Elepehants can identify themselves in their reflections

[SteveGrenard]

This should give apoplexy to creationists:



Elephants Recognize Themselves in Mirrors
10.30.06, 12:00 AM ET

FRIDAY, Oct. 27 (HealthDay News) -- Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest pachyderm of them all?

U.S. scientists say they've found the first evidence that elephants can recognize themselves in mirrors, which means they join humans, apes and dolphins in a select group of species that have that ability.

The study found female elephants closely inspecting their reflections in a mirror and apparently not mistaking it for another elephant.

The finding, by researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University and the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York, suggests convergent evolution with humans.

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/10/30/hscout535773.html

More here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061030-asian-elephants.html

[andyandy]

you mean no one has ever thought of putting a giant mirror up to an elephant before? Wow, there's some slackers working in zoology....:D

"Elephants have been tested in front of mirrors before, but previous studies used relatively small mirrors kept out of the elephants' reach. This study is the first to test the animals in front of a huge mirror they could touch, rub against and try to look behind," Plotnik said.

come on people!

[Dave1001]

My skeptic radar is up for reports like this. How rigorously was it done? Any chance there's similar problems of bias like with research purporting to show that apes can be taught sign language?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think most higher animals if given a chance to get to know how mirrors work and whatnot would recognize themselves in a mirror. I doubt elephants are smarter than Dogs so why could Dogs not do this? I think given time to get to know mirrors and how they work and surrounded by them they would do the same things elephants or dolphins or apes do. Whatever that is.

I also want to point out that recognizing yourself in a mirror is a matter of intelligence and not consciousness as some people claim. Not being able to recognize yourself in a mirror doesn't mean you aren't aware of yourself or can't think. It just means you're not smart enough to equate that thing in the mirror to you. However rudimentary your concept of "you" is.

[NeilC]

I would say that it's a matter of intelligence and consciousness. I'd also say that intelligence itself is a factor in consciousness.

Fact is, dogs don't really seem to react to mirrors like that. A puppy will sort of eact like the mirror is another dog until it realises interaction is a waste of time then they just ignore them.

The elephants were seen to be checking themselves out and noticing a mark on them in the mirror. I've never seen a dog do anything like that. So there seems to be a difference.

[SteveGrenard]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6100430.stm

includes photo of elephant and her looking glass..........

Edited to change observation:

Observaing my dog, it also ignores its mirror image. Dogs probably see and bark at other animals after they corroborate with odor. Dogs incorporate olfaction into detection. Mirrors do not mirror odors so the images are ignored, worth nary a bark.

[CriticalThanking]

Edited to change observation:

Observaing my dog, it also ignores its mirror image. Dogs probably see and bark at other animals after they corroborate with odor. Dogs incorporate olfaction into detection. Mirrors do not mirror odors so the images are ignored, worth nary a bark.
Personal sample size of at least a half-dozen: some do, some don't. Smell had nothing to do with the initial bark or lack thereof.

CT

[Dave1001]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6100430.stm

includes photo of elephant and her looking glass..........

Edited to change observation:

Observaing my dog, it also ignores its mirror image. Dogs probably see and bark at other animals after they corroborate with odor. Dogs incorporate olfaction into detection. Mirrors do not mirror odors so the images are ignored, worth nary a bark.

I notice they draw their conclusion from only one elephant, which seems a bit premature.

[drkitten]

I notice they draw their conclusion from only one elephant, which seems a bit premature.

One elephant is still one more than the number of dogs that have been observed to pass this test.

And, actually, no. If you read the article, it's based on a sample size of three.

[andyandy]

One elephant is still one more than the number of dogs that have been observed to pass this test.

