No one has said that it is not noticeable how much personality and character pets have – we usual choose or bring one home based upon their individual characteristics that endear us to them. Yes, they do have a memory, or else training would be useless at all. Our dog Daisy is a little love-hog herself – she is manipulative, sneaky, dramatic, feisty, stubborn and even smiles when she’s happy. She is a very loyal dog and loves nothing more than to be close, have her belly scratched, or curl up in your lap. My question is whether animals have any real cognitive ability to “think”, recall any length of time, or experience heightened thought processes.
Their ‘love’ is based on an animalistic level – humans feed them, house them and provide company for them. Their loyalty is based upon their dependence of you – not that there is anything wrong with that. But unlike a human – who must love even when they are not being served, and who love on a higher, more complex and meaningful level – a dog/cat ‘loves’ the hand that feeds him/her and that is the basis for their devotion. Dogs at least are very sociable animals, and thus they enjoy attention and interaction with other humans and dogs.
I think we must be careful with the term ‘emotion’ when linked to animals for this term usually involves the soul as well. My belief is that God created humans in the “image of God” and thus with a soul; while animals are very wonderful things and to be enjoyed and protected by humans, I do not think they are existentially on the same level and thus cannot be fairly compared to them. Limited emotion in a human means that he/she is not living to their full potential…it is something that may be worked out through therapy, love, education and effort. Animals are limited simply because they are completely different creatures.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Response II to Anthropomorphism Question
I've been lectured to extensively on the limited memory of canines and their inability to recall given circumstances--such as urinating on the carpet.
I've been told that efforts to scold a dog for the release of its bladder is pointless--particularly if it doesn't occur immediately after the incident as they would not recognize their wrong-doing.
Personally, I do not believe this is true. Nor do I believe that they cannot experience similar emotions to that of man--though obviously not to the same extent.
Dog-lovers and cat-lovers alike appreciate their pets for the perceived emotion that we believe they translate. How many time have you heard about how much character a pet has, or how embarrassed they were after being scolded, or how sad they get when left alone? Are we imagining that emotion, or is it real? If you've ever bonded with a canine, lived with them and looked tehm in the eyes on a daily basis as you would your child, there is no question they experience emotion.
If one is going to argue that a canine has neither emotion nor memory of any substance, why then do we see animals get excited upon our arrival at home? Why then do they jump on us and lick our face? ---because they love us and are happy to see us! Why and how could they do this, if they have no memory or ability to express emotion? How then do they differentiate their owners from strangers or right from wrong?
To argue that a canine has no memory about urinating on the rug just 30 mins. ago, yet at the same time also acknowledge their ability to recognize and recall people seems a bit contradictory to me. What does the process we use in training our pets implement? Memory training, right? Much like in the rearing of our children. So how then can we say they have limited or no memory? How then can we lose our dogs for a month, then be reuinited with them and have immediate recollection of who you are? How then can a cat be completely removed from its environment yet find its way back?
Animals have a significant ability to remember as well as display emotion. Is it limited? Yes, but the levels of memory and emotion can and is limited in humans too!
To claim these attributes as non-existence in house pets seems a bit rediculous to me...
Response to Anthropomorphism Question
I’m sure you can guess what I think…that animals aren’t capable of higher thought. However, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t sensitive to pain, pleasure, fear or security.
I do think that Darwin’s speculation that “dogs in their old age might remember a particularly pleasurable chase and reflect on it. Or that a group of cows might just feel the loss of a herd member” is highly unlikely; every dog or horse trainer will tell you that when punishing after the animal acts out, you must swat or scold within three seconds of what occurred – otherwise they won’t remember and won’t understand why they’re being punished. As the article stated, even science says that they’re unable to think on a deep level and reminisce or recall something from the past. I think animals may have ‘emotions’ on their own level – such as horses getting depressed when isolated, etc. – but I don’t think they translate to the level of human emotion.
Bellcanto
I do think that Darwin’s speculation that “dogs in their old age might remember a particularly pleasurable chase and reflect on it. Or that a group of cows might just feel the loss of a herd member” is highly unlikely; every dog or horse trainer will tell you that when punishing after the animal acts out, you must swat or scold within three seconds of what occurred – otherwise they won’t remember and won’t understand why they’re being punished. As the article stated, even science says that they’re unable to think on a deep level and reminisce or recall something from the past. I think animals may have ‘emotions’ on their own level – such as horses getting depressed when isolated, etc. – but I don’t think they translate to the level of human emotion.
Bellcanto
Anthropomorphism: Are animal emotions valid or not?
October 24, 2008 by oregonsunshine
In the past, I’ve been an In-home Basic Obedience Instructor. I taught people to train their dogs. In the past year, I’ve been working towards getting my Certified Pet Dog Trainer certificate through the Association of Pet Dog Trainers. This has involved a reading list that seems to grow and change every year. The focus of the APDT is on positive training methods, which I agree with for the most part.
