Thus, a monkey, the whole monkey, isn't self-aware (insofar as the mirror self-recognition test is concerned) but its cells are self-aware. Paradox! — TheMadFool

True! What an interesting paradox! Probably this happens because awareness is a completely serious issue that goes far than “innate” defense habits as the awareness of the cells. It makes me think a lot this paradox... it is so impressive.

Mirror Self-Recognition Test — TheMadFool

I will read it more deeply. The aspect of animal’s awareness always interested me. I always wondered if my dogs truly have some consciousness. When I call her “Ada” (one of my dog’s name) she comes to my room, but... does she knows she is Ada the dog? Does she knows I am Javi the owner?
Well, let’s see what the link you shared with us holds!

Already read it and about dogs the article says: “Dogs recognize their own scent as different from others' scents, but fail the traditional, visual mirror test”
hmm... :roll:

Isn't there a difference in kind between these two types of recognition though? Allorecognition really just seems equivalent to saying that the organism "is the organism that it is." A dog knows if it accidentally bites its own tail instead of the tail of another dog, even though it fails the self-recognition test.

A dog knows if it accidentally bites its own tail instead of the tail of another dog, even though it fails the self-recognition test. — Pantagruel

But that dog doesn’t have the awareness of how I can call him or her. For example, If I call my dog “Ada” she doesn’t know what actually means but just an emotional trick that I am calling her.
I guess she doesn’t realize that if she sees herself in the mirror says: “I am Ada because my owner put me this name”

she doesn’t know what actually means — javi2541997

Well, you don't actually know what it is like "to be a dog," to paraphrase Nagel's famous thought-experiment on the limitations of reductionism.

Well, you don't actually know what it is like "to be a dog," — Pantagruel

Yes, you are right and I am agree. Nevertheless, what I was trying to say is that we don't prove if dogs perceive the "Cogito ergo sum" theory yet.
I skeptical about if my dog "thinks as a dog and then understand her name is Ada and lives in Madrid"
But as you explained, I should not negate this argument because literally I don't what is to be "like a dog" but at the same time I guess my dog doesn't wonder "how is to be like a human"

I guess my dog doesn't wonder "how is to be like a human" — javi2541997

Probably not. But equally I'm sure not a lot of humans wonder what it is like to be a dog. :)

it is so impressive. — javi2541997

You're joking, right? :lol:

defense habits — javi2541997

An important, very apposite concept. Humans are very defensive about what's within the sphere of their self, stuff like spouses, children, family, friends form the inner circle of the ego's (self's) territory and personal property, work colleagues, etc. lie just outside, these being what a person would describe, fondly, as my so and so, the word "my" a marker of self-awareness (I).

Animals also, in a similar fashion, mark their territory and fight to the death to repel trespassers. Perhaps, this is self-awareness of some kind, at some level, since it necessitates the notion of a my - this is my turf so to speak.

As I tried to clarify but failed, the paradox as described in the OP comes in two flavors:

1. Strong version of the paradox: The body is self-aware (the immune system can tell the difference between itself and pathogens) but the mind isn't (fails all tests of self-recognition including the mirror self-recognition test)

2. Weak version of the paradox: Yes, the body is self-aware at the cellular level - the immune system attacks foreign/alien microbes but not its own cells. However, mental self-awareness is present (e.g. animals can recognize their own scent) but it's partial/incomplete e.g. failing the visual mirror self-recognition test.

The point is that an organism must be able to recognize its own reflection, be it in smell form, auditory form, tactile form, etc. If reflections in all sensory modalities are identified as the self, we have complete self-awareness.

Come to think of it, I haven't heard of humans being capable of picking out their own clothes from a jumbled pile of clothes that includes the apparel of others using just smell. :chin: Assuming of course that each one of us has a unique scent.

Isn't there a difference in kind between these two types of recognition though? — Pantagruel

A good point. Allorecognition takes place between cells i.e. one cell recognizes another as being part of the same group just like a wolf knows that the other wolves are part of the same pack.

A single cell, therefore, isn't self-aware in the same sense that a human is when fae looks in the mirror and sees faer reflection.

Nevertheless, when we take the entire body as a unit, the cellular allorecognition can be safely interpreted as the body being self-aware.

Come to think of it, I haven't heard of humans being capable of picking out their own clothes from a jumbled pile of clothes that includes the apparel of others using just smell. :chin: Assuming of course that each one of us has a unique scent. — TheMadFool

True! This I guess this is due to our smell is not developed as much as animal’s. The smell of a dog is very important and sensitive. It helps them to make right choices when they are exploring. Yet this is the main reason why FBI or DEA implies canines to search drugs.
But this is all about natural skills. It disappointed me a bit the fact dogs failed the mirror test... I would bet some money to they have at least some awareness but it turns out not.
As I share with Pantagruel previously: A dog will never wonder what is like to be like a human because they do not have that ability. Us, the humans, can wonder what is to be like a dog but not all of us are interested in this issue.

Nevertheless, when we take the entire body as a unit, the cellular allorecognition can be safely interpreted as the body being self-aware. — TheMadFool

Interesting to me in that I just started reading Brentano's Descriptive Psychology. His position is that psychognosy. the study of purely mental states, is differentiated from genetic psychology, which contains some physico-chemical component. The former being an exact and the latter (because of the admixture of the physical) an inexact or approximate science. So physio-chemical events may be preconditions of consciousness, but are different in kind from conscious events. Fundamentally I agree with this.

It disappointed me a bit the fact dogs failed the mirror test... I would bet some money to they have at least some awareness but it turns out not. — javi2541997

Actually, I'm not sure the mirror test is all that definitive. Passing the mirror test arguably does demonstrate self-awareness. But failing to recognize oneself "in a mirror" doesn't necessarily imply that one does not have self-awareness, only that particular level or type of perceptual understanding required to grasp that physical projection. A blind person also fails the mirror test. A dog knows when it bites its own tail.

edit: so I did a little digging and this article supports this interpretation Dogs may be more self-aware...

edit: so I did a little digging and this article supports this interpretation Dogs may be more self-aware... — Pantagruel

Good one! You can’t imagine how happy I felt when I have read this: :100:

Although dogs can't identify themselves in the mirror, they still have some level of self-awareness and ace other self-recognition tests. They can recognize their own odor, and recall memories of specific events, Earth.com reports.

It disappointed me a bit the fact dogs failed the mirror test — javi2541997

They have poor eyesight and so the mirror test is N/A.

What's interesting though is what do we, indivdually possess, those attributes that are aspects of our selves, that can't be reflected back at ourselves thereby preventing those aspects of our selves from being integrated into our sense of self?

Suppose there's a being that's made of neutrinos. Neutrinos pass through anything and everything or, conversely, everything passes through neutrinos - there's nothing that reflects off of neutrinos. If so, no reflection can be generated. No reflection, no self-awareness of any kind.

The former being an exact and the latter (because of the admixture of the physical) an inexact or approximate science. — Pantagruel

I never would have guessed!

Suppose there's a being that's made of and thus emits neutrinos. Neutrinos pass through anything and everything - it simply can't be reflected back at this being and so, this being would never see faerself in the way we see ourselves in the mirror kind courtesy of visible light let alone recognize itself. There's no image of itself; how can it ever then recognize itself such a feat only being possible with an image of the self. — TheMadFool

Yes, unless neutrinos in create some kind of disruption in the fabric of spacetime that the being can perceive as its own "mirror-image". It's a good example.

Yes, unless neutrinos in create some kind of disruption in the fabric of spacetime that the being can perceive as its own "mirror-image". It's a good example — Pantagruel

Nice try!