And, actually, no. If you read the article, it's based on a sample size of three.

i'm amazed no one's got round to trying this before......

if i had an elephant, then i'd be doing all sorts of experiments on it....:D

[UserGoogol]

I also want to point out that recognizing yourself in a mirror is a matter of intelligence and not consciousness as some people claim. Not being able to recognize yourself in a mirror doesn't mean you aren't aware of yourself or can't think. It just means you're not smart enough to equate that thing in the mirror to you. However rudimentary your concept of "you" is.

First of all, it's a test of self-awareness, not consciousness. And secondly, it's a test that only implies things if you pass it, I think. If you can find yourself in the mirror, then you must have some sort of concept of self. If you can't... well, that doesn't really prove anything. Even an adult human being can at least in principle fail a mirror test if they're sufficiently caught off guard. Or if they're blind.

[Dave1001]

One elephant is still one more than the number of dogs that have been observed to pass this test.

And, actually, no. If you read the article, it's based on a sample size of three.

I may have misread the article, but I thought that only one of the elephants, "Happy", touched the white "X" on its face after looking in the mirror. And even with primates, the article claimed that about half did this. Barring more information, this conclusion about elephants seems a bit premature to me. Even with primates it's weird that they split 50/50 on this ability.

A though occurs to me: this ability would seem situationally useful for animals that spend significant time around reflective surfaces. Such as amphibians. As more animals are studied I wonder if this will be the case, or if it will be more just a function of reaching a threshhold of cognitive ability.

[supercorgi]

Sheesh! My cat does that. She'll actually tip down my mirrors (both the standing one and the one on my dresser which are on swivels) so she can gaze at herself in the mirror. She doesn't act as though it's another cat, but instead stares at herself and preens.

[Modified]

Observaing my dog, it also ignores its mirror image.

I've had four dogs and all of them would refuse to look in a mirror that was placed in front of them. It seemed to disturb them.

[steenkh]

Dogs probably see and bark at other animals after they corroborate with odor. Dogs incorporate olfaction into detection. Mirrors do not mirror odors so the images are ignored, worth nary a bark.
Not necessarily right. I once had a dog that had some disease as a puppy that removed its olfactory sense. It certainly could not smell food but it had a keen sense of hearing and could identify all kinds of sounds of food being unwrapped.

But it never reacted to mirrors.

[Yahzi]

My dogs go crazy and rush outside barking every time the hobbit's dog in "Lord of the Rings" barks at the Ring-wraith.

From this I conclude that Ring-wraiths must be real, and the dogs have a genetic memory of them.

:D

Seriously, as far as I know, all dogs fail the mirror test. Only gorillas, dolphins, and elephants pass, I think.

[drkitten]

Seriously, as far as I know, all dogs fail the mirror test. Only gorillas, dolphins, and elephants pass, I think.

... er, and humans. :D

(Actually, I think that chimpanzees and orangs have passed as well.)

[drkitten]

. I doubt elephants are smarter than Dogs so why could Dogs not do this

If you think that dogs do do this, I suggest you run the experiment.

Given how widely reported the news of elephants doing this is, I suspect that Science or Nature or one of the big journals would be really interested in your finding that they could. A quick publication in a high-profile journal like that would more or less guarantee you admission and a scholarship to any college or grad school of your choice....

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If you think that dogs do do this, I suggest you run the experiment.

Given how widely reported the news of elephants doing this is, I suspect that Science or Nature or one of the big journals would be really interested in your finding that they could. A quick publication in a high-profile journal like that would more or less guarantee you admission and a scholarship to any college or grad school of your choice....


I do believe Dogs could do this but I think that it would take months of experiments with various dogs and getting them used to the mirrors etc. I only have 2 dogs and no big mirrors.

I've tried this before on my dogs when I had big mirrors though.

One of my dogs barked at me. Did not look at the mirror just kept barking at me for having the big object in my hand.

The other dog looked at the mirror and sniffed it and walked away.

Neither dog payed attention to it and neither dog thought it was another dog. When they see other dogs they always bark and act up.

