Freebase Dali

I don't mean to butt in and derail the flow or anything, but self-awareness, in context with what Tore is talking about (I.E. the ability to recognize one's self as an individual at least to the extent of differentiating between another animal and one's self via observable characteristic relationships) is most certainly provable with the mirror test.
The mistake you're making is thinking the idea of the mirror test assumes the animal somehow has the same concept of self-realization as we developed humans do, when it most certainly does not.
The very basis of the mirror test is to ascertain whether an animal (or human child, which have also been subjects in the mirror test experiment) can use visual or environmental cues to demonstrate a basic sense of self and individuality... or, SELF AWARENESS. Awareness of one's self, as being independent of any others.
Passing this test indicates that the subject already realizes itself as an individual, and recognizes that fact due to being able to distinguish between the mirror image of itself and the actual physical self.
Where one animal may see a mirror image of itself and attack it, thinking it's another animal (which happens), others may recognize that the image in the mirror is their own self and notice discrepancies that may have been placed on the subject for the test, and correct those discrepancies as any other self-aware being would. (which happens).

I think that's a clear example of the difference between animal survival awareness and an individualistic sense of being. While no one is claiming that animals ponder the existence of god or why they're put on this earth or have an awareness of personality, the idea of self awareness in animals is not a new phenomenon and is demonstrated in its true form whether you want to believe it or not.

Neapolitan

That's all well and good but I think you are missing the point. I said I was skeptical of the mirror test. I didn't say the mirror test proves self-realization on par with human being. And besides there are professionals who are also critical of the mirror test also. And it is what they say that has more credence imo than someone just saying mirror test is the bench mark of self-awarenss. What goes through the animals mind with image it sees is not known.

The mirror test alone can not prove anything. It doesn't reveal the thoughts of the animal which can not be known exactly like throuhg ESP or the Vulcan mind meld. Since you can not know what the animal is thinking, and it can not tell you what it is thinking when it sees the mirror, what is observe when it see itself in the mirror is open to interpretation. I am skeptical of the mirror test because the actions of the animal is interpretted by the scientist to mean what he wants it to mean. All it demonstrates is a reaction of the animal. And one should be cautious when connecting the dots. If there is some sense of self for an animal, it would be demostrate in it's bahavior in the natural setting of the animal.

__________________

Freebase Dali

I don't think the idea behind the test is to provide evidence of what the subject is thinking. The subject, by recognizing the image in the mirror to be itself and not another, clearly demonstrates a basic self-awareness in certain subjects where others fail, and doesn't need to be interpreted. The extent of that awareness would obviously need to be interpreted and could very easily fit the criteria of what you're saying.
I know I'm intentionally being off the mark of the context of this thread as self-awareness applies to it, but I just wanted to point out that the mirror test does indicate a certain level of self-awareness when passed... but I think you're correct in that any ramifications beyond that level of awareness would be speculation when based solely on the mirror test alone.

duga

I still stand by the belief that self awareness requires some sort of lax survival needs to develop (though I'll concede that how it actually happened is more ambiguous than I previously felt...thanks Tore), but my god every single discussion with Neapolitan degenerates into this kind of crap. He obviously loses the argument and then starts to pick out tiny bits he might still possibly be able to defend, however poorly.

Neapolitan, do you really believe the things you say or feel they form a cogent argument or do you just like to type and this is the easiest way to do it? I really am curious...

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Guybrush

Falling back to discussing definitions or other meta arguments is really a kind of cop out the way I see it. It's usually employed when people are not able or willing to partake in the discussion on the level it's at, so they take a step back and formulate meta questions instead. It doesn't take much knowledge to say "but how?" or "how do we define this?" or even stuff like "how do we know anything is real?", so it's kinda cheap, I think.

Sometimes such posts shed light on important problems and solutions that are found on higher levels, but mostly not .. at least not when discussing on forums.

__________________
Something Completely Different

duga

Meta arguments are fine when someone actually steps back and says, "wait guys, we need to look at the bigger picture.." Not when someone is trying to pass it off as part of the current discussion, hoping it will distract the other participants enough to where we all agree with what he is saying.

Btw, tore, what is it you study? I'm a plant biologist myself.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Guybrush

Agreed! I'm currently writing a thesis on wind dispersal of flightless invertebrates in the high arctic, so I'm mostly working on mites and springtails. I thought I'd try and get a job after that (I have a few months left), but I I'm thinking I might study ped for a year instead .. then I can be a teacher which I figure could be something else to fall back on should need be.

So, no real work experience as a biologist yet At least not one which pays.

__________________
Something Completely Different

boo boo

Creatures evolve out of necessity depending on their situation, they don't just mutate for the hell of it.

I think we're at a point where we wont evolve much further, maybe slightly in some ways, but we don't really have any more needs that require us to adapt something new, but neither do we really have anything that we no longer need or use.

We may eventually merge into one race, but that would take a loooooooooooong time and it really depends on weither or not racism will eventually go away and people will no longer have a desire to preserve their race.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

duga

Technically they do mutate for the hell of it...mutations are totally random. There have probably been millions of mutations throughout history providing a cool little trick to some creature but since it didn't particularly create a survival advantage, it was most likely lost after a couple of generations.

I feel any further physical human evolution will be purely aesthetic (blending into one race as boo boo put it), but the big part will come with mental evolution (but only if we stop cutting education when funds get tight).

Also...boo boo, you are back!!

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

RVCA

I was just gonna say the same thing, duga. It would make sense that if humans survived long enough to experience any kind of noticeable physical mutation (which is looking unlikely with the current state of world affairs), we'd see an increase in brain size, which would probably lead to an increase in head size and overall body size.