More than meets the eye.

I'm going to go in a new direction with today's post. Up til now, I've dealt mostly with scientists, research, and observations that show animals are thinking, feeling, loving beings. But there is more to life than hard physical evidence; so much that people generally don't talk about.

All of the following comes from a newsletter sent by Global Psychics, Inc. The first paragraph was not signed, but the "me" is Danielle at that organization.

For me, there has never been any question that animals have a soul, and like us will reincarnate. Which also means that we can communicate with them, in spirit, and that the bonds of love do indeed cross the dimensions of time and space, even with our pets.

Hi, do animals have spirits as we humans have? I mean when they die do the come back as spirits or angels or guides? Can they listen to what we are tryinng to tell them or do they understand our emotions of pain? I want to know about my pet who crossed over, what shall I do? Plz help Ruhi

Most certainly animals have spirits – they are living beings just like us sweetheart.

Not only have I personally experienced the most undeniable return of a few of my own pets (as spirits), there have been countless reports of numerous people experiencing much of the same. Animal spirits behave much like they did when they were alive. And most definitely they do feel our emotions and thoughts in spirit just as much as they did when they were alive.

One thing a lot of people say is that animals couldn’t possibly feel the way that humans do. But as an animal communicator and a life long horse trainer and worker, I have to really stress that animals DO feel emotions just like we do. It is ignorance of the human race to believe such a thing that animals cannot feel as we can or do not have spirits as we do. They are God’s creatures just as we are. Animals feel pain. They get depressed. They miss loved ones or play mates. They feel lonely or scared.

My husband and I rescued over 20 horses from slaughter. As we worked with them we could see the depression in their eyes. They would refuse to eat. Refuse to be amongst the herd (which is very uncharacteristic of horses seeing as they are in fact herd animals). I have also seen first hand how dogs and cats for example can sense when their owner is about to have an epileptic seizure – they will sit beside them or even lay on top of them until the seizure passes. Same as when their owner is sad or depressed; I don’t know how many times my female yellow lab Sheba has come to me, put her head on my lap and just sat there with me trying to comfort me.

Whether they are alive or have passed on, our pets always understand our emotions, thoughts, and pain. Realize too that most pets are indeed telepathic – they can not only feel the energy surrounding their owners, they can also “read your heart.”

Ruhi, you yourself can feel your beloved pet if you were to quiet yourself, be still, be peaceful, and just listen and pay attention. You may feel that brush up against your leg or a nudge on your hand by a cool wet nose. I do strongly believe our pets are always with us in spirit and heart just like our human loved ones that have likewise crossed over. If you wish to ask specific questions of your pet, and you cannot hear or feel the responses, you could also most certainly contact an animal communicator that works with spirits of animals as well as the living (some animal communicators only communicate with live pets, while others, as in my case, can and will do both).

I do hope that this has answered some of your questions and has helped you out a little bit. Please take care, and please try to rest easy knowing that your pet has in fact crossed over peacefully, and you should NOT harbor any guilt any more.

Much love and brightest of blessings always, Lisa Caza

On Behalf of All Pets

I've heard a couple of tragic pet stories lately, and they were too close to home for me to not feel the heartbreak. I don't think it would do any good to repeat those stories here, but they made me want to repeat something that has circulated a bit around the internet. This piece has gotten a bit mangled at times; the most common change is that instead of a writer credit, people say "author unknown". But it appears to have been written by "J.D.Ellis 2001, rottweilerdriver*aol.com", and yes, the email address is included at the author's request (although I couldn't stop myself from removing the @, hoping to stop at least a bit of spam).

Anyway, here is the important, thoughtful piece:

A Message from Max

My name is Max and I have a little something I'd like to whisper in your ear.

I know that you humans lead busy lives. Some have to work, some have children to raise. It always seems like you are running here and there, often much too fast, often never noticing the truly grand things in life.

Look down at me now, while you sit there at your computer. See they way my dark brown eyes look at yours? They are slightly cloudy now, that comes with age. The grey hairs are beginning to ring my soft muzzle.

