Dogs, mirrors, self awareness...

****wit David Harrison lied:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:04:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


dh@. wrote:


I've read and have little problem with the Koran and the Book of Mormon
as well as the Bible.

That's a lie, ****wit. You could not possibly read the
Koran.


LOL.

You have not read the Koran. Stop lying.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:17:55 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

David ****wit Harrison lied:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:34:42 -0400, Logic316 wrote:


David,
you need to stop looking for fights and to get a formal education - your
lack of comprehension of the most basic scientific procedures and
established philosophical principles makes you unqualified to adequately
handle any debate about consciousness, self-awareness, or experiments
measuring animal intelligence in general.

- Logic316


The mirror test shows an individual's ability to understand reflection.

No. The mirror test shows an animal's self-awareness.

It really can't show that at all. A person will always have to wonder
if they're willing to think about it, if the animal simply has no concept
of its image being reflected, or maybe it has a concept of its own image
that is so different from reality that it would never consider the mirror
image to be itself. Both of those are much more likely than that it has
no concept of itself at all. It must have some concepts of itself, even
if those concepts only involve its own flavor, scent, etc. It could also
have other concepts, such as of itself running, or of itself eating, or
playing, etc. Such things are admittedly beyond your ability to consider,
but they are quite likely non the less.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:

dh laughed at Goober:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:


dh@. wrote:


I've read and have little problem with the Koran and the Book of Mormon
as well as the Bible.

That's a lie, ****wit. You could not possibly read the
Koran.


LOL.

You have not read the Koran.

That's a lie Goo. I took notes too. Those are just things that you
can't conceive of. There are lots of them. I have't been pointing out
that you're shallow simply as an insult. In fact none of the things I
say about you are simple insults. They are all the truth. What you
"ARAs" hate about me is that I point out truths that you don't want
to see pointed out. We know that Gonad.

Back to the Koran: Yes, you lied again, of course. Another thing
we know from experience is that if you could be made to stick to
the truth, you would have little if anything to post. Here are some
things I found significant in the Koran, though of course they will
be meaningless to you:

Translation: Pickthall

[al-Baqarah 2:62] Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed
unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians,
and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and
doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

[al-`Ankabut 29:46]
And argue not with the People of the Scripture
unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do
wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him
we surrender.

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

[al-Ma'idah 5:46] And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in
their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in
the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance
and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the
Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off
(evil).

[al-Ma'idah 5:47] Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which
Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah
hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

[Maryam 19:27] Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying
him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing.

[Maryam 19:28] O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked
man nor was thy mother a harlot.

[Maryam 19:29] Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we
talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy ?

[Maryam 19:30] He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath
given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet,

[Maryam 19:31] And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may
be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I
remain alive,

[Maryam 19:32] And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore
me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest.

[Maryam 19:33] Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I
die, and the day I shall be raised alive!

[Maryam 19:34] Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement
of the truth concerning which they doubt.

dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:34:42 -0400, Logic316 wrote:

David,
you need to stop looking for fights and to get a formal education - your
lack of comprehension of the most basic scientific procedures and
established philosophical principles makes you unqualified to adequately
handle any debate about consciousness, self-awareness, or experiments
measuring animal intelligence in general.

- Logic316

The mirror test shows an individual's ability to understand reflection.
If an animal never understands that a mirror can show a reflection of
itself, that doesn't mean that it has no concept of itself. It simply means
that is doesn't have a mental concept of a reflection of itself...it always
believes the reflection is of a different being. I would certainly agree it
shows they don't have self recognition, but that doesn't mean they have
no concept of themselves. There are things to indicate that they do,
but as yet I've seen nothing to indicate that they don't.

I'll add to this "debate".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror-...self-awareness
"There is some debate in the scientific community as to the value and
interpretation of results of the mirror test. While this test has been
extensively conducted on primates, there is also debate as to the value
of the test as applied to animals who rely primarily on senses other
than vision, such as dogs."