[drkitten]

Neither dog payed attention to it

Bingo. So, basically, we have no evidence that dogs recognize themselves in the mirror.....

[imagineNoReligion]

In other news, male elephants are in an uproar over this recent development. Said one male elephant (who refused to be named) : "It's a great day for elephant kind, but we're already sick of hearing, Do you think I look fat".

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Bingo. So, basically, we have no evidence that dogs recognize themselves in the mirror.....


But I still think they could.

[drkitten]

But I still think they could.

... And I think that Elvis is still alive and working as a cook in a short-order diner in Fresno, California.

The difference is that I have more evidence supporting my belief. I've spoken to someone who spoke to someone who read a web page written by an actual eyewitness.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

... And I think that Elvis is still alive and working as a cook in a short-order diner in Fresno, California.

The difference is that I have more evidence supporting my belief. I've spoken to someone who spoke to someone who read a web page written by an actual eyewitness.



Simply because something has not been proven scientifically does not mean there is no evidence supporting it. Before this study came out I’m sure there was plenty of evidence Elephants have self recognition. Any Elephant trainer could testify to this. Someone who isn't around animals a lot would not know anything about it. Anyone who has been around specific animals long enough can pick up subtle signs of them being aware of themselves.

[CBVan]

My skeptic radar is up for reports like this. How rigorously was it done? Any chance there's similar problems of bias like with research purporting to show that apes can be taught sign language?
Wait, apes CAN'T be taught sign language? Say it aint so!

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Simply because something has not been proven scientifically does not mean there is no evidence supporting it. Before this study came out I’m sure there was plenty of evidence Elephants have self recognition. Any Elephant trainer could testify to this. Someone who isn't around animals a lot would not know anything about it. Anyone who has been around specific animals long enough can pick up subtle signs of them being aware of themselves.
And anyone who has been around humans long enough can pick up blatant signs of them being able to unknowingly fool themselves with their overdeveloped pattern-recognition skill(z).

Humans just aren't good at discriminating between subtle signs that point to something real and subtle signs that are the result of observer bias. I would be very wary of taking a pet owner's word that his pet is self-aware, for instance.

[drkitten]

And anyone who has been around humans long enough can pick up blatant signs of them being able to unknowingly fool themselves with their overdeveloped pattern-recognition skill(z).

Humans just aren't good at discriminating between subtle signs that point to something real and subtle signs that are the result of observer bias. I would be very wary of taking a pet owner's word that his pet is self-aware, for instance.

Exactly. For further details, please consult the "Clever Hans effect."

That's why the mirror test was developed in the first place. It provided a relatively clear-cut, unambiguous, and objective way to measure the degree to which animals are aware of "self." It's not a perfect measurement, in part because it relies so heavily on visual cues (which means that non-visual animals such as bats or moles would be at a disadvantage), but it's much more reliable than relying on the testimony of animal trainers.

I've never yet met an animal trainer who didn't anthropomorphize their charges.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And anyone who has been around humans long enough can pick up blatant signs of them being able to unknowingly fool themselves with their overdeveloped pattern-recognition skill(z).

Humans just aren't good at discriminating between subtle signs that point to something real and subtle signs that are the result of observer bias. I would be very wary of taking a pet owner's word that his pet is self-aware, for instance.


Using the inability of people to recognize specific things or human bias can be used as an argument against just about anything. However the fact remains that people who spend time around animals know things about them that people who don't spend time around them don't know. I predict that in the future most higher animals will pass this 'mirror test'.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Exactly. For further details, please consult the "Clever Hans effect."

That's why the mirror test was developed in the first place. It provided a relatively clear-cut, unambiguous, and objective way to measure the degree to which animals are aware of "self." It's not a perfect measurement, in part because it relies so heavily on visual cues (which means that non-visual animals such as bats or moles would be at a disadvantage), but it's much more reliable than relying on the testimony of animal trainers.