You smile at me; I see love in your eyes. What do you see in mine? Do you see a spirit, a soul inside who loves you as no other could in the world? A spirit that would forgive all trespasses of prior wrong doing for just a simple moment of your time?

That is all I ask. To slow down if even for a few minutes to be with me. So many times you have been saddened by the words you read on that screen, of others of my kind, passing. Sometimes we die young and oh so quickly,sometimes so suddenly it wrenches your heart out of your throat. Sometimes we age so slowly before your eyes that you do not even seem to know, until the very end, when we look at you with grizzled muzzles and cataract clouded eyes. Still the love is always there, even when we take that long sleep, to run free in distant lands. I may not be here tomorrow; I may not be here next week. Someday you will shed the waters from your eyes, that humans have when deep grief fills their souls, and you will be angry at yourself that you did not have just "One more day" with me. Because I love you so, your sorrow touches my spirit and grieves me.

We have now, together. So come, sit down here next to me on the floor. And look deep into my eyes. What do you see? If you look hard and deep enough we will talk, you and I, heart to heart.

Come to me not as "alpha" or as a "trainer" or even a "Mom or Dad", come to me as a living soul and stroke my fur and let us look deep into one another's eyes, and talk. I may tell you something about the fun of chasing a tennis ball, or I may tell you something profound about myself, or even life in general.

You decided to have me in your life (I hope) because you wanted a soul to share just such things with. Someone very different from you, and here I am. I am a dog, but I am alive. I feel emotion, I feel physical senses, and I can revel in the differences of our spirits and souls. I do not think of you as a "Dog on two feet"--I know what you are. You are human, in all your quirkiness, and I love you still.

Now, come sit with me, on the floor. Enter my world, and let time slow down if even for only 15 minutes. Look deep in my eyes, and whisper to my ears. Speak with your heart, with your joy and I will know your true self. We may not have tomorrow, and life is oh so very short.

Birdsong

Traditional thought tells us that birds sing to define their territory and to attract a mate. But as I was lying awake this morning, listening to the pre-dawn "chorus" of birds, it didn't sound to me like it was all purposeful. So, I wondered if any animal scientists have had the nerve to come out and say that birds sing for the fun of it.

As I checked various sources, besides the many references to territory and mates, I found that parent birds teach their baby birds the songs they sing. And baby birds will "babble" before they learn to sing their songs. "The parallels between human and bird language are indeed striking," said psychology professor Bob McMurray of the University of Iowa. While some birds learn to sing in a matter of days, the Australian Lyrebird takes on average six years to learn the song.

It's been known for some time that birds' songs vary with geographic regions; the equivalent of dialects. In noisy environments, birds alter their songs to be heard above the noise.

Recent studies have discovered actual bird conversations, as multiple microphones allowed the researches to follow responses through a flock.

They've shown that Banded Wrens are listening and responding to one another, sending out purposeful and dynamic messages to multiple neighbors.

But are they having fun? I found one person who was willing to allow that they were.

Luis Baptista, former curator of ornithology at the California Academy of Science, said they do sing for fun. "Sometimes birds sing just because they're happy, they've had a good meal, they've nothing to worry about. This is an expression, if you will, of well-being."

"If you will"? Of course I will. Why not?

Perspective

I never completed my review of the 3-part PBS series The Human Spark. Truth is, the last episode was so unfocused that it was nearly incoherent. But the overall problem with the series was that they started with an incorrect idea (that humans are different, separate from, and superior to every other life form on the planet) and concocted seriously flawed "experiments" to "prove" this idea. (See Looking vs. Understanding)

(What strikes me as strange, given PBS's ban on religious programming on their member stations, is that idea behind their series seems to me to be rooted in religion. But that's another matter for another time.)

But while Alan Alda was trying to prove how stupid chimpanzees are, on another channel (Animal Planet) there was a show (Extraordinary Animals) that showed that chimpanzees can out-perform humans in a key area of intelligence: memory.

At the Primate Research Institute in Japan, it started with teaching a chimpanzee named Ai to use a touch-screen computer, then to count, and to read. (Videos here and here.)

