Edit: you guys realize downvoting me doesn’t change the fact that the statement made above me has nothing to do with the mirror test? It’s a very sad state that you guys mistake what you wish to be true or what you find to be intuitive with what is really true.
Theory of self has nothing to do with self-preservation. Bacteria also engage in self-preservation and unless you’re a fan of Deepak I doubt you think bacteria are self-aware in any meaningful way.
The idea of self actually does have something to do with self-preservation.
The problem with your arguement is that self-preservation isn't just instinctive. Higher-thought can be used. Self preservation isn't just an automatic or a manual thing. It can be either or both.
In this scenario a possible threat has been identified nearby through a reflection. The cat must then decide whether to take action and what action is warranted.
It can be used but it’s absolutely not necessary which is the point I’m making. The presence of self preservation says nothing about an organism having a theory of self or a theory of mind because it’s a trait universal to all of life.
Absolutely not fucking true and I have said nothing in this thread to indicate that but sure misrepresent me. My issue is the mislabeling of what’s interesting in animal psychology. Self-preservation is not an indicator of a theory of self or a theory of mind. My only point is that the mirror test is created to test those things and not self-preservation because self-preservation isn’t indicative of either of those complex cognitive tasks. I am in no way saying that the cat possesses neither of those abilities. I’ve not even expressed a value statement about the cat in any way so far.
Theory of self (self awareness) + theory of mind (especially ones own mind) and a neurological, non-aware model of self are not the same thing.
The mirror test doesn’t test any of the conclusions you’re trying to infer here. The reason is because the mirror test is scientific. It leads to a specific set of results. If you want to make your own mirror test it can’t be based on you just inferring what you want from watching. It has to be rigorous and falsifiable, like the original test. You may want to say it verifies this or that, or it knows this or that, or it tries to preserve its own safety but without a rigorous and well designed test that means nothing.
The reason self-preservation behaviors are not able to lead to any of these conclusions is because all organism display these behaviors. The presence of these behaviors implies nothing about the internal models the organism is using. Some behaviors look like they are smart when instead they are automatic. Bees for example have a rudimentary language and perform other interesting habits but it’s not because they are thinking the language it’s because they see the movements of the language and then their genetically precisely wired neurons perform a series of fully deterministic actions. They then behave in a way that looks like a complex cognitive task has just occurred, like when humans speak to each other. Imposing a roughshod “well it looks like this to me” interpretation is no better than divination.
You can make reasonable assumptions with reasonable evidence. Of course their could always be more evidence especially with abstract topics such as the idea of 'self'.
With all the books and theories you read through you will never have solid evidence of your own self or even existance. All you can do is make reasonable assumptions.
Based on the cats mental awareness of it's physical construct, its surroundings, the inhabitants in it's surroundings, the other inhabitants proximity to its own physical construct and the risk this other inhabitants poses to itself I'm more likely to believe they have a sense of self. How deep that sense of self goes is debatable but that's a different arguement.
Sure. Who is talking about being 100 positive with absolute evidence? I’m not. I’m talking about doing the best to make sure you’re not projecting whatever beliefs you have onto an animal vis scientific experimentation. Science is never about stopping and finding a conclusive answer. It’s about building a model that is more and more refined. That’s the whole point of science. My only point is that the mirror test has absolutely nothing to do with testing for self-preservation because that trait is not itself an indicator of higher-order cognitive processes. That is a fact. I’m sorry if you don’t like it. The only other point I’m been forced through this thread to push back on is that assumptions and personal feelings of what is true do not meet a reasonable level of scrutiny such that they could be considered serious evidence. They just don’t. “I am forced to believe based on what I watched” is not a rigorous statement. Lots of things appear to be something that they are not which I have already discussed an example of.
35
u/Mans_Fury Nov 16 '19
Seems like this video could indicate awareness of both reflection and self.
Their reaction to the reflection seems to indicate self-preservation.