Sounds like this test relies on the very thing that is supposed to be an argument against pet owners or trainers observing self recognition in animals...Human observation.

I've never yet met an animal trainer who didn't anthropomorphize their charges.

I've met dozens that don't anthropomorphize animals.

[Dragonrock]

Humans developed intelligence as a result of having hands that could do nifty things. Elephant's trunks are capable of very fine movements so it's possible that their intelligence has been developing, just not as long/quickly as humans have.

[drkitten]

I predict that in the future most higher animals will pass this 'mirror test'.

And I predict -- with much better evidence -- that in the future most short-order cooks will have been proven to be Elvis.

Your prediction, plus three bucks, will get you a latte.

[Starthinker]

I just want to point out that when I look into a mirror I see scary things. Very scary things.

[roger]

That's why the mirror test was developed in the first place. It provided a relatively clear-cut, unambiguous, and objective way to measure the degree to which animals are aware of "self." It's not a perfect measurement, in part because it relies so heavily on visual cues [snip]I would suggest it is also biased against animals too stupid to understand mirrors. After all, many dogs just don't understand fences. I.e. put food near a dog, but separated by a long fence. Many dogs can not figure out that they need to run to the end of the fence and around it to get to the food (and others can). I watched this phenomen once with some yak herders in Nepal. They were trying to get some Yaks to walk out of a corral by offering it food, but the yaks were so stupid they couldn't negotiate a 3 foot tall stone wall with a very obvious opening.

So, I speculate that an animal could have some (perhaps dim) awareness of self, but not be able to puzzle out that the mirror is providing a reflection of itself. Certainly I'm anthropomorphizing to an extent, but it has seemed to me that some more intelligent dogs seem to show signs of shame or mortification, which would imply a sense of self. Put a coat or a sweater on a dog, and some will prance about looking self important, others will look like they want to crawl under a rock. Am I anthropomorphizing, misjudging behavior that can be explained in other ways (for example, the "self important" prancing is just a reaction to ruffled hair on the dog's back), or is there a sense of self in these dogs? I don't know.

In any case, I would say passing the mirror test shows a sense of self, but failing it does not show a lack of a sense of self (unless there is evidence for the negative case of which I am not aware).

[BillC]

Animals often react to mirrors in strange ways. You can place a mirror outside a fishbowl containing two goldfish and they will spend all day staring at their reflections. (Curiosity? Facing off an intruder? Who knows?) Yet remove the mirror and the two fishes do not spend all day in the bowl facing each other.

The elephant test is interesting, making me wonder how elephants would respond to, say, a video of other elephants. Would they recognise their kind, though the image is much smaller than the real thing?

Are there any animals that are able to recognise and respond meaningfully to photographs or even artwork?

[drkitten]

I would suggest it is also biased against animals too stupid to understand mirrors.

Except that the phrase "stupid" doesn't seem to have a well-defined meaning in this context. I agree that if the phrase "too stupid to understand mirrors" makes sense, then the test is probably biased against such animals -- but it seems a questionable bit of anthropomorphization to me.


So, I speculate that an animal could have some (perhaps dim) awareness of self, but not be able to puzzle out that the mirror is providing a reflection of itself. Certainly I'm anthropomorphizing to an extent, but it has seemed to me ...

Yeah, well..... I'm trying to be as polite as possible, but one of the fundamental problems that has plagued this kind of research more or less since the talking snake in the Garden of Eden is the tendency of people to anthropomorphize and to speculate wildly with little-to-no foundation or control.

So, speculate all you like. That and three bucks -- wait, I already used that line, didn't I? If you've got any reason for me to take your speculations seriously, I will be happy to discuss your ideas. But


it has seemed to me that some more intelligent dogs seem to show signs of shame or mortification, which would imply a sense of self. Put a coat or a sweater on a dog, and some will prance about looking self important, others will look like they want to crawl under a rock. Am I anthropomorphizing, misjudging behavior that can be explained in other ways (for example, the "self important" prancing is just a reaction to ruffled hair on the dog's back), or is there a sense of self in these dogs?

