From: IN%"datakoll@yahoo.com" "gene daniels" 1-AUG-2005 08:55:30.10 To: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com", IN%"jorighetti@optusnet.com.au", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: pets and crime I met two adoptive caring parents of a midget who they used as a burglar for a/c duct work. Michalchik@aol.com wrote:I just wanted to point out if such studies existed they would only indicate a correlational relationship not a causal one. In other words, the kind of people who own pets may be less likely to commit crime because they tend to be more responsible and caring people to begin with. The pets themselves may be having no effect on their owners behavior. --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" "margory cohen" 4-AUG-2005 08:35:50.95 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: pets and crime Not sure what category my observation falls into in terms of scientific definition. It's difficult however not to see how particular breeds of dog are identified as co-conspirators for drug dealers and gangs and others associated with crime and then that's somehow used in municipalities on all sides all of all oceans as almost entitled for ban legislation. -margory cohen San Francisco, CA, US ----- Original Message ----- From: Michalchik@aol.com To: jorighetti@optusnet.com.au ; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 10:04 AM Subject: Re: pets and crime I just wanted to point out if such studies existed they would only indicate a correlational relationship not a causal one. In other words, the kind of people who own pets may be less likely to commit crime because they tend to be more responsible and caring people to begin with. The pets themselves may be having no effect on their owners behavior. From: IN%"sue@dogsinthepark.ca" "Sue Alexander" 4-AUG-2005 08:47:37.45 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: pets and crime interesting observation and perhaps the problem lies in the question you are asking. Mightn't it be a better question to ask "if a criminal were to get a pet, what pet is he most likely to choose" instead of "are criminals more or less likely to own a pet at all". Just a thought. Sue Alexander CPDT CDBC Dogs in the Park Guelph, Ontario ----- Original Message ----- From: margory cohen To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:37 AM Subject: Re: pets and crime Not sure what category my observation falls into in terms of scientific definition. It's difficult however not to see how particular breeds of dog are identified as co-conspirators for drug dealers and gangs and others associated with crime and then that's somehow used in municipalities on all sides all of all oceans as almost entitled for ban legislation. -margory cohen San Francisco, CA, US ----- Original Message ----- From: Michalchik@aol.com To: jorighetti@optusnet.com.au ; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 10:04 AM Subject: Re: pets and crime I just wanted to point out if such studies existed they would only indicate a correlational relationship not a causal one. In other words, the kind of people who own pets may be less likely to commit crime because they tend to be more responsible and caring people to begin with. The pets themselves may be having no effect on their owners behavior. From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 4-AUG-2005 11:31:01.88 To: IN%"margory@rcn.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: pets and crime Oh I see, that makes sense. If you are looking to criticize particular bans you might want to not emphasize the focus on what breed criminals tend to have, but instead focus on the percentage of those breeds that are owned by responsible owners. Yes, maybe drug dealers like pitbulls preferentially but if 97% of pit bulls are own by law-abiding citizen, can the dogs be said to really be a breed associated with crime. Take the glass is half full approach. Of course these arguments are really BS because they look at superficial aspects of crime but on the other hand most political policy operates at a superficial level. Michael Michalchik P.S. in no sense of culpability could a dog be considered a co conspirator because a dog does not have a sense of right and wrong within the context of societies general laws. I am not saying that dogs don't have a sense of right and wrong, just that drug laws are beyond their comprehension and they cannot be considered responsible individuals. Not sure what category my observation falls into in terms of scientific definition. It's difficult however not to see how particular breeds of dog are identified as co-conspirators for drug dealers and gangs and others associated with crime and then that's somehow used in municipalities on all sides all of all oceans as almost entitled for ban legislation. -margory cohen San Francisco, CA, US ----- Original Message ----- From: _Michalchik@aol.com_ (mailto:Michalchik@aol.com) To: _jorighetti@optusnet.com.au_ (mailto:jorighetti@optusnet.com.au) ; _applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca_ (mailto:applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca) Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 10:04 AM Subject: Re: pets and crime I just wanted to point out if such studies existed they would only indicate a correlational relationship not a causal one. In other words, the kind of people who own pets may be less likely to commit crime because they tend to be more responsible and caring people to begin with. The pets themselves may be having no effect on their owners behavior. From: IN%"margory@rcn.com" 4-AUG-2005 13:24:33.09 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: pets and crime We speak of very different things - but as always, I appreciate your courtesy. Firstly, I'm referring