[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 300x308, Mirror.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5145803 No.5145803[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

The 'mirror test' is the most fucking retarded, useless, invalid, and pseudoscientific 'experiment' to ever plague science. Partly because not everyone (human or nonhuman animal) will react the same to seeing themselves in a mirror (some won't give a fuck and will ignore it), and partly because not understanding how a mirror works provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever as to lack of consciousness or 'self awareness'. You put a mirror in front of a caveman and at first he will think it's another person, so what if it takes some animal a lot longer than another.

TLDR; mirror test is fucking retarded and whoever believes it is a disgrace to science and humanity.

Pic related: Clay pot attempting to pass the mirror test.

>> No.5145807

Everyone who read at least the wiki article and isn't utterly retarded knows this already. The only people who believe in this pseudoscience nonsense are trolls and delusional /x/tards. You shouldn't provoke their reactions.

>> No.5145809

>clay pot attempting to pass mirror test
OH GOD WHY CAN I NOT STOP LAUGHING

>> No.5145811
File: 49 KB, 470x747, AUTISM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5145811

Fuck off you autistic cunt. You shit up every thread you post in.

>> No.5145815

>>5145807
OP here, I'm actually not trolling, I thought people actually believed this nonsense. But if you're right that's a relief.

>> No.5145823

I'm not seeing any reasons why it's retarded...

>> No.5145839
File: 461 KB, 448x814, trolldog.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5145839

>>5145823

>> No.5145843

>>5145823
Since it has already been explained by the OP, you are now clearly trolling. Please go back to >>>/b/

>> No.5145849

>>5145803
What is this thing you call "mirror test"?

>> No.5145854

>>5145849
Assuming you're not trolling, look it up on Wikipedia. According to the retards who believe it, how an animal reacts to seeing themself in a mirror determines whether that species is self-aware.

>> No.5145855

>>5145849
It's pseudoscientific nonsense. They place arbitrary objects in front of a mirror and by means of magic it is somehow supposed to prove the existence of unobservable metaphysical phenomena. Only /x/tards fall for such bullshittery.

>> No.5145859

/r/ pic of dog gazing into a mirror with the text i dont know who i am anymore

>> No.5145863

>>5145854
Blind people are not self aware?

>> No.5145864

>>5145855
Um... no. That has nothing to do with it. They put a mirror in front of an animal and see how the animal reacts

>> No.5145869

>>5145864

stop getting trolled

>> No.5145871

>>5145869

>joke's on you I was only pretending

Go away.

>> No.5145874
File: 83 KB, 800x600, pseudoscience.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5145874

>>5145859
Anon delivars.

>> No.5145880

>>5145807
This guy was being serious, and scientists don't really believe the test. Right?

>> No.5145876

>>5145871
You can tell he's trolling because he posts this shit in every /sci/ thread that even tangentially touches upon psychology/neuroscience/biology.

>> No.5145882

>>5145871

That was my first post in this thread. This whole thread is an extremely obvious troll.

>> No.5145883

>>5145863
Nobody is. The term is meaningless. It doesn't refer to anything testable or observable.

>>5145864
And what does the animal's reaction tell us? Absolutely nothing. Arbitrarily interpreting an animal's reaction as proof of metaphysical phenomena is essentially no different from voodoo or tulpa beliefs.

>> No.5145885

>>5145876
Are you talking about this guy? >>5145855

>> No.5145887

>>5145869
Except that he's the one who is trolling.

>>5145876
Unscientific babble needs to be corrected. This is a science board and we don't want uneducated posters to fall for pseudoscience trolls.

>> No.5145888

>>5145807
>>5145807
>>5145807
Was this guy being serious or trolling?

>> No.5145889

>>5145885
Yes. I assume he is also OP.

>> No.5145890

Please stop feeding him

>> No.5145891

>>5145880
Correct. Scientists wouldn't believe in pseudoscience.

>>5145882
You are an obvious troll. You have been confronted with an explanation for why your pseudoscience nonsense is bullshit and all you do is calling troll on every scientist proving you wrong.

>> No.5145894

>>5145888
I am serious. I don't see how anyone could mistake a scientific statement for trolling. Unless YOU are a troll of course.

>>5145889
I am not OP.

