Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[palerider]

Thats not true. Other animals mourn their dead, and protect their young. Even monkeys will go out of their way to avoid harming a member of their own species.

Mourning is the result of our contemplation of our own mortality. Since animals have no concept of their mortality, they do not mourn. They may exhibit behavior, but they do not mourn them. And protecting one's young is instinct, not the result of any intelligence. An alligator is about as smart as a bag of rocks, but it will kill you if you mess with her young. And monkeys will go out of their way to avoid harming a more dominant member of their species so as not to get killed. They actively harm weaker members in order to maintain their place within the pecking order.

 

[ArmChair General]

Mourning is the result of our contemplation of our own mortality. Since animals have no concept of their mortality, they do not mourn. They may exhibit behavior, but they do not mourn them. And protecting one's young is instinct, not the result of any intelligence. An alligator is about as smart as a bag of rocks, but it will kill you if you mess with her young. And monkeys will go out of their way to avoid harming a more dominant member of their species so as not to get killed. They actively harm weaker members in order to maintain their place within the pecking order.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1497634.htm

"Elephants pay homage to the bones of their dead, gently touching the skulls and tusks with their trunks and feet, according to the first systematic study of elephant empathy for the dead.

The finding provides the first hard evidence to support stories of elephant mourning, in which the pachyderms are said to congregate at elephant cemeteries, drawn by the bones of their kin.

It also shows that these animals display a trait once thought to be unique to humans, says Dr Karen McComb, a UK expert on animal communication and cognition at the University of Sussex.

"Most mammals show only passing interest in the dead remains of their own or other species," McComb and colleagues write in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters."


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1031_051031_elephantbones.html



I wonder, how much time have you spent around animals to come to your conclusions?

 

[palerider]

I wonder, how much time have you spent around animals to come to your conclusions?

From your article:

According to Dr Paul Rees, a UK expert of elephant behaviour at the University of Salford's School of Environment and Life Sciences, it is difficult to speculate on the elephants' interest in their dead.

"Some elephants have tusks of quite distinctive shapes so it is perfectly possible that an elephant might recognise another from its tusks alone, Rees says.

Since elephants spend a lot of time associating with their close relatives, it may also be the case that they are more likely to recognise relatives than other elephants with whom they have spend less time."

As to my experience with animals, I grew up on a farm, presently live on a medium sized piece of acreage and have numerous horses, cows, goats, dogs and fowl. Animals don't mourn as they have no concept of their mortality.

 

[Coyote]

Mourning is the result of our contemplation of our own mortality. Since animals have no concept of their mortality, they do not mourn.

You have to be careful here. You can't lump all non-human animals into one group. Mourning is grief. Some animals certainly show grief. I recall reading several of instances where grief was displayed - one example:

One, where a female elephant fell off a cliff and was killed. Both her half grown daughter and her new infant remained with the body in what seemed to be mourning. The rest of the herd eventually moved on. The halfgrown daughter attempted to nurse and care for the infant but would not leave the body and refused to eat.

They may exhibit behavior, but they do not mourn them. And protecting one's young is instinct, not the result of any intelligence. An alligator is about as smart as a bag of rocks, but it will kill you if you mess with her young. And monkeys will go out of their way to avoid harming a more dominant member of their species so as not to get killed. They actively harm weaker members in order to maintain their place within the pecking order.

Yes, but what about protecting another species entirely? Remember Koko, the gorilla who had a pet kitten?

Or, look at African Wild Dogs that have been known to bring food back their very old or injured packmates that can't keep up or hunt for themselves.

The more we learn about other animals, the more we have to redefine what it means to be human.

 

[9sublime]

As to my experience with animals, I grew up on a farm, presently live on a medium sized piece of acreage and have numerous horses, cows, goats, dogs and fowl. Animals don't mourn as they have no concept of their mortality.

