New Boa Questions...

[Herpocrite]

Originally posted by Invictus
Herpocrite - perhaps you can shed some light on this. While I agree that in mammals a functional prefrontal cortex is necessary in order to have emotions, is this true of all animals? The reason I ask is because of a paper I read quite some time ago on neuroscience which suggested that many creatures with smaller brains actually have a completely different "mind map" than we do, and that the areas of the brain responsible for certain human functions are not in the same literal location on smaller creatures. Can you confirm/deny this? As I mentioned, it was quite a while ago, and this could possibly have been disproven.

Actually, a functional prefrontal cortex in animals is not necessary for emotions. It has been implicated in a loss in emotional stability (which the media then dumbed down to "We have FOUND the seat of all emotions!") but humans or mammals with severe lesions or partial removal/ablation of this portion of the brain in still have emotions. As for the whether or not all animals the same brain map... well.. most animals have very similar brain maps. It's like living rooms. If you go into a living room in the U.S. most of them are very similar.... there are some notable exceptions, but on average - almost the same. If you then go into a living room or community room in another culture, it has some differences - some furniture may be missing, some may be added - but functionally very similar. It happens that way because they function similarly. The same can be said for the evolution of animal brains. They have evolved functionally similar in structure and mapping - even if there are some pieces added or missing - because they have the same basic functions. I'm not sure if I like that analogy because I came up with it off the top of my head, but you get the idea.

If you want to continue to pursue the line of thinking in which we take as a corollary that emotions are the benchmark of sentience and that the seat of emotions is found somewhere in the brain (something that is not proven) then reptiles are almost certainly sentient.

New findings suggest that reptiles may have been the first animals to experience their emotions. Last year Michel Cabanac from Laval University in Canada showed that iguanas try to maximize sensory pleasure - they prefer to stay warm rather than venture out into the cold to get food. And when basking in a warm environment, they experience physiological changes associated with pleasure in humans and other vertebrates, such as "emotional fever" - a boost in body temperature - and a raised heart rate. Amphibians and fish do not exhibit these behavioral and physiological responses. Cabanac suggests that the first mental event to emerge into consciousness was the ability of an individual to experience the sensations of pleasure or displeasure. His research suggests that reptiles experience basic emotional states, and proposes that such emotions evolved somewhere between amphibians and early reptiles.

I don't mean to have stirred up all this just by mentioning that it is not a foregone conclusion that my snake cannot be "friendly". All I wanted was to figure out the sex, subspecies and humidity requirements of my new friend. I'm open to everyone having their opinion on this one... just don't tell me that mine is wrong.

Herpocrite.

[Invictus]

That's fascinating information about the physiological responses. I'll see if I can find Michel Cabanac's paper on the subject.

Whether or not reptiles are "friendly" or merely "tolerant", in my opinion, shows sentience either way. I don't see emotion as being the benchmark of sentience, but rather, the ability to analyze stimuli and decide on a reaction based on consequence. As I mentioned before, if all reptiles were hard-wired and driven by instinct, none of them would be handleable. Buta reptile deciding that human interaction has no consequence shows me that they do have the ability to analyze, on some level, the consequences, or lack thereof.

Do you have any more information about any actual studies that have been done on emotional responses in reptiles?

[Jeff_Favelle]

Further to refuting the snakes being "hard-wired" garbage... if this were the case, there would be NO behavioral differences among the species whatsoever.

Ken, are you for real man? That's like saying that morphs aren't the result of genetics! Of course there can be differences in the genetic code that goeverns instinct and behavioural mechanisms!! LOL!! Just like there's differences in the code that govern color/pattern/eye color, etc etc etc How do you THINK there came to be so much speciation? Slight arberrancies in the code that allowed certain groups to exploit OTHER niches, behaviouraly AND phenotypically. ITS WHY WE HAVE SPECIATION!

LOL! Sometimes I don't think you use your noggin man!

And I wouldn't be calling terms "garbage". Please; let's not let this debate escalate to the levels of other debates in the past. Just stick to the facts (and opinions) and everything will still be fun.