Then Ai had a baby (named Ayumu), and she taught him to do the same things. (BTW, that is the definition of culture [a person's learned, accumulated experience which is socially transmitted]).

As the tests progressed, they went on to memory games and discovered that the chimpanzees possessed photographic memory. They could remember a sequence of numbers that was flashed on the screen for less than a quarter of a second--too fast for a human to even scan all the numbers.

In various tests, the chimpanzees vastly outperformed a world memory champion (yes, there are world championship memory games) at the institute's memory games.

Video of the chimpanzee and the memory game:



Here is some commentary on all this, from New Scientist magazine, December 3, 2007:

The finding challenges human assumptions about our uniqueness, and should make us think harder about ourselves in relation to other animals, says anthropologist Jill Pruetz of Iowa State University, Ames, US.

"Observing that other species can outperform us on tasks that we assume we excel at is a bit humbling," she says. "Rather than taking such findings as a rare example or a fluke, we should incorporate this knowledge into a mindset that acknowledges that chimpanzees - and probably other species - share aspects of what we think of as uniquely human intelligence."

The results are "absolutely incredible" says Frans de Waal, at the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, US. He says that chimp intelligence is chronically underestimated, and one reason is that experiments stack the deck against the chimps.

In the wild, this memory skill might be useful for memorising fruit locations at a glance, or making a quick map of all the branches and routes in a tree, he says.

Matsuzawa emphasises that the chimps in the study are by no means special - all chimps can perform like this, he says. "We underestimate chimpanzee intelligence," he says.

So, why the totally different perspectives from two supposedly reliable sources (PBS and PRI)? Well, for one thing, the PRI perspective derived from observation rather than preconceived notions.

And, in my opinion, the real "human spark" that tends to separate us from all other life is not only the ability to distort reality to suit our purposes (yes, I'm talking about the PBS series) but the desire to do so.

Quoting George Adamson

A few words from George ("Born Free") Adamson, the "father of lions", from his book A Lifetime with Lions...

On making the movie, Born Free:

"Most of the people of the [filming] unit were extremely nice and friendly, but their way of life was not mine. There were too many dramas and 'goings-on' for my peace of mind. I felt safer with the lions."

On "enrichment" for captive animals:

"I am firmly convinced that it is the boredom and frustration of captivity which makes [captive] lions dangerous. One of their strongest senses is that of smell. To deprive them of the chance to exercise it is tantamount to depriving a human being of all reading matter."

Intelligence and Socialization

The Animal Planet channel is currently running a series called "Extraordinary Animals". This is a highly interesting series and coincidentally, it's about the exact opposite of that Human Spark series on PBS. While PBS is working with ancient notions and trying to prove the non-existence of animal intelligence, each episode of Extraordinary Animals focuses on one particular research study that shows just how intelligent animals really are.

This week, they showed an episode about Azy, an orangutan at the Great Ape Trust of Iowa. The researchers there have taught Azy a language based on abstract symbols (sort of like hieroglyphics), and also demonstrated that orangutans have long-term memories of companions (just as Christian the lion demonstrated) as well as self-recognition, all qualities that others have denied possible in animals.

The following describes some of what was shown on Extraordinary Animals, and is partially adapted from the Great Ape Trust web site:

Scientists at Great Ape Trust are exploring the abilities of orangutans to use symbols and syntax to express their thoughts. The orangutans are learning to use a symbol-based language that is presented on a computer monitor. The touch-screen monitor has large "buttons" that are big enough for orangutan fingers.

This symbolic language contains about 70 "words". All the symbols are abstract and have no visual relation to what they represent. There are seven categories, each containing ten individual symbols. The categories are: foods, non-food objects, proper names of people, proper names of orangutans, verbs, adjectives and numbers.

There is a logic to these symbols. Each category has its own unique exterior shape. For example, a rectangle means "food" and a circle means "non-food object." Individually, the interior components of each symbol are meaningless. It's the arrangement within the exterior shape that gives each symbol a specific meaning. In addition to the major categories, there are symbols that mean "send," "clear," "yes/good," and "no/wrong." The dictionary can be expanded as the orangutans learn more symbols.

Using this system, Azy is able to identify objects, ask questions, and even give commands.