You do know an elephant isn't a horse, cow, goat, dog or fowl? All animals are different, lets not group them all together, and elephants are very sociable, family orientated creatures. And not just because of instict.

My great uncle was a gamekeeper in Africa and my Dad spent his childhood in Kenya. He says elephants have one of the gentlest natures of all creatures, and he definetly believes they have a concept of death and grief for those who have died.

What other benefit comes of touching tusks and skulls of a deceased animal in the animal kingdom?

What would be so wrong with an elephant having deeper emotions than just instinct to survive? Would it destroy the Christian doctrine or something, like extraterrestrial life?

 

[palerider]

You have to be careful here. You can't lump all non-human animals into one group. Mourning is grief. Some animals certainly show grief. I recall reading several of instances where grief was displayed - one example:

Animals show behavior that we may interpret as grief. We mourn because we understand that those we care about have died and will not be coming back.

I have a couple of bird dogs. They are from the same litter and I have hunted them together exclusively for the past 7 years. They are inseparable. When one cut her foot badly in the field, I had to leave her at the vet for a few days. The other exhibited behavior that could have been taken for grief but was in fact, nothing more than separation anxiety. Most any social animal is capable of experiencing such anxiety. Outwardly, they look alike. The mental mechanics of separation anxiety, however, are entirely different from grief.

One, where a female elephant fell off a cliff and was killed. Both her half grown daughter and her new infant remained with the body in what seemed to be mourning. The rest of the herd eventually moved on. The halfgrown daughter attempted to nurse and care for the infant but would not leave the body and refused to eat.

Again. What seemed to be mourning. What does mourning look like if it is not articulated? What does anxiety look like if it is not articulated? How many other mental states that are not articulated look like mourning? Hell, my wife looks like she is in mourning when she is 3 moves away from being checkmated. It is one thing to say that a behavior looks like mourning, but an entirely different matter to prove it. To prove genuine mourning, you would first have to prove that the animal was conscious of its own mortality and the mortality of its fellows.

Yes, but what about protecting another species entirely? Remember Koko, the gorilla who had a pet kitten?

What about it. Monkeys who are removed from their mothers at an early age will become highly protective and exhibit very motherly behavior towards a stuffed sock with eyes sewn onto it.

As for Koko. You call it a pet? Does that mean the cat was a pet? She was an orphan was she not? Koko could express what she was thinking, she never called the cat a pet. She only called it a cat.

Or, look at African Wild Dogs that have been known to bring food back their very old or injured packmates that can't keep up or hunt for themselves.

When food is plentiful. When it is not, they are just as likely to eat wounded packmates.

The more we learn about other animals, the more we have to redefine what it means to be human.

Human is human. If a dog became articulate and got a degree from princeton, it would not change what it means to be human by even the smallest amount. The only thing that would change is what it means to be a dog.

No offense coyote, but you really should work on your critical thinking skills. I am sure that you have them in abundance but like any muscle that is not used...

 

[palerider]

You do know an elephant isn't a horse, cow, goat, dog or fowl? All animals are different, lets not group them all together, and elephants are very sociable, family orientated creatures. And not just because of instict.

And horses love to kick a ball if one is available. They don't aspire to play in the world cup though. It is very easy, and tempting for us to paint attributes onto animals that they don't posess. Perhaps it helps us feel less alone in the world.

My great uncle was a gamekeeper in Africa and my Dad spent his childhood in Kenya. He says elephants have one of the gentlest natures of all creatures, and he definetly believes they have a concept of death and grief for those who have died.

He believes that and if it is is nature to ascribe such things to animals, I can't really fault him for it. An elephant could not possibly be more gentle with its young than a cow with a new calf, but by the same token, and elephant is also capable of violence in a way that only animals are capable of.

What other benefit comes of touching tusks and skulls of a deceased animal in the animal kingdom?

