dh@. wrote:

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.


Explain why a dog would ever consider that it is looking at an image
of itself.

It's not done consciously or purposely, so there is no 'why'. I'll say
it again. If any creature has the ability to see, and has any concept of
'self', it would sooner or later sense that the image in the mirror
belongs to it and it would show a reaction i.e. if it sees a snack next
to its leg in the mirror image, it would then think to look for it by
its real leg and eat it.


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.


I do. Since we see that it's aware of its objects, we know that it
can be aware of objects. We know that it can recognise other
individuals, and distinguish between them. It has a mental concept
of objects and of individuals, both of which suggest it recognises
itself as an object and an individual, and other things suggest that
it even has a mental concept of what species it is.

There is a difference between something being an "object" and something
being a "subject". The subject is the perceiver (fish, dog, human, etc)
and only whatever it's perceiving in its environment is an object. A
robot could respond to the presence of objects in all kinds of
sophisticated ways, but it does not mean it is aware of itself and it's
own mental processes.


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.


Understanding a mirror to some extent is necessary, and if dogs come
to an incorrect conclussion about mirrors, they are doing no worse than
you are in concluding that somehow restricts them to being able to have
it can have a mental concept of every object it encounters except itself.

No, not at all. One does not need to know anything about light, glass,
or photons to pass the mirror test. People in ancient cultures, 2 year
old children, and perhaps chimpanzees and dolphins instinctively realize
that what they see in the mirror belongs to them without even thinking
about it. And if a dog (or a fish) is able to see and recognize images
of objects, why can it not recognize an image of itself? Simple. It is
unable to form such a concept. A betta fish will become aggressive and
flare up if you put a mirror in front of it because it operates soley on
visual cues, but it only thinks its another male. A dog will ignore it
both because it has no scent AND also because it lacks the ability to
recognize it as an image of itself. That's all there is to it.

- Logic316



"If a man speaks in the woods
and no woman is there to hear it,
is he still wrong?"