How does one actually know what the cat is feeling?

[Tituscrow]

Thanks, mate. Knew I could count on good ol' aborgman to back me up

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by aborgman

Bingo.

As Richard Feynman said:

And he is spot on with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

[etoncrow]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

I think in the general sense, a lot of animals get scared with every visit to the vet...

With people it is called, "white coat syndrome."

[Munjibunga]

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.

If they use the right drugs, the cat thinks it's going to sleep. Same as when a human gets a colonoscopy.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by 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.

There won't. Science may discover things that are now in the realm of superstition, but it will still be science. It's been happening since the birth of civilization.

[bolophonic]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

You get born, you live, you die.

As do all organisms.

That doesn't mean that memories, thoughts, feelings, emotions etc - whilst you are alive - are in some way invalidated, but I see them merely as the product of that wonderful organ in your - and other animals - heads.

You can go all esoteric on me if you like, but I'm not going to argue. If that stuff floats your boat and gets you through the night, good luck to you.

Dude.

I'm not going all esoteric on you. I just don't understand why you can't seem to show any respect for other's experiences. "Hogwash," "float your boat," "get you through the night"... these are all disrespectful ways of communicating and you know it.

[Tituscrow]

I disagree. I thought my expressions of dismay were quite tame to be honest. Certainly no more patronising, condescending or insulting than the "I've seen the light, but you clearly haven't" theme of some of the posts that have come my way. Like there is some sort of grand secret to it all that I am somehow not privy to.

As Relic said earlier, despite his misguided bong-hazed youth, this thread has been...interesting. I don't know what the problem is with challenging views that are diametrically opposed to my own. Feel free to ignore me.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

And he is spot on with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

His point is very well taken. But..
Doesn't it come down to how one's brain is wired as to how they "see" the world?

An artist may look at that flower and see and feel something wholly different than the scientist. Does that mean the artist's perspective is invalid? What he feels is certainly real, and it's not based on something imagined, it's based on that flower and a remarkable beauty in the plays of color, shape, and form that he sees in it. On the other hand, the scientist sees a remarkable beauty in the function complexity and depth of what that flower is - also a very real and tangible. Who's wrong? IMO, it's not even worth a "argument" over. the answer simply depends on one's perspective. They're both right. Just depends on which one you think more like. IMO

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

There won't. Science may discover things that are now in the realm of superstition, but it will still be science. It's been happening since the birth of civilization.

yeah, aborgman brought that up earlier and I agreed with him.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by Relic

His point is very well taken. But..
Doesn't it come down to how one's brain is wired as to how they "see" the world?

An artist may look at that flower and see and feel something wholly different than the scientist. Does that mean the artist's perspective is invalid? What he feels is certainly real, and it's not based on something imagined, it's based on that flower and a remarkable beauty in the plays of color, shape, and form that he sees in it. On the other hand, the scientist sees a remarkable beauty in the function complexity and depth of what that flower is - also a very real and tangible. Who's wrong? IMO, it's not even worth a "argument" over. the answer simply depends on one's perspective. They're both right. Just depends on which one you think more like. IMO

I agree, both perspectives are equally valid, IMO.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

I agree, both perspectives are equally valid, IMO.

Yeah, trying to convince each other as to whose truth is more "real" is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. It just ain't going to happen without applying a lot of force.
At any rate, if I respect the person, I respect their opinion and because of that, it often opens my mind to alternate ideas. Either that or I've become wishy-washy in my old age...

[bolophonic]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

I disagree. I thought my expressions of dismay were quite tame to be honest. Certainly no more patronising, condescending or insulting than the "I've seen the light, but you clearly haven't" theme of some of the posts that have come my way. Like there is some sort of grand secret to it all that I am somehow not privy to.

As Relic said earlier, despite his misguided bong-hazed youth, this thread has been...interesting. I don't know what the problem is with challenging views that are diametrically opposed to my own. Feel free to ignore me.

Let's be honest here, if you are speaking in terms of "faith," then you have absolutely no concept of what my views are, so how could you adequately challenge them? I have no idea about "seeing the light," I just see things as they are. Like in this thread: I see a guy inexplicably puffing out his chest about what happens when you die instead of recognizing what happens when you are alive. (i.e., you do not get it.)

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by Relic

His point is very well taken. But..
Doesn't it come down to how one's brain is wired as to how they "see" the world?

An artist may look at that flower and see and feel something wholly different than the scientist. Does that mean the artist's perspective is invalid? What he feels is certainly real, and it's not based on something imagined, it's based on that flower and a remarkable beauty in the plays of color, shape, and form that he sees in it. On the other hand, the scientist sees a remarkable beauty in the function complexity and depth of what that flower is - also a very real and tangible. Who's wrong? IMO, it's not even worth a "argument" over. the answer simply depends on one's perspective. They're both right. Just depends on which one you think more like. IMO

That is a misanalysis of the Feynman quote.