I don't know. What benefit comes from touching obviously dead logs, or rocks? Perhaps they are picking up an interesting sent. Far more of their brains are devoted to smell than ours. They smell far better than they see. Since their trunks serve them very much like our hands, it would be quite easy to interpret curiosity about a smell as gentle touching.

What would be so wrong with an elephant having deeper emotions than just instinct to survive? Would it destroy the Christian doctrine or something, like extraterrestrial life?

When did you ever hear me suggest that we are alone in the universe? And christian doctrine has nothing to do with the fact that animals have no concept of either their own mortality or the mortality of any other creature. If ascribing such "feelings" to animals helps you, then ascribe all you like, but don't try and make yourself feel even better by trying to convince me to join you in your beliefs.

 

[9sublime]

And horses love to kick a ball if one is available. They don't aspire to play in the world cup though. It is very easy, and tempting for us to paint attributes onto animals that they don't posess. Perhaps it helps us feel less alone in the world.


He believes that and if it is is nature to ascribe such things to animals, I can't really fault him for it. An elephant could not possibly be more gentle with its young than a cow with a new calf, but by the same token, and elephant is also capable of violence in a way that only animals are capable of.

An elephant is violent with its young because it is its instinct to protect it. If you try and snatch a baby away from its mother, I'm pretty sure most of them would react with instinct and start scratching and hitting you.

I don't know. What benefit comes from touching obviously dead logs, or rocks? Perhaps they are picking up an interesting sent. Far more of their brains are devoted to smell than ours. They smell far better than they see. Since their trunks serve them very much like our hands, it would be quite easy to interpret curiosity about a smell as gentle touching.

I think an elephant would quickly grow tired of handling every tusk it found on the ground pretty quickly, but they do it for hours.

When did you ever hear me suggest that we are alone in the universe? And christian doctrine has nothing to do with the fact that animals have no concept of either their own mortality or the mortality of any other creature. If ascribing such "feelings" to animals helps you, then ascribe all you like, but don't try and make yourself feel even better by trying to convince me to join you in your beliefs.

I prefer to have the complete different opinion about everything to you. It makes me feel more secure about my sanity.

With a head that big, don't you think the brain inside an elephant might just develop a bit?

 

[palerider]

An elephant is violent with its young because it is its instinct to protect it. If you try and snatch a baby away from its mother, I'm pretty sure most of them would react with instinct and start scratching and hitting you.

I wasn't talking about with their young. I was talking about an elephant's or any other animal's for that matter capacity to change from seemingly gentle to a level of violence that is beyond any human being in the blink of an eye.

I think an elephant would quickly grow tired of handling every tusk it found on the ground pretty quickly, but they do it for hours.

There you go again viewing animals as if they were more than animals. You woud quickly grow tired of handling every tusk on the ground. But then, your mind works in an entirely different way than an elephant's does. And you are assuming that it is handling when in all probablilty, it is not handling, but smelling.

There is some pretty compelling research that suggests that an elephant has the most well developed and sophisticated sense of smell of any land animal. That would mean that smells are far more important to an elephant than sight is to you, or hearing.

Have you ever watched a working dog of the hunting variety? I can turn out my bird dogs in the fenced area of the yard and leave them out there all day and they will constantly go about sniffing this and that. They will stop occasionally to take a short nap, or bark at something, but then they are right back to sniffing the same things over and over and over. They never grow tired of smelling and seem never to get tired of any smell no matter how ordinary it is in their lives. Things they have smelled for years don't appear any more, or less, interesting to them than new smells that might be in the yard. The largest part of their brain is devoted to interpereting smells. The same is true for elephants. Neurological scans show clearly that when an elephant is actively engaged in scenting, that more of its brain is active than even with a bloodhound which was, until recently, thought to be the most sophisticated land "smeller"

I prefer to have the complete different opinion about everything to you. It makes me feel more secure about my sanity.

That statement in, and of itself, should rightfully call your sanity into question

With a head that big, don't you think the brain inside an elephant might just develop a bit?