>> No.5145895

>>5145889
No, I'm OP, I am just not very familiar with what scientists believe in areas of psychology, etc, so I actually thought that scientists believe the mirror test. None of the sage posts are mine.

>> No.5145899

>>5145891
what about pseudoscientists?

>> No.5145901

>>5145895
You explained in your OP why the test is pseudoscientific nonsense, yet you expect scientists to believe said pseudoscientific nonsense? What is wrong with you?

>> No.5145902

>>5145894
Your first post ITT makes sense but your other post is obvious troll: >>5145855

>> No.5145904

>>5145899
Pseudoscientists are either professional trolls or delusional and can fuck off to >>>/x/

>> No.5145906

Another quality /sci/ thread.

>> No.5145907

>>5145901
Nothing's wrong with me, the whole reason I made this thread is because I thought scientists believe retarded stuff like this. But apparently nothing is wrong with either of us, we are agreed that this is pseudoscience.

>> No.5145908

>>5145902
It accurately describes the topic in question.

>> No.5145910

>>5145907
Good. Most scientists want to be clearly distinguished from pseudoscientists.

>> No.5145911

>>5145908
No, because it doesn't involve placing arbitrary objects in front of a mirror, it involves putting an animal in front of a mirror.

>> No.5145912

>>5145910
What about psychologists, do most of them also agree that this is pseudoscience?

>> No.5145914

>>5145911
No difference. There is no objective evaluation of the observations. The conclusion that the "experiment" proves unobservable metaphysical phenomena is arbitary and no different from summoning ghosts or voodoo magic.

>> No.5145915
File: 27 KB, 500x375, dd3107de-cc06-4ba9-8797-407cfc1e3695[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5145915

I cant beleive you guys are arguing about this.

The mirror test would imply blind people are not self-aware, which means NOPE.

End of story.

>> No.5145918

>>5145914
Yet you won't see even these pseudoscientists putting a rock in front of a mirror to test its 'self-awareness'.

>> No.5145919

>>5145912
Serious psychologists do agree that this is pseudoscience. Although unfortunately a lot of pseudoscience gets erroneously published under the label of psychology. Actual psychological research is based on data obtained by observation and experiment and avoids untestable claims.

>> No.5145924

>>5145915
Nobody is "self-aware". The term is meaningless and does not refer to anything testable or observable. It is irrelevant to science and belongs to >>>/x/

>>5145918
They could easily do it and make the same baseless claims. Methodologically it wouldn't make any difference.

>> No.5145925

>>5145919
Okay, thanks. I wasn't trolling BTW, I'm just not involved in any scientific community and thought this stuff was taken seriously.

>> No.5145931

>>5145924
>Nobody is "self-aware". The term is meaningless and does not refer to anything testable or observable.
'Self-aware' just means aware of the existence of onesself, so I think it's more accurate to say everyone is self aware, but it's irrelevant, as I fully agree that the term is meaningless.
>They could easily do it and make the same baseless claims. Methodologically it wouldn't make any difference.
True. They don't, but they could, I get your point now.

>> No.5145933

>>5145915

you are a moron

>> No.5145936
File: 11 KB, 184x184, TROLL LINE EVERYONE IS TROLLED.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5145936

>> No.5145947

>>5145924
>Nobody is "self-aware". The term is meaningless and does not refer to anything testable or observable. It is irrelevant to science and belongs to >>>/x/.

Tell me more, I'm still not appreciating how scientifically-minded and anti-pseudoscience you are.

>> No.5145965

>>5145915
>The mirror test would imply blind people are not self-aware, which means NOPE.

No it would not. Blind people can't be tested.

It's also not a negative test. If you clearly recognize yourself, that shows you are self aware. If you don't react, that doesn't show you are NOT self aware. (Although that would be an odd response.)

>> No.5145971

>>5145803
>You put a mirror in front of a caveman and at first he will think it's another person
no he won't

>> No.5145979

>>5145965
Odd response? How so? Most people don't react when they walk past a mirror.

>> No.5145981

>>5145965
>If you clearly recognize yourself
If someone claims to recognize himself, then he claims to recognize himself. That's all. Making up any metaphysical interpretation beyond the observation would be unscientific.