to an impression I have and actually I started out in a light-hearted vein -- from reading press reports about criminals and the dogs who appear with them (in press and fiction as well actually) -- muncipalities in turn pass laws that condemn breeds because of the way alledged criminals use the dogs -- whether it's for guarding or to attack or just to appear more strong. Mine I think was a caution about >assumptions<. I used San Francisco press in recent months as an example. Here was once a paradise for dogs and fair access and little by little it's changed, tragically so. But that's another discussion. As to the benefit for any one to be associated with a dog - one need only look at prison programs where inmates train dogs for service work for example to see where this ancient association can have transformative power. I got privately an insulting note that I didn't belong here, what's wrong with me. This is not the tone of the forum that I care to support. I've been here with some of you a long time and some of us have actually been helpful to each other and our clients, in our private research and in our communities. I do have a different take than some and speak a bit differently. At no time however have I or would I accuse the dog of a person's behaviour and certainly I meant none of that this morning. Now, I have to go back to work and I will drop out of this. Mine was meant as I said initially in a lighter vein and I'm certainly not available to anybody's private insult my way. Not anybody's. -margory cohen San Francisco, CA ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:30:40 -0400 (EDT) >From: Michalchik@aol.com >Subject: Re: pets and crime >To: margory@rcn.com, applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > > Oh I see, that makes sense. If you are looking to > criticize particular bans you might want to not > emphasize the focus on what breed criminals tend to > have, but instead focus on the percentage of those > breeds that are owned by responsible owners. Yes, > maybe drug dealers like pitbulls preferentially but > if 97% of pit bulls are own by law-abiding citizen, > can the dogs be said to really be a breed associated > with crime. Take the glass is half full approach. Of > course these arguments are really BS because they > look at superficial aspects of crime but on the > other hand most political policy operates at a > superficial level. > > Michael Michalchik > > P.S. in no sense of culpability could a dog be > considered a co conspirator because a dog does not > have a sense of right and wrong within the context > of societies general laws. I am not saying that dogs > don't have a sense of right and wrong, just that > drug laws are beyond their comprehension and they > cannot be considered responsible individuals. > > > > Not sure what category my observation falls into in > terms of scientific definition. > It's difficult however not to see how particular > breeds of dog are identified as co-conspirators for > drug dealers and gangs and others associated with > crime and then that's somehow used in municipalities > on all sides all of all oceans as almost entitled > for ban legislation. > -margory cohen > San Francisco, CA, US > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michalchik@aol.com > To: jorighetti@optusnet.com.au ; > applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca > Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 10:04 AM > Subject: Re: pets and crime > I just wanted to point out if such studies existed > they would only indicate a correlational > relationship not a causal one. In other words, the > kind of people who own pets may be less likely to > commit crime because they tend to be more > responsible and caring people to begin with. The > pets themselves may be having no effect on their > owners behavior. > From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Greg & Jackie" 5-AUG-2005 00:04:25.15 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: FW: Awwwwwwwwww What do you think of this? Regards, Jackie Perkins From: IN%"jhaskins@tpg.com.au" "Jenny Haskins" 10-AUG-2005 03:22:09.70 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Ethology" CC: Subj: RE: pets and crime Sounds like something Charles Dickens would be interested in :-) Jenny Haskins Family Dog Training Coffs Harbour, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: gene daniels To: Michalchik@aol.com ; jorighetti@optusnet.com.au ; applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2005 12:55 AM Subject: Re: pets and crime I met two adoptive caring parents of a midget who they used as a burglar for a/c duct work. From: IN%"ngourkow@spca.bc.ca" "Nadine Gourkow" 11-AUG-2005 18:15:59.94 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: emotional distress I am currently preparing a course for Animal Protection Constables aimed at helping them identify emotional distress/ health in various species. The welfare standard we require for animals under investigations is that of the five freedoms. The main focus of this course will be on F4 and 5. Our constables deal with many species under different conditions when investigating cruelty cases. However, we are unlikely to be successful in cases based on emotional distress for farm animals. Our main focus (for now) is companion animals (horses, dogs, cats, rabbits, wild animals kept as pets, exotics kept as pets) and animals in entertainment. Examples of context of investigations for which constables must demonstrate emotional distress (to Crown) Puppy / kitten mills Pet stores Backyard dogs Rescue groups Hoarders Abandoned animals in rental housing Rodeos Circus etc Any ideas, information, references would be greatly appreciated _____ Nadine Gourkow Animal Welfare Manager BC SPCA Administration Centre 1245 East 7th