It's brain is larger than ours, but in relation to its body size, it is no where close to us. And the size of the brain isn't nearly as important as its design. As I said, a very large percentage of the elephant's brain is devoted to interpreting smells. It also has a fairly large center devoted to hearing and sight. As with most animals (humans excepted) there isn't much brain power left over once you account for the amount of brain that is used to give them their very accute (when compared to us) senses.

It would not surprise me at all to see the human brain grow smaller in a few hundred generations. There have always been those who suggest that we humans only use a fraction of our brains and will advance as we learn to use more. Research, however, is suggesting that that portion of our brain power that we don't use might have once been used to give us an enhanced sense of smell, or more accute hearing and has been superceeded by our higher brain functions and at this point is simply waiting to dissappear given time.

 

[Coyote]

I have a couple of bird dogs. They are from the same litter and I have hunted them together exclusively for the past 7 years. They are inseparable. When one cut her foot badly in the field, I had to leave her at the vet for a few days. The other exhibited behavior that could have been taken for grief but was in fact, nothing more than separation anxiety. Most any social animal is capable of experiencing such anxiety. Outwardly, they look alike. The mental mechanics of separation anxiety, however, are entirely different from grief.

Again – there are vast differences between species. A domestic dog is not the same as a dolphin or chimpanzee. Every species should be assessed seperately – not lumped together as “animals”. Whether non-human animals feel grief is debatable because we simply don’t know how they think and the only yardstick we use for their thought processes is a human one. Because of this we can only observe their behavior. The behavior of some species certainly mimics mourning behavior in humans. Yet you label it “seperation anxiety”. In many ways….is not mourning in humans a form of “seperation anxiety”? I mourn the loss of someone – not because I’m aware of my own mortality (I don’t give a fig for that) but because I am aware that I’ll never see or speak to that person again. I miss them and, being human I can project that into the future and know that I will never see them again. Many animals – certainly dogs – can not do that. They live always in the here and now. However does that make their behavioral expressions of “grief” less valid then a humans?

Again. What seemed to be mourning. What does mourning look like if it is not articulated? What does anxiety look like if it is not articulated? How many other mental states that are not articulated look like mourning? Hell, my wife looks like she is in mourning when she is 3 moves away from being checkmated. It is one thing to say that a behavior looks like mourning, but an entirely different matter to prove it. To prove genuine mourning, you would first have to prove that the animal was conscious of its own mortality and the mortality of its fellows.

I agree that you can only go by the behavior – as I said above, we do not know what goes through their minds. However, their behavior – for example in the case of the elephant, so closely resembles “mourning” that I fail to see what else it could be? Certainly – it is not a behavior conducive to survival – there is no benefit for the animal involved. Certainly it would appear to know that it’s friend is gone, and not returning and that the body there was once it’s mother.

Interestingly, when it comes to dogs – that awareness is not there. I have six dogs, of varied types but mostly stockdogs. When one of them was seriously ill and failing, the others knew it. They did not show “mercy” – they jockied for position, picked on the failing dog, and the awareness there was one of a shift in pack dynamics and the weakening of a once strong member. But you know what – that’s ok. They are dogs. And it is precisely because of that that I love them. When the dog was in her last days – they avoided her. She no longer seemed to matter to them – they skirted her bed. When the vet came to euthanize her, I let them see her body. They totally ignored it. It had no relationship to their former packmate.

That is somewhat different then the case of the elephant – who examined her mother’s body, lifted her trunk, her ears – seemed to know her for what she was.

Or the case of a chimpanzee who’s infant had died. Yet she continued to carry the dead infant around, and tried to nurse it.

Or – even more interesting – another ape, I think a gorilla who found a bird that had died. The gorilla appeared to recognize it as a bird – and tried to make it fly. It held it in it’s hand, and then spread out the wings and let it go. What was it thinking?