... there's no way to interpret this mess in any sort of meaningful way. I'd want to start by checking to see if other people agree with your interpretation of how the dog is looking -- if you describe the dog as looking "self-important," while your partner says that it looks "embarassed," I suggest that the problem is with the humans, not the dog.



In any case, I would say passing the mirror test shows a sense of self,

Yes. And with very little anthropomorphism involved at all, and very little human judgement. Identifying grooming behavior is fairly easy and require little interpretation. If the animal starts grooming related to a visible (but out-of-sight) marking when it sees its reflection in the mirror, then it recognizes the mirror's reflection "out there" as a visible representation of the real stuff "in here." There's basically no other way to interpret that.

failing it does not show a lack of a sense of self

Of course not. Blind humans fail the mirror test, after all. But if you're going to argue that something still has a sense of self, I'm going to have to ask you, first, for a definition of what "sense of self" means in this context, and second, for your evidence.

[drkitten]

Are there any animals that are able to recognise and respond meaningfully to photographs or even artwork?

Well, monkeys will pay to look at porn (http://www.primates.com/monkeys/sexy-pics.html).

[Mercutio]

Well, monkeys will pay to look at porn (http://www.primates.com/monkeys/sexy-pics.html).

From the article:This is not monkey pornography, says Deaner.

The hell it isn't.

[drkitten]

From the article:

The hell it isn't.

It's not porn, it's art. Can't you tell the difference?

[AmateurScientist]

You'll have to ask Chimp Justice Stewart.

[drkitten]

You'll have to ask Chimp Justice Stewart.

Ooooh.... problem. Dave1001 has already denied that great apes have language, which will make "asking" difficult.

[Abdul Alhazred]

OK, but why would it bother creationists at all?

[AmateurScientist]

Ooooh.... problem. Dave1001 has already denied that great apes have language, which will make "asking" difficult.

I'm pretty sure Chimp Justice Stewart was a very wealthy chimp.

AS

[BillC]

Well, monkeys will pay to look at porn (http://www.primates.com/monkeys/sexy-pics.html).http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/31024547e5d958488.jpghttp://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=playapeem8.jpghttp://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=playapeem8.jpg

[Zygar]

Ooooh.... problem. Dave1001 has already denied that great apes have language, which will make "asking" difficult.

Actually, I think Piggy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65071) is the one that denied it.

[This Guy]

"Elephants Recognize Themselves in Mirrors"

Fine.

Wake me up when they design and build a Personal Computer, and connect it to the Internet!:slp:

Seriously, this is interesting.

I used to be able to recognize myself in the mirror. But over the last few years, that guy in the mirror looks too old to be me. I think it's some kinda trick or sumtin.;)

[roger]

Of course not. Blind humans fail the mirror test, after all. But if you're going to argue that something still has a sense of self, I'm going to have to ask you, first, for a definition of what "sense of self" means in this context, and second, for your evidence.
My point was not to argue that dogs have a sense of self - I don't seriously propose they do - but only to point out failing the mirror test (ignoring obvious cases like blind subjects) doesn't mean that there is not a sense of self.

As for too "stupid" to understand a mirror, a phrase you considered poorly defined, postulate an animal with a sense of self, but unable to recognize it's reflection in a mirror. Whether such a brain configuration exists, naturally I do not know.

