dh@. wrote:

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


We still haven't seen any reason at all why a dog would ever consider
that it is looking at an image of itself. No reason at all.

It wouldn't, because it lacks the ability. A creature either has the
ability to understand an image it's looking at, or it doesn't. It's like
any other trait produced by evolution - it somehow allows the organism
to survive longer and produce more offspring and thereby pass on that
trait - humans have it because it serves some useful function for them,
and canines never developed it because it would have served them no
purpose out in the wild. The only question is how to record the
creature's ability to recognize its image - in the case of a 2 year old
child, you can place a red sticker on his chest, he will see the sticker
in the mirror image, and then likely go to look for it on his real chest.


Out of curiosity, why do you think being able to understand a mirror
is a better sign of self awareness than things like recognising their own
urine, territory, possesions, etc? Why do you think that being able to
understand a mirror is a better sign of self awareness than the fact that
they can be aware of so many other selves besides their own?

The experiment has nothing to do with understanding the mirror. A dog
(or a fish, etc) is capable of recognizing images of other things, but
not an image of itself and therefore is not "self-aware". It really
isn't any more complicated than that.


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.


They had to get some type of understanding of it somehow, even
if their understanding was not entirely correct.

I'll say it once more, it's NOT THE DANG MIRROR the subject has to
understand, just the image reflected on it.


Simple. It is
unable to form such a concept.

I don't believe that. I believe dogs can learn to recognise their reflection,
if a person is able to teach them what it is.

A dog can neither recognize it's own reflection, nor is cabable of being
taught what it is. These abilities are mutually inclusive - you can't
have one without the other.


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


LOL. That certainly doesn't mean it has no mental concept of itself. They
are entirely different things. You can't say that not understanding something
it doesn't care in the least bit about, restricts it from having any mental
concept of itself. You have as yet given no reason at all to jump to a
conclusion like that.

A betta most certainly DOES care about seeing another male approaching
it's territory, and if it had the ability to be "self-aware" it wouldnt
bother flaring up and stressing itself out when it sees itself in a
mirror. As for the dog, it doesn't care about the image in the mirror
because it doesn't *understand* it - NOT the other way around! If you
were to put blinders on the dog and hang a favorite chewie toy near it
where it can't see it directly, but it can see it in the mirror image,
it still wouldn't think to turn around and look for it.

- Logic316



"A diplomat thinks twice before saying nothing."