As for Koko. You call it a pet? Does that mean the cat was a pet? She was an orphan was she not? Koko could express what she was thinking, she never called the cat a pet. She only called it a cat.

What difference does it make what she called it?

When food is plentiful. When it is not, they are just as likely to eat wounded packmates.

Not necessarily so different from people at times…

No offense coyote, but you really should work on your critical thinking skills. I am sure that you have them in abundance but like any muscle that is not used...

I was quite serious. The more we learn about other species – the more we have to change the definition of what it means to be human.

For example – we used to define human as a tool using species. That changed when we discovered apes stripping twigs to make a tool to fish out ants from an antnest; or elephants stripping a twig to make a tool to clean their toenails or musth glands; or a raven figuring out how to bend a wire to fish something out of a bottle.

You are right we don’t really know what animals think – we can choose to look at it in a mechanistic way – that animals are nothing more then a mechanical being ruled by instincts or we can choose to look at them as fellow nations – different, and most certainly not human.

That doesn’t mean we, and they, don’t have a place in the foodchain. That doesn’t mean that they are little people in fur coats thinking friendly happy loveabe little people thoughts ala Walt Disney (who probably single handedly did the most damage in terms of how people relate to animals).

 

[palerider]

Again – there are vast differences between species. A domestic dog is not the same as a dolphin or chimpanzee. Every species should be assessed seperately – not lumped together as “animals”. Whether non-human animals feel grief is debatable because we simply don’t know how they think and the only yardstick we use for their thought processes is a human one. Because of this we can only observe their behavior. The behavior of some species certainly mimics mourning behavior in humans. Yet you label it “seperation anxiety”. In many ways….is not mourning in humans a form of “seperation anxiety”? I mourn the loss of someone – not because I’m aware of my own mortality (I don’t give a fig for that) but because I am aware that I’ll never see or speak to that person again. I miss them and, being human I can project that into the future and know that I will never see them again. Many animals – certainly dogs – can not do that. They live always in the here and now. However does that make their behavioral expressions of “grief” less valid then a humans?

You better check your slip coyote, your hypocricy is showing. I find it very interesting that you are so willing to accept, with almost nothing that could be called actual evidence, that animals feel grief and are willing to give them be benefit of the doubt and make such arguments in their defense. While at the same time, with a lot of credible evidence already in existence and the body of evidence growing all the time, you refuse to accept that unborns are human beings and continue to argue that it is fine and dandy to kill them for medical experimentation. You would be marginally more credible if you were consistent, but you aren't. You have made it clear that your position on the unborn is political and nothing more.

I agree that you can only go by the behavior – as I said above, we do not know what goes through their minds. However, their behavior – for example in the case of the elephant, so closely resembles “mourning” that I fail to see what else it could be? Certainly – it is not a behavior conducive to survival – there is no benefit for the animal involved. Certainly it would appear to know that it’s friend is gone, and not returning and that the body there was once it’s mother.

When I see elephants touching things with their trunks, I don't see mourning. I see an animal whose sense of smell rivals my sense of sight moving about smelling bones in exactly the same way I see my dogs, who also have highly developed senses of smell going about sniffing whatever there is in the yard that might have a smell. You call it grief because you want to call it grief but when you consider that the great bulk of the animal's brain is reserved for interpreting smells, it becomes clear that noseing around is what it is. Smelling.

There is no benefit to my dogs to sniff around the yard either, but they do it. Smells interest them and since an elephant's mind is more attuned to smells than any dog, it only makes sense that they would be more interested in smells.

Interestingly, when it comes to dogs – that awareness is not there. I have six dogs, of varied types but mostly stockdogs. When one of them was seriously ill and failing, the others knew it. They did not show “mercy” – they jockied for position, picked on the failing dog, and the awareness there was one of a shift in pack dynamics and the weakening of a once strong member. But you know what – that’s ok. They are dogs. And it is precisely because of that that I love them. When the dog was in her last days – they avoided her. She no longer seemed to matter to them – they skirted her bed. When the vet came to euthanize her, I let them see her body. They totally ignored it. It had no relationship to their former packmate.

