Dogs, mirrors, self awareness...

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.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:

dh pointed out:

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.

That's just one possibility Goo, and a very unlikely one.

lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:


dh pointed out:


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.


That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.

The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
"philosophers of mind" are talking about. You don't
understand them, because you've never read anything
about it, and your own uninformed "opinions" about it
are those of a drug-abusing uneducated cracker.

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

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:


dh pointed out:


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.


That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.

The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
"philosophers of mind" are talking about. You don't
understand them, because you've never read anything
about it, and your own uninformed "opinions" about it
are those of a drug-abusing uneducated cracker.

Many thoughts and beliefs of great philosophers of the past have been
disproven through proper scientific experimentation. The mirror test is
not widely accepted by the scientific community as being a test for
self-awareness in animals, therefore, no true assumption about the
presence or lack of self-awareness can be made with the mirror test.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:47:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:


dh pointed out:


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.


That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.

The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
"philosophers of mind" are talking about.

Explain or at least list them all Goober, so we can learn
what it is you're trying to talk about.

You don't
understand them, because you've never read anything
about it, and your own uninformed "opinions" about it
are those of a drug-abusing uneducated cracker.

You'll prove that you not only can't explain anything, you
probably can't even make a list of things you pretend to
understand. It'll be another example for the cowardice Goo.

****wit David Harrison, felon, lied:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:47:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:


On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:



dh pointed out:


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.


That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.

The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
"philosophers of mind" are talking about.


Explain or at least list them all, so we can learn
what it is you're talking about.

What the **** do you mean, "all", ****wit? You just
revealed, yet again, that you not only don't know what
youre talking about, but you don't even know the right
questions to ask. Philosophers of mind are not in
unanimous agreement on what they are, you stupid ****,
so there *can not* be an "all".

Here are *some*, ****wit, and they indicate that again,
you are grossly over your head.

- being aware that one is a being separate from others,
*and* from the rest of the environment

- being aware, as a direct implication of one's own
self awareness, that *others* are self aware

- knowing that one has a beginning and an end

- knowing that one exists at a particular place and time,
which *necessarily* implies that there are other
places and times in which the self aware being does
*not* exist


At the very best, ****wit, you stupid unaware log, dogs
could conceivably meet the first; but there is no
evidence they do, and people like you who just
stubbornly insist they do have no evidence to support
the belief, only your own wishful thinking.

Dogs clearly do not have the next three.