How does one actually know what the cat is feeling?

[Relic]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Actually, cats understand physics quite well. Thats the reason they always land on their feet.

Take a cat, glue buttered toast to it's back, buttered side up, and drop it from a roof - instant physics-defying perpetual motion machine.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by Relic

Take a cat, glue buttered toast to it's back, buttered side up, and drop it from a roof - instant physics-defying perpetual motion machine.

Thats how I power my cars Level III forcefield.

[Bloodhammer]

[michael_atw]

Originally Posted by Relic

No, it's actually not, as morbid as it sounds. Death is quick - but I believe that it can take up to a minute to actually die.

"Instant" would be vaporization or being blown to tiny bits.

I believe that I read in the event of an "instant" thing like decapitation, the body will continue to "live" for 7 or so minutes. The shock would render the person unable to comprehend it but the body would still show signs of "existing".

[RadioactiveGuy4]

I just wanted to clear some things up.

I am a certified Euthanasia Tech and have preformed hundreds of euthanasias.

The most common method of Euthanasia in the US is an overdoes of Sodium Pentobarbrital an anaesthetic that when given in the proper dose causes the central nervous system to shut down. There are three methods of injecting it into the body.

The first and most common method used is IV injection. This is how most Vets will preform euthanasia in front of owners. Some Vets will sedate a pet before giving the injection others will not. It all depends on the Vets views and the temprament of the animal. Once the the injection is given most pets are dead with in 5 seconds. As long as the injection is done correctley there is no pain felt by the animal.

The second method is IP injection or a shot given into the abdomen. This is a much slower process (sometime taking as long as 45 min for the pet to pass) as the body takes longer to absorb the drug into the blood stream. Durring that time the pet may experinence what is called involuntery excitement. The may voclalize, thrash, and twitch. For this reason this method is not done in front of owners. Other that the prick of the needle the pet still feels no pain.

The next method is called IC or and injection given into the heart. This is only preformed on animals that are under heavy anaestisia as it can cause pain. In fact several years ago 2 Animal Control officers were convicted of animal crultey for giving IC injections on pets that were still awake. Due to the nature of the injection this is not preformed infront of owners. However this is the quickest method and death is almost instant.

The last method is to mix the drug into food and feed it to the animal. This is only done on aggressive animals that are not able to be handled. This is the method that takes the longest and is not done in view of the public for the same reasons as the IP injection.

All that being said I dont think there is anyway for us to tell what a cat or dog is feeling emotionally at the time of death. We can only tell the most basic things like if they are in pain or if they are scared or relaxed.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by michael_atw

I believe that I read in the event of an "instant" thing like decapitation, the body will continue to "live" for 7 or so minutes. The shock would render the person unable to comprehend it but the body would still show signs of "existing".

Morbid as heck but an interesting quick read:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...r-decapitation

[Eric Perry]

Originally Posted by Relic

Morbid as heck but an interesting quick read:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...r-decapitation

Wow. That's some downright freaky stuff!

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by bolophonic

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

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... but it's also not evidence of existence.

I won't claim it can't or doesn't exist - I'll only claim that no one has EVER shown me one iota of scientific evidence (the repeatable, reproducible, objective kind) for it's existence.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by aborgman

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... but it's also not evidence of existence.

I won't claim it can't or doesn't exist - I'll only claim that no one has EVER shown me one iota of scientific evidence (the repeatable, reproducible, objective kind) for it's existence.

It could be that it doesnt exist, or it could be that we do not yet have the technological means to record such evidence.
I can understand being a skeptic and wanting evidence before one can accept something as truth, but I think when we lack faith in the possibility or probability of somethings existence we begin closing off channels to discover said evidence. I think because of this need for evidence a lot of people have lost the necessary faith that would be required to motivate an individual to research the matter.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

It could be that it doesnt exist, or it could be that we do not yet have the technological means to record such evidence.
I can understand being a skeptic and wanting evidence before one can accept something as truth, but I think when we lack faith in the possibility or probability of somethings existence we begin closing off channels to discover said evidence. I think because of this need for evidence a lot of people have lost the necessary faith that would be required to motivate an individual to research the matter.

Good post. I agree.
I'd personally even go one step further towards to the tin foil hat arena when I state that I suspect that even if we had the technological means to record evidence of a 'whatever", there are things that are simply beyond our ability to understand which means that until we advance and evolve beyond who/what we are now, we're not going to comprehend even it it were right in our faces. We only comprehend what our brains allow us to comprehend. Such is nature...
All IMO of course. Just my own personal take of the universe.

[hover]

Originally Posted by RadioactiveGuy4

I just wanted to clear some things up.

I am a certified Euthanasia Tech and have preformed hundreds of euthanasias.