>> No.5145983

>>5145979

That's because people are used to seeing their own reflection. If you'd never seen your reflection before and you just ignored the first mirror you saw, that would be odd.

>> No.5145986

>>5145981
>metaphysical

I don't think you know what that word means.

>> No.5145994

>>5145986
Definition found via google:
>metaphysics
>Abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.

I used the word correctly.

>> No.5145995

>>5145979
Most people when placed in front of a mirror will use it. It is a bit different from ranfomly encountering a mirror in the wild ie a halle&y

>> No.5145998

>>5145979
>Most people don't react when they walk past a mirror.
Yes they do. How else would they know the mirror is there?

>> No.5146007

>>5145994
>abstract

I don't think you know what that word means, either.

>> No.5146015

>>5146007
>abstract
>Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence

I used the word correctly

>> No.5146016

>>5145981
>he claims to recognize himself

But you're already "metaphysical!" He made sounds. How do you know he's claiming something? How do you know what "claiming" is? For that matter, what is "he?" All I see is a bunch of atoms.

>> No.5146020

>>5145983
And animals have seen their reflections in water before. Even if they hadn't, perhaps for some animals they just don't care, for others perhaps they do care but are only confused internally/mentally and do not show it physically (at least in a way noticeable by humans, who have different body language), and yet others might just not put any thought into it.

>> No.5146022

>>5146015

No you didn't you stupid autist. Saying you shouldn't do anything abstract is complete nonsense. All science is abstraction.

>> No.5146025
File: 95 KB, 247x302, obamalol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5146025

>>5146016
>I
>see

>> No.5146026

>>5146016
I do not need to explain language to you.

>> No.5146027

>>5146020

What point are you trying to make?

>> No.5146028

OP is correct. It relies on too many assumptions. Observations suggest that many animals have the reaction of confusion and fear, and do not behave as we would. Imagine that you were captured by some aliens, placed in some area, and suddenly witnessed your twin in three dimensions behaving exactly as you do. I would not assume that I am looking at an alien three-dimensional mirror and check my hair. I would start shitting.

Then there is the problem of accounting for reflected wavelengths and whether or not other visual systems with different cones perceive mirrors as we do in the first place.

>> No.5146033

>>5146026
>I do not need to explain language to you.

Yes you do, if you don't want to have "metaphysical interpretations."

But of course you can't, because you're speaking nonsense.

>> No.5146043

>>5146028
>I would not assume that I am looking at an alien three-dimensional mirror and check my hair.

But if you did, it would be clear that you recognize yourself as an entity. It's not a negative test. "Failing" it is not proof of lack of self-awareness, but "passing" it is proof of self-awareness.

>> No.5146044

>>5146033
You are distracting from the original topic. Your behaviour is a very common response of a troll who is confronted with arguments explaining why he's wrong.

>> No.5146045

Here is an overview of research in that area:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=kids-and-animals-who-fail-classic-mirror

>> No.5146047
File: 16 KB, 232x273, bushlol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5146047

>>5146033
>need to have language explained to him
>doesn't know basic English
>typing in English

>> No.5146051

>>5146025

Yes, exactly. One can't even communicate anything at all without resorting to metaphysics. That's what communication IS.

>> No.5146053

>>5146044
Just tell him to go fuck himself. He shits the boards up every day and never learns.

>> No.5146055

>>5146028
>alien example
Very well said, thank you.

>> No.5146063

>>5146044
>You are distracting from the original topic.

No, you were. I explained why OP was wrong here: >>5145965

Then you said some pedantic bullshit about "metaphysics" precisely to distract from the main point, but that was wrong too. When you realized you couldn't win that argument either, you accused ME of being the one making irrelevant distractions. You lose. Go away.

>> No.5146065

>>5146043
Not good enough as a general test though for those reasons. I would never check my hair at the sight of myself in three dimensions. Such a device is completely outside of my comfort.

>> No.5146066

>>5146053
You quoted the wrong post.

>> No.5146071

>>5146065
>Not good enough as a general test though for those reasons.

What does a "general test" mean?

>> No.5146073

>>5146053
Everyday I tell him to leave. But he keeps coming back with his pseudoscience /x/ claims.

