Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FuzzyZergling]

Maybe cats just like making faces in mirrors.
Or, it could be that this is the first time its seen itself, and it thinks "OMG my hair is like not the way I want it at all!"

[alway]

Ah! This is the fundamental misunderstanding. The point isn't that we can learn what a reflection is, the point is that we can recognize that its actions mimic our own perfectly and thus surmise that it is, in some way, based on us; a creature that is not self-aware couldn't recognize the concept of itself and so that could not occur to it. It would only have thought processes for interacting with the world around it, and it just would never occur to consider itself as a thing it could interact with. It doesn't understand that it exists, only that it perceives (if you see what I mean; it's a very strange point and difficult to express, but it's key to the whole thing). Can anyone more eloquent than me sum it up, or is this actually something I've made up on my own that has no real philosophical grounding?

Yep, that's the general idea of it. The idea being that without a somewhat abstract sense of one's own existence, one can not figure out that thing in the mirror is indeed somehow related to or a part of themself. Without such an abstract notion of one's own existence, the creature's reasoning would go something along the lines of "pattern recognized -> suprised looking cat -> defend territory from cat" rather than "pattern recognized -> person who does the same actions I do -> I am a person -> the person in the mirror is probably me."

[Flaede]

The trouble is, that to pass the mirror test, they also need to display that they grasp this, in a way that the researchers can also recognize. Assumptions are sometimes made about how "airtight" the researchers' schemes are for setting up that second bit.

[Micro102]

Hmmm. Maybe they can try replacing the mirror with a picture in which the "other cat" is now gone?

[Muz]

The funny thing is that "knowing" how light functions, what if some situation caused it to function not as expected, and someone looking in the mirror ceased to see themselves? That person would be clawing, hissing, and screaming at the mirror.

[Siquo]

I think the issue is that you are a step behind us. You're talking about the hypothesis, how all hypothesis' have merits. From my understanding, we're talking about Theories. Evidence and experiments designed to test the hypothesis.

Otherwise, you're insane.

Perhaps, but insanity is subjective. I'm meta-ing just one step further: I question the hypothesis that evidence and experiments are proof to some kind of truth. But that irks a lot of people here, and indeed, I'm the only one doing that

On-topic: Still, the mirror test depends on communication: we interpret the hissing of a cat as "he thinks that's another cat and not himself". Putting a superintelligent rock in front of a mirror would not give us any results, even though the rock might be thinking "that mirror is a really crude item, as it only reflects a small band of electromagnetic radiation, and those apes carrying me around are so damn stupid, I don't believe they're intelligent."

Also, vampires fail the mirror test. Perhaps cats do too, as they identify other cats and themselves mostly by smell, not by sight.

Comic relief: Hmmm. If you make a large floor-to-ceiling mirror, would a vampire run into it because he can't see that it's a mirror?

[Heron TSG]

More on topic, what kind of advice do you have for when people say 'god bless you' when you sneeze and you don't believe in a god? What do you say?

[Siquo]

You could try "Thanks."

It's like when an american asks you "How are you", even though he's not interested in the answer at all, in fact you're not even supposed to answer at all, or if you do, in a superlative positive single word ("Great!", "Fantastic!"). You shouldn't take it too literal.

Or, if you're like me, you should take this harmless little opportunity to start arguing about the universe and nothing. 

[Osmosis Jones]

More on topic, what kind of advice do you have for when people say 'god bless you' when you sneeze and you don't believe in a god? What do you say?

"Why the hell would a giant drunk space monkey bless me for nasally expelling mucus?"

"No I don't"

"Argghhhh it burns, it buuuurrrrrnnnnnnnnssss"

or just hiss like a snake, it's always a classic.

[Shades]

I question the hypothesis that evidence and experiments are proof to some kind of truth. But that irks a lot of people here, and indeed, I'm the only one doing that

Your missing the point then, evidence and experiments are not attempting to prove a kind of truth they are attempting to forfill the burden of proof towards whatever the hypothesis was. At a certain point you can call it 'truth' or 'fact' when it is fundamentally unlikely for it to be another way however you always leave room open for it to be disproved so it's not a proof of truth. Which goes back to the things are only ever disproven concept.

More on topic, what kind of advice do you have for when people say 'god bless you' when you sneeze and you don't believe in a god? What do you say?

Depends on the person saying it. Most people say it without believe in a god so it's clearly just an automatic nicety. If the person says it with a certain conviction then maybe I'll question it but generally it is still just a automatic response.

[Siquo]

I know how science works, but I personally question the merits of science in search of truth.

That is: even if science disproves something, I can still comfortably believe that it's true, as I don't believe the concept of "disproven according to scientific principle" holds any measure of any definition of truth beyond the scope of the scientific model the disproof was created in. Science is internally correct (as are most nonsensical beliefs, btw) but holds no real value externally, for me. The experience that science does "get things done" is, to me, equivalent to the statement that "prayer sometimes works", just a lot more frequent

[Il Palazzo]

You're a hypocrite then.
Unless you never entrusted your life to a scientifically proven concept, like e.g. got on a plane, or drove a car, or boiled some water(how do you know it won't just explode?).

[Josephus]

Smaller and smaller circles. This argument makes me HNNNNNNNNNGH

[Shades]

If something is disproved then there is a real life case that shows the hypothesis in question cannot hold. I don't see how you can argue that is still does (and actually believe what you say).

Like the hypothesis the earth is flat for example, easily disproved as you don't fall off the edge, therefore the earth is not flat. Unless of course you don't believe that things that happen actually happen in which case we are in the realm of being unable or unwilling to face reality, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Disprove is easier than proof. Proving a hypothesis is effectively impossible, the best we can do is say it holds for now.

[Medicine Man]

Smaller and smaller circles. This argument makes me HNNNNNNNNNGH

The argument makes you make a grunting sound that some people make when they're taking a dump?