The most common method of Euthanasia in the US is an overdoes of Sodium Pentobarbrital an anaesthetic that when given in the proper dose causes the central nervous system to shut down. There are three methods of injecting it into the body.

The first and most common method used is IV injection. This is how most Vets will preform euthanasia in front of owners. Some Vets will sedate a pet before giving the injection others will not. It all depends on the Vets views and the temprament of the animal. Once the the injection is given most pets are dead with in 5 seconds. As long as the injection is done correctley there is no pain felt by the animal.

The second method is IP injection or a shot given into the abdomen. This is a much slower process (sometime taking as long as 45 min for the pet to pass) as the body takes longer to absorb the drug into the blood stream. Durring that time the pet may experinence what is called involuntery excitement. The may voclalize, thrash, and twitch. For this reason this method is not done in front of owners. Other that the prick of the needle the pet still feels no pain.

The next method is called IC or and injection given into the heart. This is only preformed on animals that are under heavy anaestisia as it can cause pain. In fact several years ago 2 Animal Control officers were convicted of animal crultey for giving IC injections on pets that were still awake. Due to the nature of the injection this is not preformed infront of owners. However this is the quickest method and death is almost instant.

The last method is to mix the drug into food and feed it to the animal. This is only done on aggressive animals that are not able to be handled. This is the method that takes the longest and is not done in view of the public for the same reasons as the IP injection.

All that being said I dont think there is anyway for us to tell what a cat or dog is feeling emotionally at the time of death. We can only tell the most basic things like if they are in pain or if they are scared or relaxed.

thank you for this post. well done and definitive.

[Eric Perry]

Originally Posted by RadioactiveGuy4

I just wanted to clear some things up.

I am a certified Euthanasia Tech and have preformed hundreds of euthanasias.

The most common method of Euthanasia in the US is an overdoes of Sodium Pentobarbrital an anaesthetic that when given in the proper dose causes the central nervous system to shut down. There are three methods of injecting it into the body.

The first and most common method used is IV injection. This is how most Vets will preform euthanasia in front of owners. Some Vets will sedate a pet before giving the injection others will not. It all depends on the Vets views and the temprament of the animal. Once the the injection is given most pets are dead with in 5 seconds. As long as the injection is done correctley there is no pain felt by the animal...

This is what I was there to see when my Dachshund Mercy was put down over the summer. She was very mellow going into it, so I'm assuming that's why no sedative was used beforehand. She almost welcomed the procedure. She was actually asleep (or more?) before the entire injection was administered. It was *really* quick. I sat with her for a few minutes following all of that, just in case there was any "awareness" that lingered. All in all, I was much more distressed than she was.

[Tituscrow]

Matticus, Relic....are you talking about the souls of blades of grass?

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

Matticus, Relic....are you talking about the souls of blades of grass?

Nah, not anything like that really. More sci-fi-esque than quasi religious I'd say


Just adding - I was watching a program on quantum physics last night, and it was interesting in that they were talking about the ability for bits on a sub atomic scale to be in two places at the same time. They don't know how or why, but just that it is. My point is that maybe it's not that we don't know why that's the neat aspect, but maybe we cannot..? That's kind of where I'm coming from.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by Relic

Good post. I agree.
I'd personally even go one step further towards to the tin foil hat arena when I state that I suspect that even if we had the technological means to record evidence of a 'whatever", there are things that are simply beyond our ability to understand which means that until we advance and evolve beyond who/what we are now, we're not going to comprehend even it it were right in our faces. We only comprehend what our brains allow us to comprehend. Such is nature...
All IMO of course. Just my own personal take of the universe.

Oh, Im definitely with you, and thats pretty much along the lines of what Im saying. I think in time our race will evolve and eventually understand more about ourselves than we currently know to be true. There could be truths staring us right in our faces, but we dont yet know it. A key statement you made: "We only comprehend what our brains allow us to comprehend." If we close our minds off to certain possibilities we're only slowing their potential discovery. Science and faith are all too often at odds against each other, and I think thats only impeding progress.

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

Matticus, Relic....are you talking about the souls of blades of grass?

Haha, no not at all. Im not certain that blades of grass have souls, but I do believe that us as humans do, and that its possible other animals do.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

It could be that it doesnt exist, or it could be that we do not yet have the technological means to record such evidence.

Correct.

...but I have to go with Bertrand Russell and his teapot -

"To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice."

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

I can understand being a skeptic and wanting evidence before one can accept something as truth, but I think when we lack faith in the possibility or probability of somethings existence we begin closing off channels to discover said evidence. I think because of this need for evidence a lot of people have lost the necessary faith that would be required to motivate an individual to research the matter.

I have no faith. In anything. Ever.

I try my best to altogether avoid engaging in "belief" and try to live my life by the "preponderance of evidence".

