On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:27:26 -0400, Logic316 wrote:

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.

I believe you try to oversimplify tremendously, but even if a creature
does not understand an image in a mirror, I don't believe that has a
thing to do with whether or not they have self awareness. But then I
believe something that's blind can have self awareness....even a blind
dog. That must seem insane to you.

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 -

We'll have to disagree on this, but I believe some level of self awareness
is required for most animals to survive.

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.

To you that is somehow an intelligent thing to say, but to me it is an
example of great ignorance. So one of us is wrong. I believe that you're
wrong, because I don't see how a dog could be expected to know that
he's looking at a reflection of himself in a mirror, if he doesn't understand
that mirrors reflect things. A concept of reflection is necessary for an
animal to understand that it's looking at a reflection of itself. To me that
is a basic fact. I believe it far more likely that a dog has no mental concept
of reflection, than it is that a dog has no mental concept of itself.

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.

That is only one possibility, and a very unlikely one imo.

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.

How can it understand that it's looking at a reflection of itself, if it
doesn't understand that mirrors reflect images?

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,

Can it recognize anything's reflection?

nor is cabable of being
taught what it is.

Even if so, that certainly doesn't have a thing to do with whether
or not they have any awareness of themselves.

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 that has what to do with recognising its image in a mirror?

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.

Now you need to explain how a betta could possibly learn that
mirrors reflect images of things, since the ability to do so would be
required in order for it to know it was seeing a reflection, but just
not being self aware enough to understand that the reflection it
somehow knows it's looking at, is of itself. Your saying that bettas
know they are seeing a reflection, and their limitation is only in
understanding that the reflection is of themselves, because they
have no concept of themselves. So I want to know how you
think they learn what a reflection is, and why you believe it's
more likely that they have no concept of themselves than it
is that they just have no concept of reflection.

As for the dog, it doesn't care about the image in the mirror
because it doesn't *understand* it -

That's my point.

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