I tried a different, non-scientific test with my cat. I used a ball of
hair from my cat, and a ball of hair from a foreign cat. When she
smelled the hair from the foreign cat, she reacted aggresively, but
when she smelled the ball of her hair, she had no reaction, but simply
didn't care about presence of the hair. So it very much seems as though
she is aware of her own scent, which is important for a territorial
animal like a cat. This test can be intepreted in the same way as the
mirror test, where with the mirror test, an animal recognizes it's own
appearance, and with my "hair test" an animal recognizes it's own
scent.

Although I can never really know what my cat is thinking, she appears
to be aware of how a mirror works. She often looks at me through my
refection on the mirror but has her ears turned towards me to listen to
me. When she is faced with her own reflection, she doesn't appear to
care about it. I can assume two reasons for that: 1. It doesn't smell
like an animal, so it isn't important, 2. Whatever she sees doesn't
give her food, whereas I do, so my reflection is of more interest to
her. Maybe I can add a third one: She doesn't care about her appearance.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:37:50 -0400, Logic316 wrote:

wrote:

I'll add to this "debate".


Moonspeak, the exact points you mentioned (Wikipedia article on the
"mirror test" as well as animals recognizing objects that belong to
them) have already been discussed absolutely to death in this and other
parallel threads. This debate was originally about whether fish are able
to anticipate food,

It was about whether or not they are capable of anticipating at all.

but it gradually evolved into a mini flame war

The conflict between Goo and myself has been going on for about
5 years, and is not important at all to the subject being discussed. From
a surface thinking pov it's possible that the insults exchanged and lies
presented by Goo are the most important things, but in regards to the
subject being discussed they are actually meaningless even if they
seem to have significance to other people for some reason.

about
whether dogs or other animals have self-awareness.

It was started by you:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Logic316
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:06:41 -0400

wrote:
I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from
a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
--
I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

This poem is fundamentally flawed. Most animals, including avian
species, lack the necessary mental capacity to have a sense of "self" in
the first place.

- Logic316
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
However,
rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish really isn't appropriate for extended
discussions about cat or dog psychology, so perhaps you shouldn't
crosspost to this newsgroup if you wish to reply to this discussion.

- Logic316

The only reason not to post to the goldfish group, would be
if/because no one in that group is capable of carrying on a decent
discussion about it. Notice that *you* began the discussion, but
when it started to be shown that your theory is incorrect, and also
based on a faulty testing method, you want the discussion to just
go away so you don't have to think about or learn something that
for some reason you just don't happen to like. So whether you're
willing to admit it to yourself or not Logic, this has been/is also a
test of yourself, and possibly of your goldfish group as well.

On 11 Sep 2005 16:37:02 -0700, wrote:


Rudy Canoza wrote:
lying ****wit David Harrison lied:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:42:45 -0700, Svetlana Monsoon wrote:


there is also debate as to the value of the test as
applied to animals who rely primarily on senses other
than vision, such as dogs."

They made a good point.


Yes. From what I've read on my own, the test has
pretty much determined that most animals don't have
self-recognition, but that does not mean they don't have
any awareness of themselves.

No one pretends it is the only test, but an animal who
passes it is judged self aware, and undoubtedly is.

Dogs do not have self awareness. They don't not have
it *because* they fail the test, but they do fail the
test, and that leads one to think that they lack self
awareness. Note that dogs *can* recognize other dogs
that they know by sight, as can cats. But cats and
dogs both fail the mirror test. Neither shows *any*
evidence of self awareness: they do not know that they
exist in a particular time and place, and they have no
sense of past or future.

They do not show any evidence that we can recognize as being
self-awareness, but that doesn't mean that they do not have it. Science
is about being open to possibilities, and not coming to conclusions
after one type of test. As the quote I have posted said, scientists are
still debating whether the test really proves anything or if the
results have been properly interpreted.

In a way that's what the subjects are doing...they are aware of the
image in the mirror, but fail to interpret it properly. The reason they fail
is not necessarily because they have no concept of themselves. Other
things about their behavior and their known abilities indicate that they
do have some concept(s) of themselves, and nothing about the mirror
test indicates that the reason they don't interpret their own reflection
properly is because they have no concept of themselves.

And until we can read a dog's
mind, we really can't say what it is aware of and what it is ignorant
of. All we can do is speculate.

