Fish do/don't anticipate things? (was: "ARAs" against Game chickens)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:26:03 -0400, Logic316 wrote:

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.

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

A fish or a dog can make no such connection because it does
not possess nor can it create a mental concept of itself.

Whether or not it can create a mental concept of itself has absolutely
nothing to do with whether or not it can understand a mirror.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:10:05 -0400, Logic316 wrote:

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

Why should it ever consider the possibility that it's seeing a reflection
of itself?

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 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.

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."

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