Mirror Self-Recognition

32 responses to “Mirror Self-Recognition”

1. 

   !MimosaMicheMichelle!

   Mar 26, 2007 at 4:31 am

   I wonder how the world, the animal kingdom and ours, would function if animals could all recognize each other. I prefer not to know this kind of world. I prefer being very distinct as a human being.

   I love your photographic imagery here!

   Reply
2. 

   andyi

   Mar 26, 2007 at 5:03 am

   Well, it appears that robots and humans share one trait: the irresistible impulse to Google for yourself!

   Reply
3. 

   angry shock

   Mar 26, 2007 at 5:24 am

   Very interesting questions and thoughts. I tend to think that there is no self-recognition ability by default even in humans, but the capacity to recognize image reflection on certain surfaces which by consecuence makes the subject being reflected understand that what he/she is seeing is themselves.

   As this happens in humans since we are very small for we are surounded by mirrors and taught what are they and how to use them, this ability may seem to be intrinsic to our brain and not acquired by learning.

   Self-recognition as an intrinsic capability would imply that blind people since very small who recover their vision would naturally see themselves for the first time and recognize themselves, and that what they are looking at is a reflective surface. Which as far as I am concerned it´s not the case: they are told or discover empirically that they are looking at themselves. It sounds more common-sense to me that, than to think there is any sort of mechanism inside of our brain which would by default fire the response "this is me!" when faced to our own reflection. There is no way for the brain to know before hand that what it´s looking at is itself, but there is the chance that it may be able to understand with relative ease that it is a reflective surface and by consecuence it is looking at itself reflected.

   The experiment with animals showed that they need some time to figure out they are in front of their reflection and this is commonly achieved (and serves as proof of success in the experiment) through attaching some colorful cloth to the animal that he can see in the reflection and check on himself. The animal gets to understand he is looking at himself as a conclusion, but he doesn´t recognize himself because he has the hability of recognizing himself per se.

   To sum up: I think there is a cognitive ability on certain animals and humans to comprehend the nature of reflective surfaces and reflected images which includes images of themselves. Self-recognition is a byproduct of that cognitive ability.

   Ok… hope that makes sense… =) I like your hypothesis on offspring recognition too. Though I think some other cognitive abilities might be envolved in it too.

   Reply
4. 

   learned move

   Mar 26, 2007 at 5:27 am

   Hmmmm…. this animal did learn to recognize himself in the mirror no problem, so not sure about those studies. Took him a while though.

   Reply
5. 

   nels1

   Mar 26, 2007 at 12:20 pm

   interesting question you’ve posed there.

   i think you’d be very interested in some of the neurologist/neuroscientist V.S Ramachandran’s work if you’re not already familiar with it, his latest being Phantoms in the Brain, a brilliant book uncovering the mysteries related to our sense of self, illustrated by examples of patients he has seen, including famously curing the intractable phantom limb pains of amputees by the simple use of mirrors, and stroke patients who…actually, i could go on and on, but i’d better let you read the book instead:) it’s one of the rare must-read books that i recommend to friends. ramachandran is a real pioneer in the realitively young field of neuroscience and definitely a hero of mine!

   p.s i forgot to mention that he also deals with the issue of how our sense of our bodily self may have evolved as well…

   Reply
6. 

   aeroculus

   Mar 26, 2007 at 12:38 pm

   Steve – I think your last sentence sums it up best. In some species, the survival of progeny could very likely be the selective pressure which triggered the expression of certain genes…..genes that are responsible for recognition of similar species, thus contributing to evolutionary fitness. Recognition of self could just one of those random, but useful, byproducts of natural selection. Just like many other behavioral traits, this ability is not expressed in all species, even though the same genes responsible for the trait may be present in the genomes of many species.

   Reply
7. 

   biotron

   Mar 26, 2007 at 12:39 pm

   If it is a (quickly) learned consequence, it is most probably one which evolves for the majority of the animals you list above from a) having strongly directional stereoscopic vision and b) problem-solving skills that require muscle memory, adaptation and strong self-awareness of position and balance, all the while with some capacity to creatively visualise other positions and scenarios. It may also be heavily dependent upon the ability to mimic, and having an instant source of feedback when seeking to mediate their behaviour in realtime. While it might provide a good indication, I’m not sure self-recognition of this kind necessarily implies the ability to achieve greater levels of abstraction. I think the most important factor may be related to how an animal’s consciousness can be intentionally directed to parts of its body other than the head. Before anyone chips in here to say they are disappointed with the lack of smut and cheap humour in this discussion, I can reassuring them by asserting that the male member does indeed have a life and mind of its own *

   *ahem*

   I was already going to mention penguin caller-ID just before I read it in your notes. The incredible thing about this is not so much the uniqueness of each call (all sounding incredibly uniform to human ears) but the fact they are isolated from thousands of other calls all creating the most shocking din in colonies that sometimes number above 300,000. As for accuracy, it is hard to tell for certain. It also works for returning partners. Emporer chicks are left to die after their fathers abandon them to go and eat, because their partners have not returned. In good health, the adults certainly find each other alright.