The self-recognition test involves surreptitiously placing a mark on the subject's head, then seeing if he reaches for his own head when he sees the mark in a mirror. Sounds simple enough, but the test can disprove the old notion that animals have no idea of "self" and "other" (as they contend over on PBS).

Mirror self-recognition (MSR) has been a controversial topic in the field of comparative psychology since it was first reported by Gordon Gallup in 1970. He provided behavioral evidence that chimpanzees were able to understand the nature of their mirror image, meaning that they recognized themselves in the mirror. Consider the phenomenon. A mirror image is a representation of the world, like a picture or a photograph but unlike a still image, it is dynamic and mimics the behavior of the viewer. An ape who demonstrates MSR must understand that the mirror image is an actual representation of herself in both time and space, and that it is not simply another ape looking back at her.

Again, it sounds too simple, but children under 3 fail the test.

I have seen only 4 episodes of Extraordinary Animals so far, but there is a pattern emerging, that explains why on Animal Planet they are showing us that animals are smarter than they are generally given credit for, while on PBS they are mired in old and untrue notions.

The animal experiments shown in The Human Spark are very rigid, very lab-sterile, and (as I pointed out in my last article) do not take into account the socialization of the animal. A chimp living in a zoo environment with other chimps is not going to be attuned to human society and so is not going to act according to human society's ways--a requirement demanded by the way those experiments are set up.

The animals shown in Extraordinary Animals are treated as individuals and the ones I've seen so far have all been hand-raised from infancy. This means they are socialized in human ways and thus are more likely give reactions in ways that we recognize.

What I'm saying is that interpreting an animal's actions means understanding the way the animal has been taught to act--this is not a reflection on intelligence; it is social training. When an animal has been brought up with close contact with human society, it will react in ways that are more recognizable to humans, thus revealing the intelligence that is always there, even in an animal that reacts according to a different society's teachings.

Looking vs. Understanding

On last night's "The Human Spark", an experiment was set up to prove that chimpanzees can't think in terms of abstract concepts, like "heavy" vs. "light".

Alan Alda brought a box into a room by himself, tossing it around to demonstrate that it was light. Then, 5 people brought in another box, struggling with it to demonstrate that it was heavy. A piece of fruit was placed on top of each box, and a rope was fastened to each box and then positioned so that a chimp could reach through a partition, grab a rope, and pull the box closer to grab the fruit.

The chimpanzee had one chance. The film showed him grabbing the rope on the heavy box, which he could not move, so he got no fruit.

Stupid chimpanzee -- doesn't know what heavy and light are.

But... what if the chimpanzee has a different view of things? What if (and this is not unreasonable, based on chimpanzee society) he sees the fact that 5 people clustered around one box, all grabbing it and manipulating it, means that the box is better than the one that only one person handled? Five people were all interested in that heavy box at the same time; only one bothered with the light box. Why wouldn't the chimpanzee go for the more interesting box first?

In my opinion, the experiment proved more about preconceived notions, than learning how things really are.

Looking for Humans

I have, occasionally in the past, made disparaging remarks about SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence project. It's not that I contend there can't be intelligent life "out there", it's that the people are looking for other humans, communicating in human ways. Hoping to find that on a distant and completely separate planet is just ridiculous.

The same sort of thinking gets in the way of people's understanding of animals. "Why don't they act like humans?" is the repeated question. But why should they? They're not humans--but that doesn't mean they don't have equivalently rich lives.

One of the main aspects of the search for humanness in animals is language. Why don't animals speak like humans do?

Back in December, in the New York Times, there was an article describing how a Scottish group of scientists had managed to decipher words and syntax in the spoken language of Campbell's monkeys (that's one in the picture), thus giving them credit for at least a little human equivalency.

But a month later, the same writer in the NYT reports on some other, more pessimistic scientists, who contend that even these monkeys cannot have a rich language because they cannot conceive of the idea that another animal has a mind similar to their own; therefore they have no need to communicate.

I don't know why it is that so many scientists take a completely stupid course when it comes to their inability to understand animals. These pessimists will contend that an animal can't do this, or can't think that, or can't relate to another. They forget one fact that makes their arguments invalid:

You cannot prove the non-existence of something.

