/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11155601
>How come ants pass the mirror test while cats and dogs don't?

Because the “mirror test” is pseudoscience that tells you nothing aside from maybe which sense is dominant neurologically. Also, cats can pass the “mirror test”.

> Are ants somehow smarter than dogs?

No, obviously.

>>11155629
>cats can pass the “mirror test”
Evidence.
>“mirror test” is pseudoscience
No it's not.

>>11155702
>No it's not.
So ants are smarter than dogs?

>>11155629
thats what the irish want you to think

>>11155707
Not him, but it's not necessary for the mirror test to be pseudoscience for dogs to be smarter than ants. What about it do you find unscientific?

>>11155707
Obviously no. I wrote a provocative question for attention. Still, it is amazing that dogs don't pass the mirror test yet ants do. Don't you agree? How are ants apparently inherently capable of understanding how mirrors work? The mirror test is usually very reliable, only the smartest of species pass it. But then, against any sensible expectation, ants passed the mirror test too.

>>11155730
>Not him
>assuming my gender
ISHYGDDT

>>11155601
>>11155629
The only thing I like about the mirror test is the inventor starting jumping through flaming hoops of logic when primitive animals started to pass it.

A fish tried to get a mark off itself and he rationalized that it was just showing the fish in the mirror what to do.

>Gordon Gallup, who invented the mirror test, is an evolutionary psychologist at the State University of New York at Albany, and he says the cleaner wrasses' behavior can be attributed to something other than recognizing itself in a mirror. Gallup has argued that a cleaner wrasse's job in life is to be aware of ectoparasites on the bodies of other fish, so it would be hyper aware of the fake parasite that it noticed in the mirror, perhaps seeing it as a parasite that it needed to clean off of a different fish. Gallup also argues that the cleaner wrasse's strange positioning towards the mirror (swimming upside down and looking at itself from different angles) may be because it is learning how to manipulate the "other fish" that it wants to clean. He says that the scraping behavior of the fish is most likely the fish trying to call attention to the "other fish" that it has a parasite on its body.

Of course this invalidates the test entirely because any animal passing the test can be explained away like this.

>>11155702
>Evidence.

https://youtu.be/akE2Sgg8hI8
Cat sees itself in mirror. Touches self. Recognizes self. That different individuals in one species can recognize themselves in the mirror and others can not by itself makes the concept of dubious meaning.

> No it's not.

Yes it is. There is no animal in the world that can’t recognize itself, or it wouldn’t be able to fucking walk. The flawed premise of the mirror test originates in the fact that sight is the dominant sense of humans, even more than hearing, so we impose this onto other creatures. In reality, smell and hearing are common dominant or very important senses in many other animals. Dogs are able to recognize their own scent markings, which they use to delineate territory and make their presence known to other dogs, so they have self-recognition. They can also scratch themselves, which means they can recognize the sensation of their own claws on their own bodies, so they have self-recognition, meaning there’s few if any bilaterian animals alive that don’t possess self-recognition. You assign undue significance to the sense of sight because it is the dominant sense for you. There’s little else to it.

>>11155748
Didn't 5 year old kenyans fail?

>ants pass

where is the link proving this anyway.

>>11155745
>Still, it is amazing that dogs don't pass the mirror test yet ants do.

Not particularly to me, since dogs are scent-dominant animals and prefer scent as a tool to recognize themselves and others. Have you literally never seen them smell eachother’s asses?

>>11155760
>where is the link proving this anyway.

He’s talking about this one study I’ve seen before.
It’s titled “ ARE ANTS (HYMENOPTERA, FORMICIDAE) CAPABLE OF SELF RECOGNITION?”

>>11155748
It does not "invalidate the test entirely". The mirror test tests which animals can identify themselves in a mirror. Some succeed better than others. That's data, honestly come by. You're just objecting to Gallup's conclusions (better performance in the mirror test = higher "intelligence"), it's still a scientific experiment, not pseudoscience.

>>11155771
thanks


https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/journalofscience-.-net-ARE-ANTS-(-HYMENOPTERA-%2C-)-Cammaerts-Cammaerts/6025a64f817d6ef770e88449d9c0dea1a7a1c952

>>11155774
It is scientific in the sense measuring the reaction different species of tortoise and lemur have to being tickled with a feather is science. It’s an experiment. You can change the variables and use controls. You can even write a whole, scientifically rigid paper about it.
But what the fuck does it mean?
Nothing.

>>11155601
what if ants communicate to other ants to clean themselves by doing the cleaning motion on their own bodies

>>11155800
Humans do that, but the reflection is a reflection, not another ant, so it wouldn’t have initiated the cleaning motion because it sees a spot on another ant.
Because it is that ant.