Btw, gorillas failed the mirror test, but one gorilla, Koko, has passed
it. Koko being a gorilla raised by humans and lived with them in a
human environment her entire life and was taught to communicate with
people via sign language. What does this show? That her brain is wired
differently than other gorrilas? Perhaps, her passing the mirror test
is a result of the environment she has been raised in. We still don't
know. Concluding that passing or failing the mirror test is an error
proof indicator of self-awareness is faulty thinking.

The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
not that they don't have self awareness. And really it doesn't even
show that, but only that they don't understand the reflection in a
mirror is their own reflection. They recognise their own territorial
markings, which is an indication that they also have some form(s)
of self recognition.

Lying ****wit David Harrison lied:

On 11 Sep 2005 16:37:02 -0700, wrote:


Rudy Canoza wrote:

lying ****wit David Harrison lied:


On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:42:45 -0700, Svetlana Monsoon wrote:



there is also debate as to the value of the test as
applied to animals who rely primarily on senses other
than vision, such as dogs."

They made a good point.


Yes. From what I've read on my own, the test has
pretty much determined that most animals don't have
self-recognition, but that does not mean they don't have
any awareness of themselves.

No one pretends it is the only test, but an animal who
passes it is judged self aware, and undoubtedly is.

Dogs do not have self awareness. They don't not have
it *because* they fail the test, but they do fail the
test, and that leads one to think that they lack self
awareness. Note that dogs *can* recognize other dogs
that they know by sight, as can cats. But cats and
dogs both fail the mirror test. Neither shows *any*
evidence of self awareness: they do not know that they
exist in a particular time and place, and they have no
sense of past or future.

They do not show any evidence that we can recognize as being
self-awareness, but that doesn't mean that they do not have it. Science
is about being open to possibilities, and not coming to conclusions
after one type of test. As the quote I have posted said, scientists are
still debating whether the test really proves anything or if the
results have been properly interpreted.


In a way that's what the subjects are doing...they are aware of the
image in the mirror, but fail to interpret it properly.

Because they lack self awareness.

****wit, you don't even know exactly what the mirror
test is.


And until we can read a dog's
mind, we really can't say what it is aware of and what it is ignorant
of. All we can do is speculate.

Btw, gorillas failed the mirror test, but one gorilla, Koko, has passed
it. Koko being a gorilla raised by humans and lived with them in a
human environment her entire life and was taught to communicate with
people via sign language. What does this show? That her brain is wired
differently than other gorrilas? Perhaps, her passing the mirror test
is a result of the environment she has been raised in. We still don't
know. Concluding that passing or failing the mirror test is an error
proof indicator of self-awareness is faulty thinking.


The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
not that they don't have self awareness.

Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.

dh@. wrote:

rambling BS snipped


It was started by you:

No, it was started by whoever wrote that cute poem about a bird having
the ability to feel sorry for itself. Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered
replying and performing a dissection on it (it was just a poem after
all), but this thread has gone on long enough here just the same. And
I'm not the one who caused it to degenerate into a ****ing contest.


The only reason not to post to the goldfish group, would be
if/because no one in that group is capable of carrying on a decent
discussion about it.

It's true that in most newsgroups people don't mind an off-topic thread
now and then. But it's just gone on too long and has reached the point
where no further evidence is being introduced on either side of the
debate, you're saying "yes they do" and Rudy's saying "no they don't"
like a couple of kids, and no further progress is being made on this
issue. Not to mention, your constant bickering makes things extremely
unpleasant around here.

- Logic316




"Don't get excited about a tax cut. It's like a mugger giving you back
fare for a taxi."
-- Arnold Glasow

"Logic316" wrote

your constant bickering makes things extremely unpleasant around here.

Do you need a reminder of filters? If your experience is being made
unpleasant, you are allowing it.

Dutch wrote:
"Logic316" wrote


your constant bickering makes things extremely unpleasant around here.


Do you need a reminder of filters? If your experience is being made
unpleasant, you are allowing it.


Unfortunately, the usenet kill filter is currently broken on Mozilla
Thunderbird, but will hopefully be fixed in a future release. I would
consider changing to another app, but the spam filter on this one is
pretty awesome.

- Logic316



"If people were required to *know* all the laws, and not just to
obey them, the government would be overthrown tomorrow."