Elephants exhibit the exact same behavior. They are social and when one falls, the others jockey for that postion.

That is somewhat different then the case of the elephant – who examined her mother’s body, lifted her trunk, her ears – seemed to know her for what she was.

You are attributing human attributes to an animal with no credible evidence at all. You see a behavior and think what you would be thinking and it makes you feel less alone to think that animals have the same feelings.

Or the case of a chimpanzee who’s infant had died. Yet she continued to carry the dead infant around, and tried to nurse it.

I have seen dogs and cats do the same thing for a time.

Or – even more interesting – another ape, I think a gorilla who found a bird that had died. The gorilla appeared to recognize it as a bird – and tried to make it fly. It held it in it’s hand, and then spread out the wings and let it go. What was it thinking?

Why must it have been thinking?

What difference does it make what she called it?

Because it clearly shows that she didn't think of it in the same terms that you tried to attribute to her. You saw the gorilla and her pet and "pet" means something specific. The gorilla simply saw it as a cat.

Not necessarily so different from people at times…

I never suggested that we don't have survival instincts just below our civilized skins. When we exhibit such behaviors though, we are acting more like lower animals and less like human beings.

I was quite serious. The more we learn about other species – the more we have to change the definition of what it means to be human.

Any knowledge about other species only changes what it means to be that species. Only new knowledge about human beings changes what it means to be human. For example, our ability to examine our development from fertilization has shown us that we are indeed human beings from the time our lives begin at fertilization. Something new has been learned about what it means to be human but many wish to ignore it because that new knowledge doesn't jibe with their political wants and wishes.

For example – we used to define human as a tool using species. That changed when we discovered apes stripping twigs to make a tool to fish out ants from an antnest; or elephants stripping a twig to make a tool to clean their toenails or musth glands; or a raven figuring out how to bend a wire to fish something out of a bottle.

We might have defined humans as the "ONLY" tool using species and had to change that to "A" tool using species. After we learned that other animals can use rudimentary tools (we knew as much from exitinct hominids) we are still a tool using species. The definition of what it is to be human didn't change, rudimentary tool use was simply added to what it means to be apes and elephants or ravens.

You are right we don’t really know what animals think – we can choose to look at it in a mechanistic way – that animals are nothing more then a mechanical being ruled by instincts or we can choose to look at them as fellow nations – different, and most certainly not human.

Interesting. That you have such compassion for animals but are willing to refuse the benefit of the doubt to unborn human beings and continue to support killing them in the name of medical experimentation.

 

[Coyote]

You better check your slip coyote, your hypocricy is showing. I find it very interesting that you are so willing to accept, with almost nothing that could be called actual evidence, that animals feel grief and are willing to give them be benefit of the doubt and make such arguments in their defense. While at the same time, with a lot of credible evidence already in existence and the body of evidence growing all the time, you refuse to accept that unborns are human beings and continue to argue that it is fine and dandy to kill them for medical experimentation. You would be marginally more credible if you were consistent, but you aren't. You have made it clear that your position on the unborn is political and nothing more.

You apparently read more into what I say then what I actually said - in fact, you are inserting a world of supposition here.

Supposition #1: I have (repeatedly) defined what it is that makes a "human being" as something beyond mere biology. You have repeatedly tried to bring the argument back to one of mere biology. If what is a "human being" is simply a matter of biology - then I see no appreciable difference between humans and other species beyond a handful of chromosomes. Why then is it so valuable to preserve every single "handful of chromosomes" over another species? I can't think of a single reason.