"What is consciousness?" Well, consciousness is defined as "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself".

Then how do you define "self-consciousness"?

[Jeff_Favelle]

If snakes are sentient, why would they sit under a light until they are burned? If they are sentient, wouldn't they know the future consequences of their actions?

[Jeff_Favelle]

As I mentioned before, if all reptiles were hard-wired and driven by instinct, none of them would be handleable. Buta reptile deciding that human interaction has no consequence shows me that they do have the ability to analyze, on some level, the consequences, or lack thereof.

Being able to learn or to decipher danger is not the same as being "aware of one's existence", in my opinion. Just my opinion mind you.

[Invictus]

Jeff - this doesn't explain how 3 snakes of the same clutch, which have basically identical genetics, would be SO behaviorally different as to be almost like 2 completely different snakes. Also, you probably have a broader definition of "instincts" than the scientific community. Instinct is simple - eat, drink, survive, reproduce. Being handled by a human has nothing to do with instinct, and if it does, then the instinct would be to attack a handler, since that is what is more commonly seen in wild specimens. And as I mentioned, the proof is in creatures even more primitive than snakes. Every bee is the same. They are driven entirely by instinct, and there are ZERO differences between samples of the same type of bee. Snake, however, show so much diversity, it's impossible to believe that they are hard-wired and driven only by instinct. This simply does not make any kind of scientific sense at all.

And by the way, being able to learn is something that is a scentific impossibility without sentience. That is an accepted fact throughout biology, philosphy, and psychology. Yeah I know, you're thinking "What does philosophy have to do with science?" Nothing. But when certain things are accepted by both trades, there has got to be validity to it.

[Cruciform]

Could some snakes associate gentle handling and stroking the same way other animals would, and thus be more inclined to be handled, eg. it would stimulate pleasure response rather than displeasure, and they would repeat patterns of behavior that reproduced that pleasure situation.

Rats have chosen electrical stimulation over food to the point of starvation because they derived pleasure from it. And humans have done the same with drugs. Do we know enough about reptiles to say with certainty that a reptile can not "feel good"?

Sharks have been regarded as purely instinctual, solitary, eating machines.

Research done in the last five years (and reported on Discovery, best channel ever) has shown that some sharks hunt in well organized packs, including running patrols and scouting beyond the usual feeding ground. There was a whole documentary dedicated to sharks in one location that come up to divers and nudge them until they are petted. Whether the behavior is a quirk or something they learned isn't known yet.

Science makes great leaps and bounds constantly. Old theories get disproven and new ones take their place. Who's to know what we'll learn about animals tomorrow that we didn't know today.

[Jeff_Favelle]

Jeff - this doesn't explain how 3 snakes of the same clutch, which have basically identical genetics, would be SO behaviorally different as to be almost like 2 completely different snakes.

You're right, that is odd. I don't know how to explain back in the day when I hatched normal, anery, albino, and snow corns all from the same clutch. Why didn't they all look the same??

God-forbid that behaviours could be controlled by DNA, and that not every single snake is identical.

[Jeff_Favelle]

And by the way, being able to learn is something that is a scentific impossibility without sentience. That is an accepted fact throughout biology, philosphy, and psychology.

Cold you point me to the text or periodical that backs up that "fact".

Thanks man.

[tHeGiNo]

I would have to agree with Jeff here.

If snakes are sentient, why would they sit under a light until they are burned? If they are sentient, wouldn't they know the future consequences of their actions?

Thats exactly what I was thinking.

As I mentioned before, if all reptiles were hard-wired and driven by instinct, none of them would be handleable.

I, personally, do not believe this says a thing. I mean, I can hold tarantulas without being attacked or bitten, does that suggest that they have emotions?

If she were driven purely by instinct, it would stand to reason that her heat pits would sense the warmth, her eyes would see the movement, and I'd be on my way to get stitches. But oddly enough, she doesn't. Why is that?