No one can prove that monkey x has no idea that monkey y has a mind. Each monkey may not perform exactly as expected or hoped, but that only shows that a human's preconception of how a situation must be handled did not hold true.

Careful observation always proves these pessimists wrong. Why would a cat, for example, have a way to say, "I'm sorry" --which they do-- if there was no inkling that another cat or person had a mind of its own? So why should anyone assume that a social animal like a monkey would not be able to realize that?

The gist of the latest NYT article is that animals can't communicate in anything resembling a human language, and this must mean they don't think or understand.

But...

they're
not
human.

And so the conclusion is illogical.

The "Human" Spark?

PBS is out to set our collective understanding of the world back by at least 100 years with a miniseries that started this week, called The Human Spark.

The aim of the show is to find out why humans are different from all other life, a very old fashioned idea and one that does not need exploration, since there is much more to learn about how other life is similar to humans.

They're using Alan Alda's star power to bring people to the show, and it is supposed to present "science" to support such proven-false ideas as,
empathy and cooperation are "characteristically human qualities" (their words),
humans are the only species to possess language,
humans are the only species to make and use tools,
humans are the only species to be concerned with social status,
and other things that are supposed to make us superior to all the rest of the living world.

Our society has suffered for far too long under such erroneous ideas that separate us from all other life. Animals' languages exist are are being deciphered by open-minded scientists. Animals make and use tools, as reported by scientists willing to observe clearly. And on and on; pick almost any article I've written here. To the careful, open-minded observer, there is a greater unity between ourselves and other living beings than outmoded, established science is willing to admit.

And the real problem here is, as history has shown, separation leads to unfamiliarity with the other, which gets transformed into the other being seen as inferior, which leads to the destruction of it.

Thus, all life on earth would benefit by exploring that which makes us one with all life. Spreading the fallacious idea of separation will lead to more extinction.

Unfortunately for us all, Alan Alda is prepared to tell us that we must believe in the dark-age philosophies. And because he is Alan Alda, an awful lot of people will not question what he says.

Thanks a lot, PBS.

The first of the series aired this week, but it focused on just one topic: Why homo sapiens is superior to what scientists have speculated about neanderthals (homo neanderthalensis). That's what it comes down to, speculation, because no one has ever observed neanderthals. They even created a wax bust showing how a neanderthal man was supposed to look different from modern man. The funny thing is, it reminded me of an actor from a few years ago.

Point not made, PBS.

The scenario they presented about how homo sapiens took over Europe from the neanderthals actually played out nearly exactly the same as how Europeans took over the Americas from the Native Americans. This suggests, then, it isn't genes, it isn't brain size, or any other physical attribute, but instead it's a societal thing. One society was better prepared to move in and take over from another society. There was no proof of any innate superiority or "human spark".

Future shows are scheduled to demonstrate why homo sapiens is superior to other species. I don't expect any proof there, either.

"Humans have always assumed that they are more intelligent than dolphins because they had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- whilst all dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But the dolphins have always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons."

--Douglas Adams

Standard Operating Procedure 13

While in our nortwestern states, the gray wolf fights for survival, a little-known subspecies, the Mexican Gray Wolf, fights a very desperate battle. As far as we know, there are only 52 Mexican Gray Wolves left in the wild.

There has been a re-introduction plan to help the species survive. But at the same time there was Standard Operating Procedure #13, which dictated that any wolf that is accused of killing any livestock three times must be shot.

Two and a half years ago, Alpha Female 924, one of only 3 breeding females in the entire Mexican Gray Wolf population, reached her third strike, and was killed.

Fortunately, outrage over that killing led to a change in procedure. Last month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took control and ruled that SOP13 will not be in force in the future.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also coming up with new programs to help local ranchers to coexist with the wolves.

Alpha Male 923 and the pair's four offspring could not be reached for comment.

But this is definitely a step in the right direction.

More information can be found at BiologicalDiversity.org and the Washington Post, which also has a beautiful picture of a Mexican Gray Wolf.