QUOTE
"Also, many household pets probably fail it because they probably don't think of themselves as dogs and cats. They most likely think of themselves as being people. "
Im a little confused by this. Even if they think of themselves as people, they would still think of themselves as furry little people right? So, upon seeing their furry face in the mirror, moving when they move, meowing when they meow, they should be able to recognize themselves.... if they have a concept of self.
Im a little confused by this. Even if they think of themselves as people, they would still think of themselves as furry little people right? So, upon seeing their furry face in the mirror, moving when they move, meowing when they meow, they should be able to recognize themselves.... if they have a concept of self.
Fair enough, I'm happy to elaborate on this further...
A dog, for example, lives with a family that feels like it's own - so I rationalise that it thinks it's a person. However, when it goes walking around the neighbourhood, it sees all these little furry things that bark at it. It probably thinks these things are weird and tells them to bugger off - but little does it know, it's barking too.
Then when it's confronted with a mirror, it sees what believes to be yet another one of those funny furry things that annoy it on its walks.
QUOTE
"If an objective judge viewed our debate in the George Lucarse thread, you would have lost a long time ago."
Bullshit. That's simply not true. My points were valid, and I wouldn't have posted them unless I thought so. I think an objective viewer would have decided you were taking an extreme view that you couldn't adequetly defend.
Bullshit. That's simply not true. My points were valid, and I wouldn't have posted them unless I thought so. I think an objective viewer would have decided you were taking an extreme view that you couldn't adequetly defend.
I thought I defended my viewpoint easily with an almost inexhaustive supply of arguments. My viewpoint was extreme - but I had a long list of points to rationalise it. I believe that you were really clutching at straws. You couldn't actually properly debunk the majority of the points I made - you only thought you could.
However, on this last point, I think it's best if we just agree to disagree or else we're going to end up getting this thread locked as well.
To everyone else, sorry for the interruption. As you were...