However, there is one subject that seems taboo amongst all the animal training and animal science community. Anthropomorphism.
American Heritage Dictionary defines this as:
an·thro·po·mor·phism (ān’thrə-pə-môr’fĭz’əm) n. Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.
Do animals experience emotions like we humans do? Are animals capable of feeling love, loss, happiness and a myriad of other emotions? Or are we humans just trying to delegate our own emotions to other creatures? And if so, why?
It’s not unusual for a trainer to hear that an owner can’t get Little Fluffykins to do such-and-such because it hurts Little Fluffykin’s feelings or Mr. Twinkles peed on it’s owner’s brand new comforter out of anger at being left home alone all day. Or that Lightening the horse didn’t perform well at a show today because he was unhappy that his owner forgot his favorite treats or didn’t scratch him in the right spots, or whatever the magic button might have been.
It’s also not unusual for a pet owner to say that their pet loves them. Haven’t we all heard that Brutus loves his person? Is this really prescribing human emotions to our pets? Or are they capable of displaying emotions of love on their own?
So far, scientists from the animal community say that these things are simply not true. Animals don’t display emotions like people do. That Mr. Twinkles isn’t capable of enough higher thought to say “I’m going to pee on your comforter because you did ‘x’ and I’m mad at you”. Science explains the behavior as a dominance issue and that Mr. Twinkles is trying to say he’s top dog (or cat). And that Brutus isn’t really showing love to his owner, just that he is attempting to seek attention.
And then you have your extremes. The owner who swears that Mr. Twinkles was mad at her and that’s why it happened. And the trainers and behaviorists who say that animals don’t feel emotions, that people are the ones putting whatever emotion they are feeling off onto their animal.
How many of you have gone to the zoo and witness what appeared to be sad animals? The big cats that pace and pace? The orangutans that seem to be withdrawn and dejected? The ravens that are constantly searching for a way out? Are they or are they not experiencing real emotions?
In his book The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, Charles Darwin speculated that dogs in their old age might remember a particularly pleasurable chase and reflect on it. Or that a group of cows might just feel the loss of a herd member.
Jane Goodall was criticized for using human-like terms to describe chimps. She used the words “childhood”, “excitement”, “motivation” and “mood”. And as she says, “Even worse was my crime of suggesting that chimpanzees had ‘personalities’. I was ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman animals and was thus guilty of the worst of ethological sins-anthropomorphism.” None of these thoughts were popular. They still aren’t popular with the scientific community today.
To some extent, humanizing an animal is still considered a great insult to mankind. Humans are at the top of the food chain. Religion and science say that humans are the only species capable of higher thought. But is that really true? How much do we really know about all the forms of animal communication and how the animal brain(s) work?
Do animals really feel such emotions as love? Why or why not?
What do you think?
In the past, I’ve been an In-home Basic Obedience Instructor. I taught people to train their dogs. In the past year, I’ve been working towards getting my Certified Pet Dog Trainer certificate through the Association of Pet Dog Trainers. This has involved a reading list that seems to grow and change every year. The focus of the APDT is on positive training methods, which I agree with for the most part.
However, there is one subject that seems taboo amongst all the animal training and animal science community. Anthropomorphism.
American Heritage Dictionary defines this as:
an·thro·po·mor·phism (ān’thrə-pə-môr’fĭz’əm) n. Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.
Do animals experience emotions like we humans do? Are animals capable of feeling love, loss, happiness and a myriad of other emotions? Or are we humans just trying to delegate our own emotions to other creatures? And if so, why?
It’s not unusual for a trainer to hear that an owner can’t get Little Fluffykins to do such-and-such because it hurts Little Fluffykin’s feelings or Mr. Twinkles peed on it’s owner’s brand new comforter out of anger at being left home alone all day. Or that Lightening the horse didn’t perform well at a show today because he was unhappy that his owner forgot his favorite treats or didn’t scratch him in the right spots, or whatever the magic button might have been.
It’s also not unusual for a pet owner to say that their pet loves them. Haven’t we all heard that Brutus loves his person? Is this really prescribing human emotions to our pets? Or are they capable of displaying emotions of love on their own?
So far, scientists from the animal community say that these things are simply not true. Animals don’t display emotions like people do. That Mr. Twinkles isn’t capable of enough higher thought to say “I’m going to pee on your comforter because you did ‘x’ and I’m mad at you”. Science explains the behavior as a dominance issue and that Mr. Twinkles is trying to say he’s top dog (or cat). And that Brutus isn’t really showing love to his owner, just that he is attempting to seek attention.