Amazingly enough, snakes can smell too! Rub your hand with a rat for a few minutes, stick your hand infront of your snake, wiggle your fingers and let me know if you have the same results.

What does not make sense here, is when a snake will literally go out of its way to come directly to its handler, and this is referred to as "tolerance".

I can't say too much about that. However, when I am feeding worms to some of my reptiles, I notice when I stick my finger in the container, some will come out of their way to come on me. Or, my veiled chameleons are another example. They DEFINITELY do not like me, however if I hold my arm out, they will occassionally come to my, and crawl on my arm. Not sure what I am saying here, however I thought I would throw a few ideas out there.

[Invictus]

Whether or not they feel is less important here than whether or not they think. Like I said, the proof has already been offered by someone who WOULD be in the know about this kind of thing, and it is still being rejected by this community, just as I said it would in previous debates about the same subject. New ideas that challenge old beliefs seems to be the bane of the "old skool" herpers. So I guess it doesn't matter.

Neither you nor Jeff have touched on the MAJOR point I brought up which was comparing variation in snakes to variation in bees. Bees have been shown to be one of the most "intelligent" insects on the planet, yet there is zero variation with them. Why? Because they are hard-wired, instinctual, and non-sentient. Snakes on the other hand, exhibit signs that they do analyze on some level, even if it's only a single level deep. As for why some stay on a heat source until they are burned, hell I don't know... why do some humans walk out in front of moving buses?

Now, as for whether or not snakes "like" us depends on the level of their sentience. Obviously, they do not like us in a sense of an individual identifying with another individual. However, to say that they only "tolerate" handling is completely contrary to about half of the snakes in my collection that will go out of their way to be handled. This is not tolerance, this shows a distinct desire for a certain stimuli. When a snake is in its enclosure, perfectly calm, not moving, and you take off the lid or open the glass doors or whatever, and they look, and come right to you, even though you have no food scent whatsoever on you, this shows a desire that the snake is exhibiting - whether it's just getting some exercise, or a genuine curiosity, some snakes do show a desire for human interaction. Calling this "tolerance" is dismissive and completely contrary to the behavior.

[Jeff_Favelle]

I'm confused. WHO's opinion got "rejected by this community" again?

[Cruciform]

The burning of the lamp can be explained by the structure of the nervous system.

Take your hand and stick it into 80 degrees celsius water for a couple of seconds. Ouch! Damn hot huh?

Now start out at 30 degrees celsius and increase that over a period of time. Not nearly as uncomfortable is it?

And that's with a highly developed nervous system. Our ability to process sensations can still be deceived. It's not surprising the reptile wouldn't register the damage until it's already done. If you poke them with a sharp stick (sudden stimulus) you won't see the same delayed reaction.

[Invictus]

Herpocrite posted information about a scientific study that does show that Iguanas exhibit the same physiological signs as humans when they experience pleasure. In addition to this, even his ideas that snakes ARE in fact sentient on some level has also been outright rejected. As I said - finally we get someone who DOES have a degree in animal behaviorism, and you dig in your heels, refusing to admit that maybe the idea of reptiles being hard wired and purely instinctual, could be wrong.

[Jeff_Favelle]

Holy cow man, we're debating the freakin' subject! That's what these forums are for! Just because we don't take someone's word as gospel and try to have an intelligent DIALOGUE on the subject, all of a sudden we're rejecting him and throwing his opinions back in his face?

Can I hear a big "HUH"?



I'm sorry that I don't believe that your snakes are your buddies and they come crawling to you because they like to play and be handled and that they miss you when you're gone and that some are mean because they hate you, and others are nice because they love you...etc etc etc. Sorry man, I can't buy that. If that means rejecting someone's ideas to you, that's your problem. LOL! I've just observed WAY too many animals at every level of the phylogeny to think that way.

But I do appreciate and read every word that everyone says. Just because I don't agree, does not mean I'm rejecting them! LOL! I'm sorry it can't be all bubble gum and pixie sticks man, but that's what having a discussion is all aboooot.