>>11155784

>>11155601
My cat used to attack its reflection in the mirror when it was a kitten, now it knows that it's not another cat, but himself.

>>11155813
What’s your problem with hot women anon?
Could be hairier, I suppose.

>>11155730
>What about it do you find unscientific?
psychology is pseudoscience
if you don't agree stick your liberal arts degree up your ass and hang yourself asap

>>11155758
>or it wouldn’t be able to fucking walk
You don't need to be aware of anything to walk. Walking is a mostly automatic function that gets wrecked if your cerebellum is damaged enough. It's also proven to be an optimized behavior i.e. the motions are just following the path of least resistance normally, not deliberate decisions.
https://jeb.biologists.org/content/208/6/979
Not saying the mirror test stuff isn't bullshit. But if it is bullshit it isn't because of walking needing self-awareness to work since walking doesn't need that.

>>11155818
Not an argument.

>>11155817
>/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11155774
>The mirror test tests which animals can identify themselves in a mirror.

No it doesn't. It tests which animals react to marks on themselves in a mirror, the reason why they did so is not revealed by the experiment. To say they identified themselves is an interpretation.

Gallup gave a different interpretation for one animal that wasn't self awareness even though it did the same things the "self aware" animals did.

>You're just objecting to Gallup's conclusions (better performance in the mirror test = higher "intelligence"), it's still a scientific experiment, not pseudoscience.

I didn't state an opinion on his conclusion other than he's a hypocrite and applying a double standard for the fish. He could still be right about the fish regardless.

Of course it's still an experiment. But it doesn't test what it's proported to test. I know because you repeated it.

>>11155810
>but the reflection is a reflection, not another ant
the ant wouldn't know that

>>11155824
implying i need an argument

>>11155823
>You don't need to be aware of anything to walk.

You have to be aware that your legs exist and a floor to walk on exists. Babies have no idea how to do it because they haven’t learned.

>>11155835
>the ant wouldn't know that

Ants have to be aware of the shape of their bodies to be able to mimic the behavior of another ant. QED

>>11155708
the Polacks as well

>>11155800
>what if ants communicate to other ants to clean themselves by doing the cleaning motion on their own bodies

You could test this by putting a mark on another real ant and see if any other ants demonstrate a cleaning motion to it.

>>11155834
If by me repeating it you mean what the experiment is purported to test, of course you're right that it doesn't conclusively demonstrate whether an animal identifies itself in a mirror. That's a hypothesis, subject to further experimentation, etc etc. The same as with any animal behaviour experiment, so I'm just wondering why you're so down on the mirror test in particular.

>>11155880
I just thought that it was funny that the guy who invented the test and claimed it tested self awareness, demonstrated himself that it doesn't test self awareness because he provided a different hypothesis to positive results that wasn't self awareness. Maybe because his test looks dubious when a "stupid" fish can pass it.

It's not size, it's how you use it. Same reason that even pigeons, who also pass the mirror test, appear to be more intelligent than cats and dogs. Hell, crows use tools, where cats and dogs do not.
The intelligent alien species we seek in the universe are right here on Earth. But because the ones who are not mammal seem so alien, we treat them as philosophical zombies. Clearly they are not. We just don't have the capacity to relate to their experience.

>>11155601
Yes, Ants are mega-based.

>>11155760
>the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test#Ants

>>11155953
big fella

>>11155934
This, maybe we think ants are stupid because they are small, creepy looking, and follow a bizarre and highly ordered lifestyle. We analogize them to robots, that don't think for themselves but carry out tasks guided by design. The complexity of their tasks don't impress us. Yet a dog that couldn't keep with the program for 2 minutes as an ant is *smart* because its a highly social and trainable species.

>>11155953

>>11155967
Yep, leafcutters have a pretty radical variation in size depending on how much they're fed during development. They're one of the most hyper-specialist ant species.

>>11155761
>dogs are scent-dominant animals
Same goes for ants.
>Ants have an exceptionally high-def sense of smell. Ants have four to five times more odor receptors than most other insects, a team of researchers has discovered. ... They found the industrious insects have genes that make about 400 distinct odorant receptors, special proteins that detect different odors.
Dogs see much better than ants who have a visual resolution equivalent to a few hundred pixels at best.