Avenue Vancouver, BC V5T 1R1 Ph. 604.709.6714 Fax. 604.681 7022 www.spca.bc.ca ngourkow@spca.bc.ca "Animal Welfare is a state of optimal physical, behavioural and emotional health, not merely the absence of disease and stress." From: IN%"reindoctor@yahoo.ca" "Michelle Drissler" 12-AUG-2005 08:43:36.08 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: FW: Awwwwwwwwww Hey Jackie, I was curious what the reference for the article was - I'd love to be able to use it for some lectures. I'm not totally surprised at this. I believe Fraser and Broom's 'Farm Animal welfare' includes a series of pictures of horses interacting with other animals from goats to rabbits even. I know my own horse was interested in the bard cat. Unfortunately he played a little rough for the cat. Michelle __________________________________________________________ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca From: IN%"forvirg@verizon.net" 14-AUG-2005 14:07:22.90 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Anecdote about mirror encounter Hello everyone: I believe it's here (or is it from Ethological Ethics?) that I've read some commentary about non-human animals and recognition of self (or not) in mirrors. I also recently read (in New Scientist I believe) about a study that indicated that certain types of monkeys, maybe capuchins?, react to their mirror image not as themselves but definitely not as a stranger, either. At any rate, I was curious to get some feedback/comment on an incident yesterday. We were walking our two miniature donkeys and decided to take them up to our house and walk around up there, which they had not done before. Around the back of our house we have mirrored film on a set of large french doors that open onto a patio. When we got to that patio, one of the two minis noticed the reflection and was very curious. About the same time, the mini I was walking (the older of the two) also noticed her reflection. The younger was cautious, but would walk away, turn around and try other things and then look back to see the "other donkey" still there. She carefully watched when we walked up next to her and petted her while she looked at the reflection. Watching her eyes, she was definitely studying the fact that there we were -- over there -- but also here next to her, and that donkey was being petted, but she could feel being petted in the same place. She appeared to be pondering that. Meanwhile, the older one walked right up to the reflection to sniff, which is something she has NEVER done to a stranger donkey. She is normally a very reserved, shy donkey, so that definitely caught my attention. Any thoughts on this or pointers to any other studies on non-primates and self recognition in a mirror? I truly think they were reacting much like the capuchins...not necessarily aware that it was themselves, but also not reacting like it was a stranger. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together, nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." All animals under human care deserve "The Five Freedoms" 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst. 2. Freedom from discomfort. 3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease. 4. Freedom to express normal behavior. 5. Freedom from fear and distress. From: IN%"kc@synalia.com" 14-AUG-2005 15:13:08.56 To: IN%"forvirg@verizon.net" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Anecdote about mirror encounter Hi Virginia, I think that this kind of a test is very narrow, and perhaps irrelevant. We see compelling evidence that animals have a sense of self, every day: for example, animals can react differentially to their individual names, or to complex instructions given to multiple animals at once, each having a part tagged by their own name; they are able to select the information relevant to themselves out of the whole string. As a matter of fact, we can send animals to go find other animals and people, by name, so they can surely manage the concept of others, as well. I have had animals which showed significant evidence of self-recognition treat mirrors in various ways. I know a capuchin who grooms herself in a mirror and another who will not look at her image. She also does not like to be photographed. However, she will use a mirror to watch what I am doing when I am around a corner. This capuchin is plenty bright, regardless of how she treats mirrors. She will answer if one says her name, "monkey", "singe" or "byzianka" , knowing that these all indicate that someone is talking about her. By the way, this capuchin will chitter excitedly if told that a friend is coming to see her, and piteously when told that the friend must leave. She remembers people over years and years of separation. Horses in dressage training can learn to use the mirrors on the walls, to see themselves. My horse will watch her image in the video camera screen, and sometimes walks right up to the camera and mugs in it, with great comic effect. She will occasionally come up, stand before the camera, and wait for me to turn the view screen around for her to see herself, which she then carefully regards, looking down her nose at the screen. I don't for a minute doubt that your donkey was studying herself in the mirror, but it may have been just a diversion during a slow moment, or even a new experience, or a rare opportunity to see these things, without it being a revelation of self to her, or evidence to her that she has a self, or to you that she knows she has a self. Anyone can have a sense of self and still be curious about a mirror, or not. Whole cultures of humans consider it bad to view images of people and avoid mirrors, being photographed, etc. Frankly, I question this kind of research, from a practical perspective. I cannot imagine how anyone can question that