And then you have your extremes. The owner who swears that Mr. Twinkles was mad at her and that’s why it happened. And the trainers and behaviorists who say that animals don’t feel emotions, that people are the ones putting whatever emotion they are feeling off onto their animal.
How many of you have gone to the zoo and witness what appeared to be sad animals? The big cats that pace and pace? The orangutans that seem to be withdrawn and dejected? The ravens that are constantly searching for a way out? Are they or are they not experiencing real emotions?
In his book The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, Charles Darwin speculated that dogs in their old age might remember a particularly pleasurable chase and reflect on it. Or that a group of cows might just feel the loss of a herd member.
Jane Goodall was criticized for using human-like terms to describe chimps. She used the words “childhood”, “excitement”, “motivation” and “mood”. And as she says, “Even worse was my crime of suggesting that chimpanzees had ‘personalities’. I was ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman animals and was thus guilty of the worst of ethological sins-anthropomorphism.” None of these thoughts were popular. They still aren’t popular with the scientific community today.
To some extent, humanizing an animal is still considered a great insult to mankind. Humans are at the top of the food chain. Religion and science say that humans are the only species capable of higher thought. But is that really true? How much do we really know about all the forms of animal communication and how the animal brain(s) work?
Do animals really feel such emotions as love? Why or why not?
What do you think?
Friday, October 17, 2008
Ray Ray LaMontagne
The obvious: I am a HUGE fan of Ray L.
The not so obvious: His newest album "Gossip in the Grain" is wretched.
This is not to say the music is necessarily bad. Ray is popular not only for his great lyrics, but his raspy, soulful, heartfelt voice. I like Ray for his unconventional recordings without too many extras; without too much production. That's what originally drew me to him.
His new album, however, is so over-produced and influenced by the studio, that one might not even recognize it as his. Was this his point? Is he trying to reach-out and expand his audience? Perhaps. But I liked the old Ray Ray better. The guy who had a passion for HIS music. The guy whose voice and music was unmistakeable.
I attended his live performance at the Strathmore Auditorium in Rockville, MD, this week. Live, his music was as expected--same old Ray. On the way home, however, I put in his new CD purchased at the show, and was...well...shocked! No more raspiness. No more "Ray." His voice was clean and smooth---Say whaaaa!? Digitally enhanced music is not what I was expecting, nor wanting.
Of the 10 songs on the new CD, I found just 3 that I could appreciate as the Ray I know. I hope he will get back in the studio to cut a new record soon, otherwise I'll be listening to and appreciating his oldies for a while---not that there's anything wrong with that!
Please, Ray Ray, stick to your roots. Keep the Digital Studio manipulations in the hands of the singers that really need it. We want YOUR voice, not a computer's interpretation of it.
http://www.expressnightout.com/content/2008/10/ray_lamontagne_you_are_the_best_thing.php
The not so obvious: His newest album "Gossip in the Grain" is wretched.
This is not to say the music is necessarily bad. Ray is popular not only for his great lyrics, but his raspy, soulful, heartfelt voice. I like Ray for his unconventional recordings without too many extras; without too much production. That's what originally drew me to him.
His new album, however, is so over-produced and influenced by the studio, that one might not even recognize it as his. Was this his point? Is he trying to reach-out and expand his audience? Perhaps. But I liked the old Ray Ray better. The guy who had a passion for HIS music. The guy whose voice and music was unmistakeable.
I attended his live performance at the Strathmore Auditorium in Rockville, MD, this week. Live, his music was as expected--same old Ray. On the way home, however, I put in his new CD purchased at the show, and was...well...shocked! No more raspiness. No more "Ray." His voice was clean and smooth---Say whaaaa!? Digitally enhanced music is not what I was expecting, nor wanting.
Of the 10 songs on the new CD, I found just 3 that I could appreciate as the Ray I know. I hope he will get back in the studio to cut a new record soon, otherwise I'll be listening to and appreciating his oldies for a while---not that there's anything wrong with that!
Please, Ray Ray, stick to your roots. Keep the Digital Studio manipulations in the hands of the singers that really need it. We want YOUR voice, not a computer's interpretation of it.
http://www.expressnightout.com/content/2008/10/ray_lamontagne_you_are_the_best_thing.php
Editorial Influence
The Washington Express should be ashamed for printing such disgraceful jargon about the length of McCain's arms (Oct. 17,2008). see: http://www.expressnightout.com/content/2008/10/candidates_reveal_themselves_in_final_de.php
The paper's complete disregard for vetting such insensitive commentary displays the obvious political leaning and favoritism of the rag and its complete lack of editorial tact.