Forgive me for getting personal, but you seem to get uppity when people suggest things that aren't yet proven by science. Isn't that how science proceeds, by asking questions, and speculating? Furthermore, how can I as a poster learn something if people have to struggle to remain polite when I ask a question or speculate to test my understanding of an issue? If I was to state unequivocally "dogs are self aware", rain abuse upon me if I can't back it up with evidence. However, as far as I am aware, it is perfectly reasonable to ask if an animal is cognitively able to understand reflective surfaces. I can think of a way to test it. For example, block an animals sight from a desirable toy, food, whatever. Then, set up a mirror that allows the animal to see the food around the obstacle. Can the animal use that reflection to deduce the actual position of the food? If so, it can be said to 'understand' mirrors. If not, well, we need more tests, as there may be other factors at play. We might train it to bark when it sees a particular object. Show the animal the object via a mirror. Does it bark? If not, it raises serious questions about how it processes the information content in a mirror.

Maybe the simplest test - put a mirror in front of the animal. Stand behind it, and hold out a red ball (assuming the animal likes red balls).Does it whirl around to get the ball? If you run the same test without the mirror and it doesn't whirl around (eliminating that it is gathering information from another source), then it certainly 'understands' mirrors - it grasps that the images in the mirror are an accurate depiction of real world objects, and that the images are not object themselves (meaning it doesn't dive towards the mirror to get the ball, mistaking the reflection for a ball). If this same animal is not able to display grooming behavior in response to it's own reflection, I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that it is not self aware. However, if the animal can't figure out that there is a ball behind it in when it sees it in the mirror, what hope is there for the animal to recognize that its own reflection is itself?

As for my and other's anthromorphising, I admitted I was doing it. It proves nothing about the animal, of course. Science based on it is junk science. But I shared a few anecdotes to say why some people think there might be self awareness in some animals that haven't passed the mirror test. Sometimes it's fun to chat on a bulletin board, you know? We aren't trying to write a paper for Science here :). Most dogs 'seem' pretty dim to me, and if pressed at gunpoint I'd have to say "not self aware". My girlfriend's father's dog falls in this category. He seems to be a stomach on padded feet, and that's about it. But some dogs appear to exhibit more complex mental apparatus. Given we bred them for certain behaviors, I quickly credit I am possibly, even almost certainly deceived. Still, it's interesting to think about. The dog I had when I was growing up seemed pretty intelligent compared to most dogs, in that I suspect she would have tested well in a canine intelligence test compared to her peers. She also exhibited behavior that appeared to show awareness - read through the filter of anthromorhising, of course. It'd be interesting to know the truth of the matter.

[Yahzi]

... er, and humans. :D
You must be working with a different class of humans than I am... :D

(Actually, I think that chimpanzees and orangs have passed as well.)
They're all just monkeys to me. :D

[Yahzi]

But some dogs appear to exhibit more complex mental apparatus.
My coyote-mix has practiced actual deciet.

On a camping trip, sitting at the fire, eating a sandwich. The dog wants some. Not getting any. Then the dog looks off into the distance, like he sees something out there. I start looking out that way. Turn back around to find the dog snarfing my sandwhich.

Another time: dog has been in the trash can. I come home, he greets me at the door. Wants his walk right now. Come on, let's go, you don't need to go into the kitchen. I walk into the kitchen, he hangs his tail 'cause he knows he's busted.

And once, I swear he convinced the cat to knock the dog treats off the top of the refrigator for him. But it never happened again, because he cheated the cat out of its share.

I'm telling you... either my dog is some kind of dog genius, or he's possessed by Satan.

:D

[drkitten]

Forgive me for getting personal, but you seem to get uppity when people suggest things that aren't yet proven by science. Isn't that how science proceeds, by asking questions, and speculating?

That's probably because I spend far too much of my time dealing with people trying to speculate and then operating on that speculation as though it were fact. I also spend far too much time dealing with people who are trying to speculate in the teeth of the actual evidence.

In the particular case of animal cognition, there is a long history of incompetence, in some cases verging on downright fraud. Highly trained professionals have gotten their fingers badly burned doing this kind of stuff. (Look at the history of acromony about chimp language, for example.) One of the main reasons is that it's more fun to speculate than to do the work.

But that's not how science works.

Experimentation and evidence have to enter somewhere.

Preferably, at the beginning, through the front door.