animals have a sense of self, anymore than we question whether another person, whose language we cannot speak, has a sense of self. Maybe it is just an excuse to do research that has an element of fun in it. Best wishes, Kayce Kayce Cover Syn Alia Training Systems http://www.synalia.com > Hello everyone: > > I believe it's here (or is it from Ethological Ethics?) that I've read > some > commentary about non-human animals and recognition of self (or not) in > mirrors. I also recently read (in New Scientist I believe) about a study > that indicated that certain types of monkeys, maybe capuchins?, react to > their mirror image not as themselves but definitely not as a stranger, > either. > > At any rate, I was curious to get some feedback/comment on an incident > yesterday. We were walking our two miniature donkeys and decided to take > them up to our house and walk around up there, which they had not done > before. Around the back of our house we have mirrored film on a set of > large french doors that open onto a patio. When we got to that patio, one > of the two minis noticed the reflection and was very curious. About the > same time, the mini I was walking (the older of the two) also noticed her > reflection. The younger was cautious, but would walk away, turn around > and > try other things and then look back to see the "other donkey" still there. > She carefully watched when we walked up next to her and petted her while > she > looked at the reflection. Watching her eyes, she was definitely studying > the fact that there we were -- over there -- but also here next to her, > and > that donkey was being petted, but she could feel being petted in the same > place. She appeared to be pondering that. > > Meanwhile, the older one walked right up to the reflection to sniff, which > is something she has NEVER done to a stranger donkey. She is normally a > very reserved, shy donkey, so that definitely caught my attention. > > Any thoughts on this or pointers to any other studies on non-primates and > self recognition in a mirror? I truly think they were reacting much like > the capuchins...not necessarily aware that it was themselves, but also not > reacting like it was a stranger. > > Virginia From: IN%"datakoll@yahoo.com" "gene daniels" 15-AUG-2005 12:46:45.49 To: IN%"kc@synalia.com", IN%"forvirg@verizon.net" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: Anecdote about mirror encounter Maybe it is just an excuse to do research that has an element of IMPORTANCE in it. gene daniels --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page From: IN%"clare@amerion.com" "Clare Lewandowski" 15-AUG-2005 13:58:07.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Anecdote about mirror encounter And what do you think is the element of importance? animals may see their reflection in other things on a regular basis, standing water, window glass, other shiny objects, see their shadows, and may become habituated to their reflection or shadow. A mirror differs in less distortion, full color and more details and those difference may increase interest again until habituation sets in. If one animal shows less interest in its reflection does it mean it has no self awareness or that it figured out more quickly that the reflection isn't doing anything that it doesn't already know about? Would that indicate higher self awareness? If what is important is researching self awareness, perhaps expanding beyond the human fixation with vision as a primary sensory system into the sensory systems most important to the species being studied would be more useful. If dolphins have signature whistles, does this mean they have self awareness? http://acp.eugraph.com/cetaceans/ Dolphins see themselves reflected in the surface of water as a matter of course. A mirror at the surface might not draw much attention at all. Placed vertically in the water or on the bottom might generate more interest due to novelty. Would a dolphin's response to its mirror reflection reveal more about its sense of self than responding to its signature whistle? What of animals like naked mole-rats? Sight is almost unused, but smell is of great importance. Would its personal odor be its sense of self? Can it be self aware? How do blind/deaf humans develop self awareness and awareness of others as individuals? Do some species that rely on electrical fields have electrical signatures that indicate awareness of self and others? this link seems to be evidence to me that some fish may be aware of self and others. http://acp.eugraph.com/fish/ What of bats? do they have a sonar signature? I suspect humans developed self awareness long before a good mirror was developed. Mirror research might be useful but exploring other ways to determine if a species is capable of self awareness might be more useful. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: gene daniels To: kc@synalia.com ; forvirg@verizon.net Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: Anecdote about mirror encounter Maybe it is just an excuse to do research that has an element of IMPORTANCE in it. gene daniels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" 15-AUG-2005 15:21:02.66 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Anecdote about mirror encounter Hmmm....I'm glad I posted my question/observation. I am at this point just a student of ethology, but after a lifetime (40 decades) of intermittent fits of self-study or professional study on animals and their behavior and evolution. I have always thought it obvious that non-humans should have a sense of self, based on many, many things. But there's been such a focus in my readings lately on these mirror studies, as if that is the determinant of a sense of self. So I thought my observations that my donkeys quite apparently noticed their reflections