Aside from the recent decline in articles about Amy Winehouse--something I knew I could always count on at least 3 days a week-- the other very consistent and noticible trend in the Express, and many other network and paper media outlets (including the Presidential Debates), is that Sen. Obama's name is always referenced first, with Sen. McCain second. Either I'm crazy or my elementary school educators misled me into thinking that "M" comes before "O." Not to mention McCain is a senior Senator as opposed to Obama's mere 1+ year(s) actually "working" in the Senate. In which case, let's not make it so obvious that Obama is clearly getting preferential treatment from the vast majority of the media.
Pick up a newspaper, or log on to CNN.com, and what do you see? Obama, perhaps with a minor mention or thumb size picture of McCain next to Obama's 8x10. What do you say we stop feeding Obama's already super-inflated ego.
Why not give equal treatment, access, and exposure to both candidates during an election cycle as opposed to mearly promoting one candidate over another. Is there no longer any responsibility on behalf of the press to report fairly, to be balanced, to report realities rather than printing one-sided articles? Let's be fair and let the people determine who they want in the Casa Blanca; not allow Hollywood money and the media to determine the election.
How about equal access and an unbiased perspective of both candidates...? Nah...because that would be the right thing to do.
The paper's complete disregard for vetting such insensitive commentary displays the obvious political leaning and favoritism of the rag and its complete lack of editorial tact.
Aside from the recent decline in articles about Amy Winehouse--something I knew I could always count on at least 3 days a week-- the other very consistent and noticible trend in the Express, and many other network and paper media outlets (including the Presidential Debates), is that Sen. Obama's name is always referenced first, with Sen. McCain second. Either I'm crazy or my elementary school educators misled me into thinking that "M" comes before "O." Not to mention McCain is a senior Senator as opposed to Obama's mere 1+ year(s) actually "working" in the Senate. In which case, let's not make it so obvious that Obama is clearly getting preferential treatment from the vast majority of the media.
Pick up a newspaper, or log on to CNN.com, and what do you see? Obama, perhaps with a minor mention or thumb size picture of McCain next to Obama's 8x10. What do you say we stop feeding Obama's already super-inflated ego.
Why not give equal treatment, access, and exposure to both candidates during an election cycle as opposed to mearly promoting one candidate over another. Is there no longer any responsibility on behalf of the press to report fairly, to be balanced, to report realities rather than printing one-sided articles? Let's be fair and let the people determine who they want in the Casa Blanca; not allow Hollywood money and the media to determine the election.
How about equal access and an unbiased perspective of both candidates...? Nah...because that would be the right thing to do.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Holy Moly ------It's the 70's Playlist!!
Until my recent resurgence into the fabulous world of Pandora.com, I had forgotten how truly awesome (I know, I'm talking like a young Hipster Doofus) music was in the 70's. Accordingly, here is a brief listing of some of the best to come out of that very special decade:
1) Bluer than Blue - Barry Manilow
2) The Old Songs - Barry Manilow
3) I'd Really Love to See You Tonight - England Dan & John Ford Coley
4) Close to You - The Carpenters
5) Laughter in the Rain - Neil Sedaka
6) Can't Smile Without You - Barry Manilow
7) Without You - Harry Nilsson
8) Your Song - Elton John
9) Sometimes When we Touch - Dan Hill
10) Without You - Air Supply
11) Hard to Say I'm Sorry - Chicago
12) You Are - Lionel Richie
13) Sailing - Christopher Cross
There are soooo many more, but I think this initial playlist will help you get started reminiscing along with me. Enjoy!
1) Bluer than Blue - Barry Manilow
2) The Old Songs - Barry Manilow
3) I'd Really Love to See You Tonight - England Dan & John Ford Coley
4) Close to You - The Carpenters
5) Laughter in the Rain - Neil Sedaka
6) Can't Smile Without You - Barry Manilow
7) Without You - Harry Nilsson
8) Your Song - Elton John
9) Sometimes When we Touch - Dan Hill
10) Without You - Air Supply
11) Hard to Say I'm Sorry - Chicago
12) You Are - Lionel Richie
13) Sailing - Christopher Cross
There are soooo many more, but I think this initial playlist will help you get started reminiscing along with me. Enjoy!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Winning and Losing Strategies
I just ran across this helpful yet simple advice from relationship coach Dr. Terrence Real and thought I'd share...here are some of his strategies for relationship empowerment...
The five losing strategies:
• Being right
• Controlling your partner
• Unbridled self-expression
• Retaliation
• Withdrawal
The five winning strategies:
• Go after what you want
• Complain constructively
• Listen and respond generously
• Empower one another
• Cherish what you have
The five losing strategies:
• Being right
• Controlling your partner
• Unbridled self-expression
• Retaliation
• Withdrawal
The five winning strategies:
• Go after what you want
• Complain constructively
• Listen and respond generously
• Empower one another
• Cherish what you have
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