Supposition #2: The intimation that my thoughts of whether an animal can or can not mourn has any bearing on this. You can set up a non-human animal versus human dichotomy, but in matters of strict biology, that doesn't change the fact that they and we (despite being far more complex and higher) are all animals in the natural cycle of the food chain, and we all have our place there. The fact that some animals might mourn does not change that appreciably except to enhance our understanding of non-humans and hopefully, some compassion in our treatment of them as sentient beings in their own right. Will we still eat them? Of course. Coyotes eat rabbits. Lions eat gazelles. Shrews eat insects. Humans are omnivores. It's how we're designed.

Supposition #3: The blastocyst. Can the blastocyst mourn, feel pain, do anything? No. In strict biological terms it represents nothing more then potential. What is it, exactly, that gives them any rights? A handful of chromosomes? Is that all it means to be human? What credible scientific evidence points to a blastocyst as being a full fledged human being beyond mere chromosomes?

When I see elephants touching things with their trunks, I don't see mourning. I see an animal whose sense of smell rivals my sense of sight moving about smelling bones in exactly the same way I see my dogs, who also have highly developed senses of smell going about sniffing whatever there is in the yard that might have a smell. You call it grief because you want to call it grief but when you consider that the great bulk of the animal's brain is reserved for interpreting smells, it becomes clear that noseing around is what it is. Smelling.

Well, right there you are overlooking several things quite important. The sense of smell. Smell, is recognition for some species. A huge part of the human brain is devoted towards observing and interpreting visual data. The majority of our ability to recognize other humans and interpret our environment is visual. Here you are relegating "smell" to some lower category because it is not important in the human vocabulary. If smell is what is indeed going on - how is it different then a human looking through a photoalbum, of dead relatives?

There is no benefit to my dogs to sniff around the yard either, but they do it. Smells interest them and since an elephant's mind is more attuned to smells than any dog, it only makes sense that they would be more interested in smells.

How little you really understand the world through a dog's nose then. How do you know what they are sniffing? You are making an assumption that nothing has changed since the time they were there before. Have you ever worked with training tracking dogs? Ours is visual - yet you seem to be making an arbritrary distinction relegating the world of scent to some lower realm then the visual world.

Elephants exhibit the exact same behavior. They are social and when one falls, the others jockey for that postion.

Yes....and so do humans.

You are attributing human attributes to an animal with no credible evidence at all. You see a behavior and think what you would be thinking and it makes you feel less alone to think that animals have the same feelings.

Yes you are correct and no you are not correct. I see behaviors....but I also see them in light of a larger context. The more I read about discoveries concerning animals, the more I wonder about some of the higher animals. I can only guess as to their "motivations". In fact, in the science of animal behavior, and solving behavioral problems - motivations are irrelevant, only the observable behavior counts. That doesn't mean though, that an animal must therefore be nothing more then a mechanical construct. That doesn't mean one can't guess and wonder. And that doesn't mean it can't feel fear, pain, seperation anxiety (in a social species), and affection. Whether we can call by human attributes of hate, spite, love, greed, envy etc. is irrellevant in how we treat them.

I have seen dogs and cats do the same thing for a time.

Why must it have been thinking?

Thinking as a human? No. Thinking as a gorilla? Why not? What reason would it do what it did? I can't think of any sound biological reason for what it did. It did not eat it, it did not ignore it - it appeared to recognize something dead as something that when alive - was a bird. Why?

Because it clearly shows that she didn't think of it in the same terms that you tried to attribute to her. You saw the gorilla and her pet and "pet" means something specific. The gorilla simply saw it as a cat.

I think you are placing to much emphasis on the word "pet" here - at least more then what I placed. I saw this as a species adopting and possessing a member of a completely alien species. Why? She wasn't pregnant or anything so the rational used in cases when animals adopt members of another species into their litters really wouldn't apply. It's an odd thing that once again expands our awareness of the complexities of other species.

I never suggested that we don't have survival instincts just below our civilized skins. When we exhibit such behaviors though, we are acting more like lower animals and less like human beings.