as not being a stranger, and being curious about that image would raise the question if only the higher primates have some "sense of self" based on reflection only. I once asked on a list, and I think it was this one, if recognition of self in a mirror were even relevant to the vast majority of species that never see a mirror nor have use for one, as Clare has pointed out here. But the question got ignored. It just seems to me that there is a certain group of scientists that will keep moving the definition of "consciousness" whenever it is shown that any non-human shares a particular trait that we once thought was so uniquely human. While I would love to prove my own instinctual sense of consciousness in non-humans, I wonder if that group will ever be satisfied or just keep moving the target? It just seems really obvious to me that if we have evolved certain traits (i.e., consciousness) then why would not other animals have them too? And if we assume it in other humans, where it is almost as difficult to prove, why would we not assume it in at the very least similarly structured vertebrates? At any rate, it is that debate -- are mirror studies relevant? What is the status of proof of consciousness in non-humans in terms of wide acceptance (I would hope it is very widespread but I fear it is not)? -- that I would like pointers to or comments on. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together, nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." All animals under human care deserve "The Five Freedoms" 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst. 2. Freedom from discomfort. 3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease. 4. Freedom to express normal behavior. 5. Freedom from fear and distress. _____ From: Clare Lewandowski [mailto:clare@amerion.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:45 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Anecdote about mirror encounter And what do you think is the element of importance? animals may see their reflection in other things on a regular basis, standing water, window glass, other shiny objects, see their shadows, and may become habituated to their reflection or shadow. A mirror differs in less distortion, full color and more details and those difference may increase interest again until habituation sets in. If one animal shows less interest in its reflection does it mean it has no self awareness or that it figured out more quickly that the reflection isn't doing anything that it doesn't already know about? Would that indicate higher self awareness? If what is important is researching self awareness, perhaps expanding beyond the human fixation with vision as a primary sensory system into the sensory systems most important to the species being studied would be more useful. If dolphins have signature whistles, does this mean they have self awareness? http://acp.eugraph.com/cetaceans/ Dolphins see themselves reflected in the surface of water as a matter of course. A mirror at the surface might not draw much attention at all. Placed vertically in the water or on the bottom might generate more interest due to novelty. Would a dolphin's response to its mirror reflection reveal more about its sense of self than responding to its signature whistle? What of animals like naked mole-rats? Sight is almost unused, but smell is of great importance. Would its personal odor be its sense of self? Can it be self aware? How do blind/deaf humans develop self awareness and awareness of others as individuals? Do some species that rely on electrical fields have electrical signatures that indicate awareness of self and others? this link seems to be evidence to me that some fish may be aware of self and others. http://acp.eugraph.com/fish/ What of bats? do they have a sonar signature? I suspect humans developed self awareness long before a good mirror was developed. Mirror research might be useful but exploring other ways to determine if a species is capable of self awareness might be more useful. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: gene daniels To: kc@synalia.com ; forvirg@verizon.net Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: Anecdote about mirror encounter Maybe it is just an excuse to do research that has an element of IMPORTANCE in it. gene daniels _____ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page __________ NOD32 1.1194 (20050815) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com From: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net" 15-AUG-2005 15:37:01.82 To: IN%"jfe@onewest.net" "'Judy'", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Anecdote about mirror encounter LOL!!! You are of course correct! That's what happens when I get in a hurry. Trying to send a post while knowing I'm needing to leave the house for an appointment. Or...could I be some supernatural creature? LOL. (OK, so I only FEEL that old some days...) Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together, nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." All animals under human care deserve "The Five Freedoms" 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst. 2. Freedom from discomfort. 3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease. 4. Freedom to express normal behavior. 