04 Dec 09
Originally posted by sonhouseit's magpies, actually. no mention of ravens, at least not according to Wiki:
Ravens have been shown now to pass the mirror test, previously only chimps and apes and maybe a few other primates. I think dolphins also pass that test. Interestingly, chimps lose the ability when they get past their version of middle age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
it does not say they had failed either 😉
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
10 Dec 09
Originally posted by RenarsAll the corvids are intelligent but ravens are the most so - they more readily display problem solving abilities and the use of fashioning tools to achieve an objective. They will also work on their own or in groups to achieve an objective.
it's magpies, actually. no mention of ravens, at least not according to Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
it does not say they had failed either 😉
My expertise with them is not limited to references on Wiki about mirror tests, after all. 😉
10 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's a simple test, try it on him.
My cat is fascinated by mirrors. I don't know if he would pass the test though. He doesn't seem to think that the cat in the mirror is another cat, but he does seem to be concerned about there being another me in there and he has once tried to jump through the mirror.
I would predict a fail but you never know until you try it.
--- Penguin.
11 Dec 09
Originally posted by BadwaterSurely these intelligence tests rest on somewhat anthropocentric assumptions.
I admit to having some doubts about the validity of the mirror test - if an animal is smart enough, how is it unaware that you've placed a dot where it can't see without a mirror? I think there are probably much better gauges of intelligence.
An intelligent but blind animal wouldn't pass the mirror test ... As for the disembodied entities constantly swarming at the limits of our perception, how could they possibly have bodily awareness?
11 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh I agree. Getting a fail does not mean you can conclude a fail. The subject may simply not be bothered by the knowledge that they have a mark on their forehead.
It is simple if you get an immediate pass. Concluding a fail is not nearly so easy.
I think that if the test was conducted thoroughly he would pass.
Indeed, getting a pass does not necessarily mean you can conclude a pass. The subject appears to be aware that the mark is on themselves, and show all appearances of being self-aware but it could just be an unconcious, reflexive response.
Does this mean the test is unscientific: neither a pass nor a fail can be taken as absolute proof for or against? I think both pass and fail can be taken as strong evidence though if the test is done rigorously, but I don't have the time to justify that assertion.
--- Penguin
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
12 Dec 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou do have a point there....
Surely these intelligence tests rest on somewhat anthropocentric assumptions.
An intelligent but blind animal wouldn't pass the mirror test ... As for the disembodied entities constantly swarming at the limits of our perception, how could they possibly have bodily awareness?
12 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDoesn't all human knowledge rest on anthropocentric assumptions?
Surely these intelligence tests rest on somewhat anthropocentric assumptions.
An intelligent but blind animal wouldn't pass the mirror test ... As for the disembodied entities constantly swarming at the limits of our perception, how could they possibly have bodily awareness?
Maybe there really ARE magic invisible elves moving the hands of the clock in addition to the electricity. Such forces are ignored in anthropocentric physics simply because we find it easy to detect electricity but are blind to elf power.
12 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, stuff you measure is not so bound. Sure, the units are arbitrary, but measuring the length of your carpet is not really bound up in your idea of the carpet vis-a-vis yourself. But applying measurement to a suspect concept like 'intelligence' is fraught with, uh, considerations ...
Doesn't all human knowledge rest on anthropocentric assumptions?
Maybe there really ARE magic invisible elves moving the hands of the clock in addition to the electricity. Such forces are ignored in anthropocentric physics simply because we find it easy to detect electricity but are blind to elf power.
There's no magic about the elves, they're just invisible. Perhaps they will favour you with an audience one of these fine days. They have many questions just for you ...
25 Dec 09
Originally posted by Badwateruse a laser pointer
I admit to having some doubts about the validity of the mirror test - if an animal is smart enough, how is it unaware that you've placed a dot where it can't see without a mirror? I think there are probably much better gauges of intelligence.