. Until then, nonsense.

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

Hogwash.

Agreed.

[bolophonic]

Originally Posted by HaMMerHeD

Uh...No.

"Spiritual realm?" Nonsense. Prove to me that *ANYTHING* exists as a "spiritual" being outside the corporeal, and then I'll listen to that. Until then, nonsense.



Agreed.

Just because you can't see or understand something doesn't mean it can't exist.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by bolophonic

Just because you can't see or understand something doesn't mean it can't exist.

I agree. Back to my usual sort of quasi-science/religious post on this topic I know I know - here I go again.. but every specie of animal on this planet seems to be limited to a perspective and comprehension simply needed for it's survival and nothing more.
A fish will never understand music, a dog will never understand trigonometry, a cat will never understand physics simply because they have no need to. As humans we're insanely lucky to have the higher comprehension that we do, IMO. That said, to proclaim that we are able to understand all and everything. based on 5 senses alone...? To me, that's just as bad as someone believing everything told them on blind faith alone.
And, no, I can't prove it. I think that it's simply because even if I could, it would be beyond our comprehension to understand anyway, just like the fish, dog and cat.

Yes, I'm done now. Have at me!

[bolophonic]

Originally Posted by Relic

I agree. Back to my usual sort of quasi-science/religious post on this topic I know I know - here I go again.. but every specie of animal on this planet seems to be limited to a perspective and comprehension simply needed for it's survival and nothing more.
A fish will never understand music, a dog will never understand trigonometry, a cat will never understand physics simply because they have no need to. As humans we're insanely lucky to have the higher comprehension that we do, IMO. That said, to proclaim that we are able to understand all and everything. based on 5 senses alone...? To me, that's just as bad as someone believing everything told them on blind faith alone.
And, no, I can't prove it. I think that it's simply because even if I could, it would be beyond our comprehension to understand anyway, just like the fish, dog and cat.

Yes, I'm done now. Have at me!

I would never waste time trying to "prove" something esoteric to someone who was 1) completely hostile to the subject, and 2) demanded that I "prove" something to them in the first place. Like I care enough to splash around in the shallow end with people who are so satisfied by their own limitations.

[onosson]

Originally Posted by Relic

A fish will never understand music

Perhaps, but birds may be another story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ay-humans.html

[Relic]

Originally Posted by bolophonic

I would never waste time trying to "prove" something esoteric to someone who was 1) completely hostile to the subject, and 2) demanded that I "prove" something to them in the first place. Like I care enough to splash around in the shallow end with people who are so satisfied by their own limitations.

Yeah me neither. In fact I would question why someone (on EITHER side of the issue mind you) would choose to be hostile when discussing things like that. There's no need for it, and frankly, it shows a lack of respect for the other person. At that point why bother? It's just become a contest of egos. Or at least that what it looks like to me.

Originally Posted by onosson

Perhaps, but birds may be another story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ay-humans.html

That would make perfect sense though considering that a bird's song is used to convey information.

[Tituscrow]

To be clear...I think the notion of any and all animals having something that we could describe as a 'consciousness' is a hugely interesting subject. However, once you start including much simpler organisms - invertebrates (and even plants!) - in that discussion...well that's when it all starts getting a little silly.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Relic

Yeah me neither. In fact I would question why someone (on EITHER side of the issue mind you) would choose to be hostile when discussing things like that. There's no need for it, and frankly, it shows a lack of respect for the other person. At that point why bother? It's just become a contest of egos. Or at least that what it looks like to me.

The problem lies where people try and put forward a personal belief as fact.

Of course we don't know everything, and trying to claim otherwise would be crass (and have me out of a job).

[Relic]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

The problem lies where people try and put forward a personal belief as fact.

Of course we don't know everything, and trying to claim otherwise would be crass (and have me out of a job).

Definitely!

My take on it, is not so much whether we know everything or not, (of course we don't obviously) it's rather could we know everything even if all of the "facts' were laid right out before us? I'm just of the mind that we can understand soooo much and that's the amazing part of the human specie, but I do personally believe that there's a limit. This, just based on the seeming limitations of animals in general. I think we're awesome, but we're still just an animal after all... and as always, just my own opinion

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

Hogwash.

Right on cue...

Originally Posted by Relic

Hmm...I'm absolutely 100% sure that there's more to "reality" than what we can decipher with our 5 senses. I have no doubts there, but personally I'm not so sure that we could tap into a different "reality" simply by suspending skepticism. The suspension of all skepticism is just as limiting as a strong skepticism in all things unseen IMO. Balance. It's all about balance...

I agree. That would be overstating the case - so I made a point to avoid that particular overstatement...

For the record, I'm not suggesting that all things are possible - merely by suspending one's disbelief. After all, we have powers of reason and logic that the other animals don't have - including a healthy degree of natural skepticism - so it's entirely appropriate that we use them.

But I will argue that the willingness to suspend one's disbelief concerning those things that lie beyond the limits of our five natural senses is a necessary first step in beginning to perceive, and then to comprehend those things. It is the arrogance of those who pre-emptively declare that there can be no reality beyond what their five senses tell them, that makes it impossible for them to see what is already there.

Originally Posted by HaMMerHeD

"Spiritual realm?" Nonsense. Prove to me that *ANYTHING* exists as a "spiritual" being outside the corporeal, and then I'll listen to that. Until then, nonsense.

I can't "prove" it. But I don't have to. You will discover the truth of it for yourself - sooner or later.

MM

[Tituscrow]

So tell me more about the sentience and consciousness, and the spiritual/corporeal nature - to whatever extent - of a blade of grass.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

To be clear...I think the notion of any and all animals having something that we could describe as a 'consciousness' is a hugely interesting subject. However, once you start including much simpler organisms - invertebrates (and even plants!) - in that discussion...well that's when it all starts getting a little silly.

Not to get too technical or pedantic, but the problem may be that you're conflating the concept of "consciousness" with the concept of "intelligence". They are, of course, not equivalent.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to posit that every living thing has a degree of consciousness, corresponding roughly to its degree of development - without necessarily attributing to it the qualities of intelligence - at least so much as we understand intelligence to be comprised of the ability to learn, the ability to adapt to a changing environment, the ability to innovate, and so on.

Whether the distinction is a matter of gradual degree, or a sharp divide based upon one or more key differentiating factors, I do not know. Perhaps it is a matter for the epistemologists. But I suspect that it is the former...

MM

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I wouldn't say it is completely reasonable.

Does a single bacteria have any form of conciousness? What about the individual cells of our body? Is our conciousness an expression of the collective conciousness of each cell of our body?