If a preponderance of evidence does not exist, I'm perfectly happy to state "I don't know" and hold NO position on the subject until the evidence reaches a sufficient level. I feel no need to "believe" or "have faith" in a position not supported by evidence just to have a position.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by aborgman

Correct.

...but I have to go with Bertrand Russell and his teapot -

"To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice."

And that seems reasonable enough. I dont think theres are large portions of people who believe there is a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars, and even if there was that we'd have anything to gain by looking at a teapot, other than "how did the teapot get there?"

I have no faith. In anything. Ever.

I try my best to altogether avoid engaging in "belief" and try to live my life by the "preponderance of evidence".

If a preponderance of evidence does not exist, I'm perfectly happy to state "I don't know" and hold NO position on the subject until the evidence reaches a sufficient level. I feel no need to "believe" or "have faith" in a position not supported by evidence just to have a position.

And that makes sense. I can understand why some people need evidence in order to believe something to be true. However, I think if no one ever had faith or believed in something that could possibly be true then no one would ever begin searching for the evidence that others need to believe it. So, I can understand why some people don't believe in the spirit, but if no one believed in the possibility of the spirit, no one is going to bother looking into its existence. And, Im sure there are those who are looking into it existence and have yet to find the needed evidence to convince others, but I wouldnt say thats reason enough to cease looking. It could very well be that the spirit/soul does not exist, or it could be that we dont yet have the means to provide a preponderance of evidence for it. I think the fact that many people do believe in its existence is a good reason to study the matter, at the most basic level why people believe it. We could probably even list answers to that question, which should then lead us to the next question, and so on... So long as someone still believes in it, people will continue looking into it, and the more people looking into it the more that will come out of it. A lot of important discoveries are made along the way when people are looking for those annswers that are hard to find.

[Relic]

I look at it in this one really simple way - I simply choose to believe what I believe because it makes complete and total sense to me personally whether it can be proved or not ever proved. That's the whole of it.
I really don't feel the need to force it on others, why? After all, I can be completely and totally wrong. If that's the case, why argue? But I do agree with matticus that there's merit in staying open-minded enough to want to reach beyond that which we can understand right now. We're moving along with our scientific understand at an amazing pace which is awesome, I'm wondering if there will ever come a day when science and religion (not sure that the right word, "faith", "mysticism", "occult", "superstition", paranormal"?) meet somewhere solidly in the middle.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

And that seems reasonable enough. I dont think theres are large portions of people who believe there is a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars, and even if there was that we'd have anything to gain by looking at a teapot, other than "how did the teapot get there?"

I'd say that exact same argument could be made about ANYTHING which is based on faith.

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

And that makes sense. I can understand why some people need evidence in order to believe something to be true. However, I think if no one ever had faith or believed in something that could possibly be true then no one would ever begin searching for the evidence that others need to believe it.

I see a very distinct difference between holding a possibility and having faith in it.

An infinite number of things are possible. Investigating any of them, even those with no evidentiary support - I understand.

Believing things on faith? I'll never get it.

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

So, I can understand why some people don't believe in the spirit, but if no one believed in the possibility of the spirit, no one is going to bother looking into its existence.

Funny enough - the history of science is as full of people providing evidence for something they actively disbelieve as people providing evidence for something they believe.

If the possibility of disproving another exists - people are going to bother looking into it.

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

And, Im sure there are those who are looking into it existence and have yet to find the needed evidence to convince others, but I wouldnt say thats reason enough to cease looking. It could very well be that the spirit/soul does not exist, or it could be that we dont yet have the means to prove it.

I'm not interested in proof. Science doesn't deal in proof.

I'm interested in the preponderance of evidence.

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

-Karl Popper

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

I think the fact that many people do believe in its existence is a good reason to study the matter, at the most basic level why people believe it. We could probably even list answers to that question, which should then lead us to the next question, and so on... So long as someone still believes in it, people will continue looking into it, and the more people looking into it the more that will come out of it. A lot of important discoveries are made along the way when people are looking for those answers that are hard to find.

Absolutely.

...but we've pretty much got an answer to that question. Humans seem to have an innate need for answers/patterns. Saying "I don't know" seems to revolt a lot of folks - and they would rather choose an unsupported position than just remain undecided on matters.

Humans are amazingly good (thanks evolution) at pattern matching - problem is that we have a bad tendency to have "false positives" in that we often find patterns where none exist.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by Relic

I'm wondering if there will ever come a day when science and religion (not sure that the right word, "faith", "mysticism", "occult", "superstition", paranormal"?) meet somewhere solidly in the middle.

I'd argue it's impossible.

Science, by definition - only deals with the NATURAL.

Religion, by definition, ties itself to the supernatural.

Supernatural - Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

If it's ACTUALLY supernatural - science can't comment, and if it isn't supernatural it isn't religion... just science.