(03-15-2015, 11:58 PM)anagogy Wrote: They operate on instinct and intuition, not rational thought

(03-15-2015, 11:58 PM)anagogy Wrote: I don't think they fear death as much as humans do,

(03-15-2015, 03:24 PM)Diana Wrote: Article about animals:

Animals are conscious and should be treated as such


September 2012 by Marc Bekoff
Magazine issue 2883
(Marc Bekoff is an emeritus professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He has written many essays and books about animal emotions, animal consciousness and animal protection.)

Now that scientists have belatedly declared that mammals, birds and many other animals are conscious, it is time for society to act

ARE animals conscious? This question has a long and venerable history. Charles Darwin asked it when pondering the evolution of consciousness. His ideas about evolutionary continuity - that differences between species are differences in degree rather than kind - lead to a firm conclusion that if we have something, "they" (other animals) have it too.

In July of this year, the question was discussed in detail by a group of scientists gathered at the University of Cambridge for the first annual Francis Crick Memorial Conference. Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, spent the latter part of his career studying consciousness and in 1994 published a book about it, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul.

The upshot of the meeting was the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which was publicly proclaimed by three eminent neuroscientists, David Edelman of the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla, California, Philip Low of Stanford University and Christof Koch of the California Institute of Technology.

The declaration concludes that "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

My first take on the declaration was incredulity. Did we really need this statement of the obvious? Many renowned researchers reached the same conclusion years ago.

The declaration also contains some omissions. All but one of the signatories are lab researchers; the declaration would have benefited from perspectives from researchers who have done long-term studies of wild animals, including nonhuman primates, social carnivores, cetaceans, rodents and birds.

I was also disappointed that the declaration did not include fish, because the evidence supporting consciousness in this group of vertebrates is also compelling.

Nevertheless, we should applaud them for doing this. The declaration is not aimed at scientists: as its author, Low, said prior to the declaration: "We came to a consensus that now was perhaps the time to make a statement for the public... It might be obvious to everybody in this room that animals have consciousness; it is not obvious to the rest of the world."

The important question now is: will this declaration make a difference? What are these scientists and others going to do now that they agree that consciousness is widespread in the animal kingdom?

I hope the declaration will be used to protect animals from being treated abusively and inhumanely. All too often, sound scientific knowledge about animal cognition, emotions and consciousness is not recognised in animal welfare laws. We know, for example, that mice, rats and chickens display empathy, but this knowledge has not been factored into the US Federal Animal Welfare Act. Around 25 million of these animals, including fish, are used in invasive research each year. They account for more than 95 per cent of animals used in research in the US. I'm constantly astounded that those who decide on regulations on animal use have ignored these data.

Not all legislation ignores the science. The European Union's Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force on 1 December 2009, recognises that animals are sentient beings and calls on member states to "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals" in agriculture, fisheries, transport, research and development and space policies.

There are still scientific sceptics about animal consciousness. In his book, Crick wrote "it is sentimental to idealize animals" and that for many animals life in captivity is better, longer and less brutal than life in the wild.

Similar views still prevail in some quarters. In her recent book Why Animals Matter: Animal consciousness, animal welfare, and human well-being, Marian Stamp Dawkins at the University of Oxford claims we still don't really know if other animals are conscious and that we should "remain skeptical and agnostic... Militantly agnostic if necessary."

Dawkins inexplicably ignores the data that those at the meeting used to formulate their declaration, and goes so far as to claim that it is actually harmful to animals to base welfare decisions on their being conscious.

I consider this irresponsible. Those who choose to harm animals can easily use Dawkins's position to justify their actions. Perhaps given the conclusions of the Cambridge gathering, what I call "Dawkins's Dangerous Idea" will finally be shelved. I don't see how anyone who keeps abreast of the literature on animal pain, sentience and consciousness - and has worked closely with any of a wide array of animals - could remain sceptical and agnostic about whether they are conscious.

Let us applaud the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness and work hard to get animals the protection they deserve. And let us hope that the declaration is not simply a grandstanding gesture but rather something with teeth, something that leads to action. We should all take this opportunity to stop the abuse of millions upon millions of conscious animals in the name of science, education, food, clothing and entertainment. We owe it to them to use what we know on their behalf and to factor compassion and empathy into our treatment of them.

(03-17-2015, 10:42 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:

(03-15-2015, 03:24 PM)Diana Wrote: The declaration concludes that "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

What are "nuerological substrates"? Is that akin to saying that we share the same motherboard with animals but we have different software running on our own?

"Different" perhaps as in more complex, more sophisticated, more self-aware, more rational, more reflective, etc.