[Starthinker]

So, what are elepehants, anyway?

[drkitten]

They're all just monkeys to me. :D

For your own sake, and the sake of those who love you -- do not say that to a librarian.

[drkitten]

So, what are elepehants, anyway?

I think they're like elephants, only about 11% larger. They're longer in the middle, between the 'p' and the 'h.'

Not to be confused with the slightly smaller elefants, or the positively miniscule elfs.

[jmercer]

Someone get TragicMonkey's opinon on whether or not it's monkey porn, ok? The answer could be amazing! ;)

[Crazycowbob]

This makes me think of my own pets...

My wife has a dog (Besingi) who first "barked" (well, made a noise anyway LOL) at the floor mirror we had, and would run behind it looking for the other dog. After a while he just got to where he ignores it completely now.

My cat however (an evil genius bent on world domination, I don't doubt), loves the mirror. He'll sit in front of one for hours, staring and cleaning himself.

As such, I must experiment on him (the cat) at my next earliest convieniance, and see if he would notice a mark on himself and react accordingly, or if he just sees his image in the mirror like he does those on TV, just interesting moving pictures...

[drkitten]

As such, I must experiment on him (the cat) at my next earliest convieniance, and see if he would notice a mark on himself and react accordingly, or if he just sees his image in the mirror like he does those on TV, just interesting moving pictures...

Please do. The results should be interesting.

[Yahzi]

Forgive me for getting personal, but you seem to get uppity when people suggest things that aren't yet proven by science.
Go check out the IQ threads, and you'll see why.

:)

[Ashles]

The study found female elephants closely inspecting their reflections in a mirror and apparently not mistaking it for another elephant.
Is this why they always spend so long in the bathroom?

[Dave1001]

Then there's the issue of whether a sense of self is really linked to reaching a threshhold of general intelligence or if it's a sort of compartmentalized cognitive ability that can develop independent of general intelligence. After all, I think we discussed in a different thread that if we lesion a particular part of the brain, a person of normal human intelligence will be unable to recognize themself in the mirror. So perhaps there's an adaptive reason independent of general intelligence that humans (and perhaps some other primates, elephants, and dolphins) developed the ability to recognize themselves centered in that particular part of the brain?

[Ashles]

So perhaps there's an adaptive reason independent of general intelligence that humans (and perhaps some other primates, elephants, and dolphins) developed the ability to recognize themselves centered in that particular part of the brain?
Intelligence is such a fuzzy thing to define in other species - I remember an interesting thread a while back discussing dolphin intelligence and wondering whether dolphins might have a huge amount of 'processing power' but it might all be dedicated to surviving, communicating and carrying out day to day activities in the ocean.
The way we test human intelligence is obviously entirely based on the way humans exhibit behaviour and communicate.

I was leading up to a point, but I suddenly completely forgot it.

[Crazycowbob]

Then there's the issue of whether a sense of self is really linked to reaching a threshhold of general intelligence or if it's a sort of compartmentalized cognitive ability that can develop independent of general intelligence. After all, I think we discussed in a different thread that if we lesion a particular part of the brain, a person of normal human intelligence will be unable to recognize themself in the mirror. So perhaps there's an adaptive reason independent of general intelligence that humans (and perhaps some other primates, elephants, and dolphins) developed the ability to recognize themselves centered in that particular part of the brain?

Another question along that line of thought is to wonder what spurred the development of that trait? Was there some point in the development of primates/dolphins/elephants where being able to recognize a reflection of oneself was benificial to survival/reproduction, or is it just some sort of random offshoot, some additional ability that happened to just come with higher brain function?

No experiment planned on that one, but the cat and mirror will proceed tonight, I'll post any results of my highly unscientific study after :)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And I predict -- with much better evidence -- that in the future most short-order cooks will have been proven to be Elvis.

Your prediction, plus three bucks, will get you a latte.