Agreed. And that, in part is what makes us a human being. However - we seem to be finding similar "behaviors" in other species and again, that forces us to redefine what makes us human. We may not know the motivations for those behaviors - yet they are clearly there.

Any knowledge about other species only changes what it means to be that species. Only new knowledge about human beings changes what it means to be human. For example, our ability to examine our development from fertilization has shown us that we are indeed human beings from the time our lives begin at fertilization. Something new has been learned about what it means to be human but many wish to ignore it because that new knowledge doesn't jibe with their political wants and wishes.

We might have defined humans as the "ONLY" tool using species and had to change that to "A" tool using species. After we learned that other animals can use rudimentary tools (we knew as much from exitinct hominids) we are still a tool using species. The definition of what it is to be human didn't change, rudimentary tool use was simply added to what it means to be apes and elephants or ravens.

I disagree but I also do not see the relevance of what you said. We have traditionally defined what it is to be human as that which seperates us from ALL other animals as one group. Such things as: language and the ability to understand and communicate abstract concepts or an understanding of mortality for example. You can add your definition but it is somewhat arbritary as it is by no means universal among the human species.

Interesting. That you have such compassion for animals but are willing to refuse the benefit of the doubt to unborn human beings and continue to support killing them in the name of medical experimentation.

Again, explain to me exactly why a blastocyst should deserve any more compassion that an amoeba? (hint - I don't have any particular compassion for amoebas).

 

[9sublime]

I asked you why you thought there could be any benefit for an elephant to touch dead elephants. Your reply was:

I don't know. What benefit comes from touching obviously dead logs, or rocks? Perhaps they are picking up an interesting sent. Far more of their brains are devoted to smell than ours. They smell far better than they see. Since their trunks serve them very much like our hands, it would be quite easy to interpret curiosity about a smell as gentle touching.

Armchair general quoted an elephant expert, and I'm sure he's analysed the scent possibility, and about a hunderd other things. Until you find some real detailed study that proves otherwise, you don't honestly know what your talking about Palerider, or have any basis on rejecting this except that you seem to desperatley want to believe that only we possess 'real emotions'

 

[Coyote]

Armchair general quoted an elephant expert, and I'm sure he's analysed the scent possibility, and about a hunderd other things. Until you find some real detailed study that proves otherwise, you don't honestly know what your talking about Palerider, or have any basis on rejecting this except that you seem to desperatley want to believe that only we possess 'real emotions'

Thank you for cutting to the bone of this issue (so to speak)

 

[palerider]

Armchair general quoted an elephant expert, and I'm sure he's analysed the scent possibility, and about a hunderd other things. Until you find some real detailed study that proves otherwise, you don't honestly know what your talking about Palerider, or have any basis on rejecting this except that you seem to desperatley want to believe that only we possess 'real emotions'

From armchair's own article:

According to Dr Paul Rees, a UK expert of elephant behaviour at the University of Salford's School of Environment and Life Sciences, it is difficult to speculate on the elephants' interest in their dead.

"Some elephants have tusks of quite distinctive shapes so it is perfectly possible that an elephant might recognise another from its tusks alone, Rees says.

Since elephants spend a lot of time associating with their close relatives, it may also be the case that they are more likely to recognise relatives than other elephants with whom they have spend less time."

His own material suggests that any explanation is mereley speculation.

And when did I ever say that animals don't have emotions? My dogs certainly smile, and express other disticinct emotions. Grief is not an emotion, however. Grief is a coping process by which we deal with not only the loss of someone we care about, but a clear sign of our own mortality as well. Your suggestion that I desperately want to believe that only we have real emotions couldn't be further from the truth which characterizez most of the content of your argument. It is you who is desperate to get something to stick against the wall that might allow you to justify your position which requires you to successfully dehumanize a human being so that it can be killed, guilt free, in the name of a medical experiment. Even if that something that sticks is so far removed from the subject as why elephants might be interested in the tusks of dead elephants.