>>5146063
You didn't explain why OP was wrong and in fact he isn't wrong. I explained why YOU were wrong. If you want to believe in magic, then please do it on /x/. /sci/ is a science board.

>> No.5146080

>>5146043
"Passing" isn't a proof of anything. It only shows that a person knows what a mirror is, nothing more. And for animals or inanimate objects "passing" isn't even properly defined.

>> No.5146083

Another criticism is that the mirror relies on vision. Other beings are very smell oriented. If the dude in the mirror doesn't smell like me, then it is a mere peculiarity. Or, maybe my ears are hearing reflected sound off the mirror surface. I'm not flat -- why would I sound flat.

I have seen footage of a canary who was visibly agitated at hearing a computer replicate it's own tweets back at it. But these birds seem to take comfort in seeing a bird in a mirror.

>> No.5146084

>>5146073

Yes I did. OP's whole premise is that it's supposed to be a negative test. It isn't. It's a positive test.

And YOU didn't explain shit. You just misused the word "metaphysics" as if it's a synonym for magic or something.

>> No.5146086

>>5146066
No, he quoted the right post, dumbfuck.

>> No.5146093

>>5146084
It is not a positive test. It doesn't test anything and doesn't allow the conclusion of metaphysical magic.

>> No.5146094

>>5146080
>"Passing" isn't a proof of anything. It only shows that a person knows what a mirror is, nothing more.

"Knowing what a mirror is," as in recognizing that one is seeing an image of oneself in it, as in possessing some notion of the self. Which is precisely what it is supposed to test.

>> No.5146095

>>5146094
No, it only requires an understanding of what it means for a surface to reflect light.

>> No.5146096

Please stop shitting up /sci/ with discussion of pseudoscience.

>> No.5146097

>>5146073
No you leave, you crazy fuck.

>> No.5146100

>>5146093

I can't believe it took me this long to realize you're trolling...

>> No.5146109

>>5146097
I am not the one promoting /x/ tier pseudoscience.

>>5146100
Why do you shitpost now? Nowhere did I "troll" ITT and these wrong accusations only make you look immature.

>> No.5146112

>>5146100
To be honest you should have known it by the third word of the OP.

>> No.5146117

>>5146094
And can be tested myriad other ways. Cat whines for food because cat is hungry, cat doesn't give food to other nearby cats but rather eats the food. Because the cat is hungry, because the cat knows the cat is hungry, because the cat feels hunger. And knows that the hunger does not belong to all cats but to that specific cat. There, whining for food is the new mirror test.

>> No.5146121

>>5146109
Shut your hole, dingbat.

>> No.5146125

>>5146117
Bullshit. An animal "whining" for food is a deterministic biological reaction. Animals evolved to show this behaviour. We don't need magic to explain biology.

>> No.5146130

>>5146125
Same could be said of a human reacting to a mirror, unless you think it's because food is necessary, then replace a cat whining for food with a cat whining for attention to be pet or held or whatever.

>> No.5146134

>>5146130
>>5146125
Or cats whining for canned food when they have plenty of dry food available, because they prefer the taste of canned food.

>> No.5146138

>>5146130
>Same could be said of a human reacting to a mirror

Exactly. Humans are not special. Humans evolved from other animals and are biological machines just like them. Only spiritualism retards want to believe that humans are somehow special.

>> No.5146140

>>5146138
Are you implying non-humans aren't special?

>> No.5146144

>>5146134
Cats whine for food. That's the observation. If you propose any mechanism behind this behaviour, then provide means of testing it.

>> No.5146148

>>5146140
Nothing is "special". There is no magic. Everything can be explained by science.

>> No.5146151

>>5146144
I'm not saying it can be tested further. I think the mirror test is stupid, I think also using something like this as a 'test of self awareness' is stupid. My point is that the mirror test is nothing special, it could just as easily be replaced by something like that. And in that case a lot of other species 'pass' which means the mirror test proves nothing 'special' about humans. I think you mistook my point, it was not that there is some valid or relevant way to test 'self awareness' which is a stupid concept to begin with.

>> No.5146155

>>5146138
It's moreso religiousfags than spiritualists.

>> No.5146170

>>5146151
Then we probably agree.

>>5146155
Right. And we don't want these on /sci/ either