>>11155748
>>11155790
>>11155818
I hate science deniers who shit up /sci/.
>>11155758
>>11155840
And then there are idiots like
> There is no animal in the world that can’t recognize itself
>You have to be aware that your legs exist and a floor to walk on exists
There are robots who can walk and they have zero intelligence, self awareness or mirror recognition. Even certain small molecules have directed movement. It is a testament to your low intelligence that you lack the creativity to imagine how movement without self awareness exists.

>>11156063
Robots with computer chips=/=organisms with brains

>>11156019
> Same goes for ants

This means the mirror test has even less use than originally assumed.

> Dogs see much better than ants who have a visual resolution equivalent to a few hundred pixels at best.

And?

>>11155601

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2010/10/01/cross-cultural-reflections-on-the-mirror-self-recognition-test/
"mirror self-recognition test"
The performance of the North American children was in line with past research, with 88 per cent of the US kids and 77 per cent of the Canadians ‘passing’ the test. Rates of passing in Saint Lucia (58 per cent), Peru (52 per cent) and Grenada (51 per cent) were significantly lower. In Fiji, none of the children ‘passed’ the test.

>>11155601
kek tried the mirror test on my dog it went from fear to jealousy (that i was with the other "dog") and then anger and then fear again

it fucking bugged her

>>11155840
>Babies have no idea how to do it because they haven’t learned.
Their bodies haven't learned. That doesn't mean they need to consciously discern how to walk. A horse can walk within an hour of being born, and it's not like human walking is more complicated than horse walking. Human babies are born less developed physically than a lot of other comparable animals and take longer to grow into behaviors like that.

ITT retards conflate "awareness" and "self awareness" for the 8000th thread in a row on this subject

>>11155748
>there's some possible exception in some particular species of fish somewhere
OF COURSE THIS INVALIDATES THE HYPOTHESIS THAT BOYS HAVE A PENIS, AND GIRLS HAVE A VAGINA

>>11156427
Is this why so many idiots ITT deny the scientific value of mirror tests? Because they don't like the results?

>>11155980
lmao the one in the middle has the phenotype

>>11155601
Ants aren't even conscious, while cats and dogs are.
The mirror test is bullshit and doesn't mean anything.

>>11157159
>The mirror test is bullshit and doesn't mean anything.
See >>11157129
Can you pass the mirror test?

>>11155601
Because their bris are not poisoned like ours are; early metallurgy introduced metals that were not naturally present and mammals hadn't evolved tondeal with, so we literally lost our minds, limited to a fraction of our real brain capacity (much less than the famed 10%).

>>11157185
Based schizo

Because their brains are not poisoned like ours are; early metallurgy introduced metals that were not naturally present and mammals hadn't evolved tondeal with, so we literally lost our minds, limited to a fraction of our real brain capacity (much less than the famed 10%). Insects managed to evolve resistance before us, both because of their larger numbers and shorter lifespans, and the selection pressure being higher due to their brains being so tiny that any decrease in ability is likely deadly.

>>11157190
No, not a schizo. This is where all the myths of golden age, kali yuga, fall of man etc. come from. Where the "impossible" cultural knowledge comes from. Where monkey vocal tracts being fully capable of human like speech come from (they used tk talk before that)
Many people with "autism" and other kme tal disorders" are actually somewhat resistant to the poisonous effects of these metals and have increased brain capacity as the result.

>>11157190
Also where aging comes from, because we are not supposed to die for no reason. We are dying from getting poisoned.

>>11157202
Don't people age because of free radicals?

>>11157206
No, the age because some proteins cannot work wit zinc instead of cobalt (including those that remove free radicals) and because iron is susceptible to oxidative damage, unlike manganese.

>>11157229
But those are all minerals humans need

>>11155784
Bad case of pelvis tilt

>>11157233
People woupdn't need zinc if they had enough of cobalt and one more metal.

>>11157240
But zinc is an antioxidant and cobalt isn't.

>>11157185
>>11157191
>>11157201
>>11157202
Great. A crazy retard is trying to ruin my thread.

>>11157243
But cobalt can form the bond with copper in superoxide dismutase, while zinc can't.

Cats and dogs can pass the mirror test, though.

>>11157284
If people didn't age before, why did people die so early during the middle ages? Because of bad hygiene, diseases etc.?

No idea mate. They must be speshul

>>11157304
Middle ages was quite recently, just before the renaissance and modern ages. I'm talking about thousands of years ago. Brass might have been seen as turning copper into "gold", so it possibly was held as a carefully guarded secret for who knows how long, and make it very unlikely for early cases to be found.

>>11157159
>Ants aren't even conscious
What the fuck

>>11155601
Guys have you ever seen the surface of a puddle or pool of water? Its reflective. Ants probably evolved the ability to recognize their own reflection so that they don't think its another ant and step into water and have to waste energy swimming or possibly be vulnerable to being eaten by predators in the water.