5. Freedom from fear and distress. _____ From: Judy [mailto:jfe@onewest.net] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:24 PM To: vbowen@bowenconsulting.net Subject: RE: Anecdote about mirror encounter Virginia I do not believe you really mean "40 decades" Judy :) _____ From: Virginia Bowen [mailto:vbowen@bowenconsulting.net] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:21 PM To: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Subject: RE: Anecdote about mirror encounter Hmmm....I'm glad I posted my question/observation. I am at this point just a student of ethology, but after a lifetime (40 decades) of intermittent fits of self-study or professional study on animals and their behavior and evolution. I have always thought it obvious that non-humans should have a sense of self, based on many, many things. But there's been such a focus in my readings lately on these mirror studies, as if that is the determinant of a sense of self. So I thought my observations that my donkeys quite apparently noticed their reflections as not being a stranger, and being curious about that image would raise the question if only the higher primates have some "sense of self" based on reflection only. I once asked on a list, and I think it was this one, if recognition of self in a mirror were even relevant to the vast majority of species that never see a mirror nor have use for one, as Clare has pointed out here. But the question got ignored. It just seems to me that there is a certain group of scientists that will keep moving the definition of "consciousness" whenever it is shown that any non-human shares a particular trait that we once thought was so uniquely human. While I would love to prove my own instinctual sense of consciousness in non-humans, I wonder if that group will ever be satisfied or just keep moving the target? It just seems really obvious to me that if we have evolved certain traits (i.e., consciousness) then why would not other animals have them too? And if we assume it in other humans, where it is almost as difficult to prove, why would we not assume it in at the very least similarly structured vertebrates? At any rate, it is that debate -- are mirror studies relevant? What is the status of proof of consciousness in non-humans in terms of wide acceptance (I would hope it is very widespread but I fear it is not)? -- that I would like pointers to or comments on. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together, nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." All animals under human care deserve "The Five Freedoms" 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst. 2. Freedom from discomfort. 3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease. 4. Freedom to express normal behavior. 5. Freedom from fear and distress. _____ From: Clare Lewandowski [mailto:clare@amerion.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:45 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Anecdote about mirror encounter And what do you think is the element of importance? animals may see their reflection in other things on a regular basis, standing water, window glass, other shiny objects, see their shadows, and may become habituated to their reflection or shadow. A mirror differs in less distortion, full color and more details and those difference may increase interest again until habituation sets in. If one animal shows less interest in its reflection does it mean it has no self awareness or that it figured out more quickly that the reflection isn't doing anything that it doesn't already know about? Would that indicate higher self awareness? If what is important is researching self awareness, perhaps expanding beyond the human fixation with vision as a primary sensory system into the sensory systems most important to the species being studied would be more useful. If dolphins have signature whistles, does this mean they have self awareness? http://acp.eugraph.com/cetaceans/ Dolphins see themselves reflected in the surface of water as a matter of course. A mirror at the surface might not draw much attention at all. Placed vertically in the water or on the bottom might generate more interest due to novelty. Would a dolphin's response to its mirror reflection reveal more about its sense of self than responding to its signature whistle? What of animals like naked mole-rats? Sight is almost unused, but smell is of great importance. Would its personal odor be its sense of self? Can it be self aware? How do blind/deaf humans develop self awareness and awareness of others as individuals? Do some species that rely on electrical fields have electrical signatures that indicate awareness of self and others? this link seems to be evidence to me that some fish may be aware of self and others. http://acp.eugraph.com/fish/ What of bats? do they have a sonar signature? I suspect humans developed self awareness long before a good mirror was developed. Mirror research might be useful but exploring other ways to determine if a species is capable of self awareness might be more useful. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: gene daniels To: kc@synalia.com ; forvirg@verizon.net Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: Anecdote about mirror encounter Maybe it is just an excuse to do research that has an element of IMPORTANCE in it. gene daniels _____ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page __________ NOD32 1.1194 (20050815) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com From: IN%"datakoll@yahoo.com" "gene daniels" 15-AUG-2005 15:49:56.96 To: IN%"vbowen@bowenconsulting.net", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Anecdote about mirror encounter on the other wing-if one of my grackles went to the mirror and whistled the symbol for change or a piping warning. walked over to his buddy and gestured to the mirror with a wing. i would surely be on the horn about it. Virginia Bowen wrote: Hmmm....I'm glad I posted my question/observation. I am at this point just a student of ethology, but after a lifetime (40 decades) of intermittent fits of self-study or professional study on animals and their behavior and evolution. I have always thought it obvious that non-humans should have a sense of self, based on many, many things. But there's been such a focus in my readings