Quote:A neural substrate is a term used in neuroscience to indicate a part of the nervous or brain system that underlies a specific behavior or psychological state. Neural is an adjective relating to "a nerve or the nervous system",[1] while a substrate is an "underlying substance or layer".[2]
Some examples are the neural substrates of language acquisition,[3] memory,[4] prediction and reward,[5] facial recognition,[6] envisioning the future,[7] intentional empathy,[8] religious experience,[9] spontaneous musical performance,[10] and anxiety.[11]

(03-18-2015, 01:41 PM)Minyatur Wrote: Under the first distortion aren't all animals that are suffering on this sphere born here for that experience?

IMO even if mankind were to stop all this animal cruelty, the souls with this time/space desire would incarnate elsewhere to receive that experience which would not be available here anymore.

(03-18-2015, 05:52 AM)Ankh Wrote: Diana, I think that indeed too many of us are too numb to see the suffering of not only 2D life, but also of 3D life. Using animals for fure and testing make-up products?! Inflicting them pain because of THAT?! What the heck...

In regards to eating meat though, in many intances, eating meat is "necessary for individual needs" or what did Ra said, but I believe that most of the times we eat it, because it tastes good, or we are used to eat it or something similar. I also believe that if each human would kill/harvest for its own food, that the catalyst would increase, and make us to polarize faster, because the killing/harvesting would either numb us further, making us to perhaps polarizng in a more negative sense, or it would make us to stop killing and harvesting, opening up our green ray. But I don't know. I just know that I was a vegatarian for 7 years in my youth, but stopped when I got pregnant. I got an extreme urge to eat the meat again and so I did. I tried to become vegetarian ever since, but didn't succeed completely. Today I eat meat, but mostly wild meat which one of my relatives hunt, except when I am in restaurant or at some dinner. Then I eat what is offered.

Anyway, I remember that when I was a vegetarian in my younger years, I wanted to not only be a vegetarian, but a fruitarian. I didn't even want to eat carrots, sallad, potatoes and similar vegetables where the plant had to die in order to provide the food for me. I wanted to harvest that which was naturally given, which is tomatoes, cucumbers, zucchini, aubergines, nuts and fruits. And you could indeed collect food from animals, without killing them, as long as they are treated humanely, foods like milk, eggs etc. So maybe, not a fruitarian, but some sort of a person who eats only what is offered without any lives of any living organisms being taken. Do you understanding what I mean?

I believe that this "frutarian" or what shall we name it, food that I mentioned is the food of future 4D positive social memory complex. They might eat some animal products, like milk and eggs, if they choose to house and take care of animals, but I doubt that this will stay with us as we are developing into the higher and higher realms of consciousness.

With this being said, we are still in 3D. Rising the consciousness of our people in regards to how we treat each other, ourselves, and our smaller siblings is a good way of polarizing, as long as one respects the free will of each, practicing an understanding. This is not to say, that sometimes one just wants to smack someone in the face and scream - what the hell is wrong with you?!

(03-19-2015, 05:54 PM)Monica Wrote:

(03-18-2015, 01:41 PM)Minyatur Wrote: Under the first distortion aren't all animals that are suffering on this sphere born here for that experience?

IMO even if mankind were to stop all this animal cruelty, the souls with this time/space desire would incarnate elsewhere to receive that experience which would not be available here anymore.

By all means, we wouldn't want to deny them that experience. Let's be sure to rape and murder humans too, so that they don't have the inconvenience of having to incarnate elsewhere for that treatment. 

(03-18-2015, 02:30 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote: It is through 3D investment in 2D that 2D consciousness is accelerated and made Harvestable quicker.

(03-18-2015, 02:30 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote: What do you think we are investing our animals with through cruelty?

(03-19-2015, 06:10 PM)Minyatur Wrote: You already are providing these experiences in so many of your other-selves.

(03-18-2015, 02:33 PM)Minyatur Wrote:

(03-18-2015, 02:30 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote: It is through 3D investment in 2D that 2D consciousness is accelerated and made Harvestable quicker. What do you think we are investing our animals with through cruelty?

Growth toward a 3D initial negative-oriented polarization whereas love would bring an initial positive-oriented polarization.

Quote:Over 150 billion farmed animals are killed every year by humans. More than 3,000 animals die every second in slaughterhouses around the world. These shocking figures do not even include fish and other sea creatures whose deaths are so great they are only measured in tonnes.

(03-18-2015, 05:57 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote: What makes you think this planet isn't a planet that has received extra or excessive negativity already and maybe its reduction will actually help balance things out?