>>11155601
>mirror test
not science or math

>>11155813
Fucking hell that's funny

>>11157129
>appeal to motive
We could just as easily claim you believe in the scientific value of mirror tests because you like the results.
At least pretend to have an argument.

>>11155931
>I just thought that it was funny that the guy who invented the test and claimed it tested self awareness, demonstrated himself that it doesn't test self awareness
Of course it's funny. Because pseudoscience itself is funny.

>>11157274
what's wrong with his poisonous metals hypothesis? We do know that some metals are very toxic to ingest and you can suffer chronic poisoning from low doses slowly damaging you. What if ants really can resist those poisons and be intelligent as a result?

>>11157683

>>11157159
dumbest post today

>>11155980
>Where do you work out?
>The library

>>11157738
>no arguments

>>11157716
are you implying its dumb to even consider that hypothesis? what proof do you have that you aren't currently poisoned by metals?

>>11157760
shut up nigger

>>11157738
He's right though

>>11157767
wow how did you guess my race over the internet
you must be a genius

>>11155601
So they don't kill themselves in water droplets
It's just a software subroutine not hardware superiority

>>11157760
Humans literally need metals (minerals) for their health and wellbeing, same as other animals and plants.
Also, you would notice if you had some kind of poisoning.

>>11155730
>What about it do you find unscientific?
The test is fine, the conclusions that people reach from is aren't.

I'd like to see how a human who's never been exposed to any reflective surface in their childhood reacts to their reflection.

>>11155967
for you

>>11157776
You wouldn't notice if you thought the way you are is completely normal, because everyone else is poisoned as well.

>>11157776
So we need cadmium and we should definitely mix some in our food?

>>11155816
What if you place a different mirror in front of it? Maybe it just learned that this specific mirror shows her reflection after trying to attack it for a while

>>11155601
>Crows fail the mirror test. Are ants smarter than crows?
>Parrots fail the mirror test. Are ants smarter than crows?
>Monkeys fail the mirror test. Are ants smarter than monkeys?
>Octopi fail the mirror test. Are ants smarter than octopi?
No, anon.

Mirror test only "works" with creatures whose recognition is based largely on sight. Sight is behind smell in dog recognition. Make the mirror smell like the dog, and he will pass the test.

>>11157817
No, we need calcium, potassium, fluoride, chloride, chrome, iron, copper, magnesium, zinc, manganese, sulphur, phosphor and vanadium.

>>11155601
The mirror test is symbolic pseudoscience

/thread

>>11157858
>Make the mirror smell like the dog, and he will pass the test.
Source: my ass

>>11157868
Oh and iodine

>>11155601
dogs pass the smell mirror test tho, which is more relevant to them.
cats are just retarded killing machines, barely above reptile killing machines

>>11157868
How did you determine this is the correct list? Even if we ignore the idea that most zinc enzymes should contain cobalt instead, why did ypu puck fluoride, chrome and vanadium, which have no clearly established functions in the body, but not molybdenum, cobalt or iodine, which are contained parts of enzymes? Or why not !any other metals that will dnd up incorporated into proteins when theopportunity arises? (neither proteins nor the machinery is so clear cut and different metals will get incorporated into the same protein depending or circumstances and many more metals can be added artificially, the same way cobalt can be exchanged for zinc for ghe spectroscopic measurements(

>be 5 inch fish
>blowout mirror test creator
>blowout mirror test supporters
>blowout racial science supporters
>blowout evolutionary psychologist supporters

How can such a tiny fish be so based?

https://oceana.org/blog/certain-mental-tests-tiny-cleaner-wrasse-outperforms-chimps

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-self-aware-fish-raises-doubts-about-a-cognitive-test-20181212/

>>11157887
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170905111355.htm

>>11157868
How did you determine this is the correct list? Even if we ignore the idea that most zinc enzymes should contain cobalt instead, why did you pick fluoride, chrome and vanadium, which have no clearly established functions in the body, but not molybdenum, cobalt or iodine, which are contained in known enzymes? Or why not many other metals that will end up incorporated into proteins when the opportunity arises? (neither proteins nor the machinery is so clear cut and different metals will get incorporated into the same protein depending or circumstances and many more metals can be added artificially, the same way cobalt can be exchanged for zinc for ghe spectroscopic measurements)

>>11157934
>in the body, but not molybdenum, cobalt or iodine
I forgot about them, I also forgot selene. Mistake on my part.

bump