Riiiight...:rolleyes:

[Jekyll]

No experiment planned on that one, but the cat and mirror will proceed tonight, I'll post any results of my highly unscientific study after :)

I predict that trying paint a blob on a cat will result in it hitting you, drawing blood, and refusing to come into the house or near a mirror when you are around for the next three days. By this point the paint will have come off and it will go back to publicly preening itself in front of the mirror.

Good luck.

[Crazycowbob]

I predict that trying paint a blob on a cat will result in it hitting you, drawing blood, and refusing to come into the house or near a mirror when you are around for the next three days. By this point the paint will have come off and it will go back to publicly preening itself in front of the mirror.

Good luck.

LOL, close! But I used chalk, and he didn't seem to notice it was on him. At the moment the experiment is inconclusive though, as he is being most uncooperative (what a suprise, he's a cat!) and decidingly not looking at himself in the mirror tonight. Anyway, he's got a bright blue line across his forhead, so I'll try to keep watch and see what happens :)

[Zep]

There's some magpies in our back yard which continually try to attack their own reflections in our back windows. We are treated to thump, thump on the glass for an hour or so as the try to take down their territorial rivals. Which says (1) magpies recognise reflections in a mirror, (2) they are as thick as bricks.

[Kaylee]

But I used chalk, and he didn't seem to notice it was on him. At the moment the experiment is inconclusive though, as he is being most uncooperative (what a suprise, he's a cat!) and decidingly not looking at himself in the mirror tonight. Anyway, he's got a bright blue line across his forhead, so I'll try to keep watch and see what happens :)

I'm surprised he didn't want to lick it off because of the smell. Between the two senses smell and vision, I think cats rely on their sense of smell more.

Anyway... maybe he likes it. Perhaps you created cosmetics for cats? ;)

FWIW, while think the mirror test is a fun test, I don't think its conclusive. Unneutered male cats like to spray their territory. Its not visual, but I believe it shows a strong sense of self.

[trvlr2]

Does anyone suppose the mirror test may fail with some animals because of the way their eyes are made?Cats,dogs, people do not have the same retinal equipment nor the same color perception.Elephants? No idea.
That said, I have a friend with a westie who goes nuts when the animal planet shows are on-he barks, charges the tv, and when an animal appears to exit stage right, he runs to see where the animal went. His co-westie ignores tv.
My cats all tried to get the cat behind the mirror-but quit very quickly.Goal oriented , I suppose.
Seems to me that some animals are really much brighter than their relatives, enough so to not really seem like animals.
It is kinda hokey-here's a link to a genius dog, "Skidboot"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5249518974978628334&q=skidboot&hl=en

[Kaylee]

Does anyone suppose the mirror test may fail with some animals because of the way their eyes are made?Cats,dogs, people do not have the same retinal equipment nor the same color perception.

Absolutely. Also cats have different blindspots than we do, and IMHOany experiment should take that into account. A couple of furballs moved in with me recently and I thought they were coincidentally farsighted and practically blind nearsighted until I figured out where their blind spots were.

My cats all tried to get the cat behind the mirror-but quit very quickly.

I had "fostered" another cat for about a month. She use to supervise my preparation of her meals by watching everything through the hall mirror rather than directly. I live in a small apt. -- a stove, fridge and sink are crammed into a converted closet across the hall from a coat closet with a mirror on the outside of that door. Pretty crowded arrangement and she elected to watch me safely from afar through the mirror rather than up close in the danger zone. She definitely understood the concept of reflections. That alone doesn't prove that she had a concept of "self." But in other situations she would demonstrate jealousy and competitiveness with my kitten, and she was very territorial over her litter box. I don't know if a psychologist would agree, but I don't think those traits are possible without a concept of "self."

It is kinda hokey-here's a link to a genius dog, "Skidboot"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5249518974978628334&q=skidboot&hl=en

Great video! I'm bookmarking it.