lately on these mirror studies, as if that is the determinant of a sense of self. So I thought my observations that my donkeys quite apparently noticed their reflections as not being a stranger, and being curious about that image would raise the question if only the higher primates have some "sense of self" based on reflection only. I once asked on a list, and I think it was this one, if recognition of self in a mirror were even relevant to the vast majority of species that never see a mirror nor have use for one, as Clare has pointed out here. But the question got ignored. It just seems to me that there is a certain group of scientists that will keep moving the definition of "consciousness" whenever it is shown that any non-human shares a particular trait that we once thought was so uniquely human. While I would love to prove my own instinctual sense of consciousness in non-humans, I wonder if that group will ever be satisfied or just keep moving the target? It just seems really obvious to me that if we have evolved certain traits (i.e., consciousness) then why would not other animals have them too? And if we assume it in other humans, where it is almost as difficult to prove, why would we not assume it in at the very least similarly structured vertebrates? At any rate, it is that debate -- are mirror studies relevant? What is the status of proof of consciousness in non-humans in terms of wide acceptance (I would hope it is very widespread but I fear it is not)? -- that I would like pointers to or comments on. Virginia Murrieta, CA "My treasures do not clink together, nor glitter. They gleam in the sun and bray in the night." All animals under human care deserve "The Five Freedoms" 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst. 2. Freedom from discomfort. 3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease. 4. Freedom to express normal behavior. 5. Freedom from fear and distress. --------------------------------- From: Clare Lewandowski [mailto:clare@amerion.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:45 PM To: applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca Subject: Re: Anecdote about mirror encounter And what do you think is the element of importance? animals may see their reflection in other things on a regular basis, standing water, window glass, other shiny objects, see their shadows, and may become habituated to their reflection or shadow. A mirror differs in less distortion, full color and more details and those difference may increase interest again until habituation sets in. If one animal shows less interest in its reflection does it mean it has no self awareness or that it figured out more quickly that the reflection isn't doing anything that it doesn't already know about? Would that indicate higher self awareness? If what is important is researching self awareness, perhaps expanding beyond the human fixation with vision as a primary sensory system into the sensory systems most important to the species being studied would be more useful. If dolphins have signature whistles, does this mean they have self awareness? http://acp.eugraph.com/cetaceans/ Dolphins see themselves reflected in the surface of water as a matter of course. A mirror at the surface might not draw much attention at all. Placed vertically in the water or on the bottom might generate more interest due to novelty. Would a dolphin's response to its mirror reflection reveal more about its sense of self than responding to its signature whistle? What of animals like naked mole-rats? Sight is almost unused, but smell is of great importance. Would its personal odor be its sense of self? Can it be self aware? How do blind/deaf humans develop self awareness and awareness of others as individuals? Do some species that rely on electrical fields have electrical signatures that indicate awareness of self and others? this link seems to be evidence to me that some fish may be aware of self and others. http://acp.eugraph.com/fish/ What of bats? do they have a sonar signature? I suspect humans developed self awareness long before a good mirror was developed. Mirror research might be useful but exploring other ways to determine if a species is capable of self awareness might be more useful. regards Clare ----- Original Message ----- From: gene daniels To: kc@synalia.com ; forvirg@verizon.net Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: Anecdote about mirror encounter Maybe it is just an excuse to do research that has an element of IMPORTANCE in it. gene daniels --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page __________ NOD32 1.1194 (20050815) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 15-AUG-2005 16:02:14.44 To: IN%"clare@amerion.com", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Anecdote about mirror encounter In a message dated 8/15/2005 1:00:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, clare@amerion.com writes: Dolphins see themselves reflected in the surface of water as a matter of course. A mirror at the surface might not draw much attention at all Actually dolphins would never see themselves reflected on the surface of the water since water creates no reflections in its transition to air until a critical angle is reached. Since this is a relatively steep angle, no part of the observing dolphins body would be reflected in the image. Go into a pool and look straight up. All you will see is sky. That sky will be a circular window about 60 degrees in diameter. Outside that window other object far away from you will be reflected. Anyway, dolphins primary sense is not vision it is sonar. Sonar reflections can be generated on any smooth flat hard surface. Distorted reflection probably occur relative frequently in nature. Good quality ones probably only occur on manmade objects.