dh@. wrote:

Au contraire. When something recognizes itself as an individual and
distinct entity, it WILL recognize a visual representation of itself.


Sometimes. Sometimes not. I remember learning about some
people in primitive type tribes being shown pictures of themselves
and having no idea what they were, or even that they were pictures,
until it was explained and pointed out to them. That explains a lot
about the issue, if you're willing to think it out.

Perhaps they didn't recognize the pictures as representations of
themselves, because they simply never saw themselves before. It wouldn't
surprise me if there are still a few primitive cultures which don't have
mirrors. Although one would think they may have seen their reflections
in water or something else that's shiny, but it's quite possible that
they didn't.


Self-awareness MEANS creating and maintaining a visual image of yourself
in your mind.


You don't know that. It's almost certain that some do and some
do not imo. Even if it were true, you would still have no idea what
every creatures imagined visual image of itself is like, and how near
or far from reality the impression is.

When a human looks into a mirror they eventually realize it's their
reflection because as they move around, the image moves around the exact
same way. He will notice that if he wears a red sticker on his chest or
any other marking, the mirror image will show the same markings. The
image may only be two-dimensional and may not smell or feel like a
human, but an image does not need to be an *exact* duplicate of the
subject in order to be recognized by any creature that has the ability
to reason. A fish or a dog can make no such connection because it does
not possess nor can it create a mental concept of itself.


That
is a purely instinctive process, so I don't see how that is particularly
relevant here.


I hope you can by now...it's urine, it's bone, it's territory, it's balls,
it's house, it's bowl, it's food, it's toy, it's leash...are you beginning
to see any relevant evidence that it may have some concept of
it's self?

Nope. Territoriality is a basic instinct in just about every animal. It
establishes it's territory, and feels angry and gets aggressive (or
afraid) when some other animal enters it. These are all ingrained
automatic behaviors processed in the lower brain which requires no
ability to reflect upon one's own mental processes.


or it might get frightened off by it. But even if you somehow
arrange it so that the dog can SMELL the image in the mirror, and it
smells just like it does, it will not see it as a representation of
'itself'.


That's because it's hard to inform the dog about what's goind on.
I feel sure one of the last things that would occur to a dog on seeing
a mirror is: 'wow, look how the photons are reflecting off of me, onto
that smooth surface, and away in a way which represents my image
so clearly', or anything even close to it.

C'mon dh, most humans don't think about the photons either. A detailed
scientific understanding of how the mirror works is not necessary to
know that the image it shows belongs to you. Even if an uninformed
primitive human or a very young child scratches his head, looks at it
and thinks "gee, I guess I must be in two places at once", he still
realizes the image in the mirror somehow corresponds to 'him' and nobody
else.


There's more of that relevant evidence. The fact that it is aware
of other individuals is evidence that it is aware of it's self as well.

Not so, not so. Just because an organism is aware of objects in it's
surroundings (or pain in it's body) or feels a connection to them, does
not necessarily mean it is aware of it's own mental processes.


which to me means the same thing as it would
if they passed the mirror test: they are aware of themselves.

So just because you fail a test that might be flawed, that
*automatically* means you would pass a test if it was valid?


It depends on what's being tested, don't you think?

No sir. If the mirror test is flawed, all that means is that the animals
that flunked it *might* be self aware, not that they *definitely* are.
You come up with a test that works properly, and then you know for sure.
It is irresponsible to draw such conclusions until then.


They are aware that individuals exist. They are aware of their
body. They are aware of their possesions and territory. Those
things are very strong evidence that they are aware of themselves
as well as the other things, regardless of their interpretation of
a mirror or a television.

I often like to compare animal and human brains to rudimentary and
advanced types of computers (a bit oversimplified perhaps, but it works
for this analogy). The way I see it, an animal brain is like a CPU which
can analyze and process signals inputted from various external sensors,
decide what to do based on it's programming and whatever data is in it's
memory, and then send signals out various sets of electric motors to
manipulate something in it's environment. However, unlike a more
advanced model of computer (the human), it's CPU lacks a unique circuit
which would allow it the ability to analyze and monitor it's own
internal functions and processes (self-awareness).

- Logic316



"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their
property that they may more perfectly respect it."
-- G.K. Chesterton