Feynman concluded that everyone could see the beauty - just from different perspectives. His artist friend was asserting that Feynmans perspective made his ability to see the beauty LESSER, not different.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by aborgman

That is a misanalysis of the Feynman quote.

Feynman concluded that everyone could see the beauty - just from different perspectives. His artist friend was asserting that Feynmans perspective made his ability to see the beauty LESSER, not different.

That's kind of what I was saying, though I may not have worded it well. I absolutely agree that the artist was wrong as to assume that Feynmann's view was 'lesser".
My point beyond the quote was that "different" does not automatically render either invalid (unless we were maybe talking about a very specific function of the flower)
That's the pitfall that I see sometimes happening when folks with differing viewpoints slug it out over stuff like this.

[Tituscrow]

Originally Posted by bolophonic

Let's be honest here, if you are speaking in terms of "faith," then you have absolutely no concept of what my views are, so how could you adequately challenge them? I have no idea about "seeing the light," I just see things as they are. Like in this thread: I see a guy inexplicably puffing out his chest about what happens when you die instead of recognizing what happens when you are alive. (i.e., you do not get it.)

And you, my learned friend, have just as little an idea of who I am and what I am all about. Your comment about chest-puffing and 'not getting it' are crass at best, as well as a country mile off the mark.

Besides, my initial challenge was to Mystic Michael, so I've no idea what drew you in, other than feeling the need to 'puff your chest' in just the same way you accuse me of doing.

It's been a long time since I've been drawn into a TB slanging match and I've no interest in getting sucked in here. You want to challenge my views? Be my guest, but don't expect a petty game of last-word oneupmanship.

Back on topic regarding Feynmann. My perception of that quote was that he felt aggrieved that somehow a scientist is incapable of seeing the artists view of the flower, when in fact he sees both.

What do I mean? OK, back to the spiderwebs on a wet morning. I look at something like that and I see beauty in the intricacies of the pattern, the geometry, the symmetry, the forces, the maths, the physics, the SCIENCE that makes the whole thing work. But I also think "Damn...that would make a fantastic picture on my wall".

And this, bolophonic, is why I do "get it", more than you know.

[positivechris]

I had no idea they used the term "country mile" in UK. Titus are you from the states?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Relic

His point is very well taken. But..
Doesn't it come down to how one's brain is wired as to how they "see" the world?

An artist may look at that flower and see and feel something wholly different than the scientist. Does that mean the artist's perspective is invalid? What he feels is certainly real, and it's not based on something imagined, it's based on that flower and a remarkable beauty in the plays of color, shape, and form that he sees in it. On the other hand, the scientist sees a remarkable beauty in the function complexity and depth of what that flower is - also a very real and tangible. Who's wrong? IMO, it's not even worth a "argument" over. the answer simply depends on one's perspective. They're both right. Just depends on which one you think more like. IMO

I don't think he is trying to say either is more valid. He's pointing out why his artist friend is wrong for assuming that science removes the beauty. He finishes saying that he can not see how further knowledge of the flower could subtract from someone's appreciation of its beauty.

Even though he knows the deeper workings of the flower, his appreciation isn't lessened because of that.

I've heard it said before, that a scientific knowledge somehow makes your view more clinical, less appreciative of innate beauty. Feynman is just pointing out how wrong that is :-).

[bolophonic]

Originally Posted by aborgman

That is a misanalysis of the Feynman quote.

Feynman concluded that everyone could see the beauty - just from different perspectives. His artist friend was asserting that Feynmans perspective made his ability to see the beauty LESSER, not different.

I agree with all of this, but I wonder what you would say about a third friend who showed up and kept insisting that there was no flower. Would the artist and scientist be wrong to conclude that the third friend's input was less meaningful because he didn't believe in the flower, or would they be philosophically bound to say, "yes, friend... you are also correct?"

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by positivechris

I had no idea they used the term "country mile" in UK. Titus are you from the states?

It's a pretty common expression in the UK.

[bolophonic]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

And you, my learned friend, have just as little an idea of who I am and what I am all about. Your comment about chest-puffing and 'not getting it' are crass at best, as well as a country mile off the mark.

Besides, my initial challenge was to Mystic Michael, so I've no idea what drew you in, other than feeling the need to 'puff your chest' in just the same way you accuse me of doing.

It's been a long time since I've been drawn into a TB slanging match and I've no interest in getting sucked in here. You want to challenge my views? Be my guest, but don't expect a petty game of last-word oneupmanship.

Back on topic regarding Feynmann. My perception of that quote was that he felt aggrieved that somehow a scientist is incapable of seeing the artists view of the flower, when in fact he sees both.

What do I mean? OK, back to the spiderwebs on a wet morning. I look at something like that and I see beauty in the intricacies of the pattern, the geometry, the symmetry, the forces, the maths, the physics, the SCIENCE that makes the whole thing work. But I also think "Damn...that would make a fantastic picture on my wall".

And this, bolophonic, is why I do "get it", more than you know.

I'm not challenging your views, because I don't care what you believe. I was drawn in by your lack of respect for others in this thread. You did invite me to get all esoteric, right?