   The dolphin case is tricky. Immediately, I thought of the (not smooth) underside of the sea surface, which may take on reflective properties in particular conditions, and a dolphin swimming sideways underneath it, eyeballing itself in monovision. Am I imagining that I have seen this quality of sea water? I also wonder : what role do sonar clicks have to play in all of this, relative to the point above about having strong self-awareness of position and balance, alongside visualisation skills and potential role-playing exercises – given that they might help form a 3D image of their own kind in their minds? Then again, dolphins are just cows that fancied a swim, and some of them must have had a special moment of enlightenment facing water drinking in a puddle before their dip? * Perhaps if the ones who passed the test could speak, they would tell us to go and read John C Lilly or Marv Minsky…

   Without having a better answer on the subject, I would hazard a guess that the phenomenon might be viewed on genetic terms as a rough equivalent to the self incompatibility mechanism in plants, which itself ensures "outcrossing" ie genetic diversity. It is clearly important for the successful propagation and adaptation of certain species to have miscegenation as a core pattern. So, rather than agree completely with your thoughts about "facial progeny perception" being the real driving force behind mirror self-recognition, I would suggest it is a mechanism evolved to avoid procreation with one’s close genetic neighbours (so to speak…) – and this, of course, entails recognition of ones children in large social groupings and the affiliated advantages that you list, not to mention a probable basis for the incest taboo in sexually permissive cultures like the French Polynesian Marquesas who, "permitted child sexuality and experimentation, but disallowed incest" prior to any contact with "Western" "civilisation".

   Has anyone noticed an orangutan kneeling in front of a pool of water with a comb, in keen anticipation of scoring high in the seduction stakes on a planned social gathering?* Maybe if any advantage exists at all, it comes as a result of the "look out! she/he/it’s behind you!" early warning system accessible to animals who spend too much time gazing and posing into reflective surfaces?!

   Lacan had a lot to say about self-recognition, which – although it might not explain why and how this capability has evolved – at least gives an interesting opinion of what this crucial stage leads to.

   Hopefully some evolutionary biologist can come along here and help us out.

   Reply
8. 

   angry shock

   Mar 26, 2007 at 2:45 pm

   @csharp_: nice cat! nice and big! 😉

   Your comment is congruent with mine in the sense that self-recognition might be learned and not a built-in application of the brain.

   Whenever I thought about this mirror issue -prior to this discussion-, I always thought that if dommestic animals couldn´t have or get this skill, it would be simply impossible to have a cat or a dog living in a house with an ordinary amount of mirrors as the dudes would go crazy barking at themselves to defend their territory or make friends with their reflections. But in general cats and dogs don´t bark at mirrors (in general, some young dudes do, tho).

   Perhaps they don´t "get it" so clearly as we humans or they other animals enlisted here do, but they surely have enough comprehension to understand that what they see is not another animal, and I tend to believe that some smarter animals -individually- may be even able to understand it is themselves relfected.

   Reply
9. 

   angry shock

   Mar 26, 2007 at 2:58 pm

   Have you seen Val Kilmer´s "At first sight"?

   Reply
10. 

    andrewstoeckley

    Mar 26, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    i recommend this interesting read:

    The Monkey in the Mirror

    It doesn’t necessarily offer and explanation, but does philosophize on the topic quite a bit.

    Reply
11. 

    jurvetson

    Mar 26, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    fascinating overnight discussion….

    nels1: I am midway through Phantoms and enjoying it very much. I will ask him about this…

    biotron: Speaking of dolphins…. With the solar light source above water, incident light will be much more intense than reflected… and for total internal reflection, the angle is 48% in fresh water, so you would not be able to see youself. I was trying to remember looking up while scuba diving, and I don’t think I ever saw even fleeting reflections of myself. (What a fish sees applet)

    Reply
12. 

    angry shock

    Mar 26, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    Two excerpts from Oliver Sack’s essay To See and Not To See which the movie I mention above was based in -what interested me to point out to-:
    http://www.oliversacks.com/marsex.htm

    That fish vision applet is crazy… now I understand why they put that fish face when looking at you from inside a fishbowl… I would put the same clueless face among all that distortion…

    Reply
13. 

    redundant frame

    Mar 26, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    I am therefore I think (versus the incorrect I think therefore I am). To first say I, you must be aware of yourself. It’s the primacy of existence over consciousness (one coming before the other), and the requirements for a high level of intelligence (conceptual level versus just perceptual). Any entity capable of conceptual level abstraction, and any entity on the path in that direction (chimps for example), has to first possess self recognition because concept formation requires being aware of existence in relation to one’s self identity. Self awareness for a conceptual being is not only automatic, but it’s a prerequisite to any further concept formation – we build concepts not in a vaccuum but in relation to ourselves, to our existence. Try for example, identifying the concept "table," much less something harder like "computer," while being unaware of your self – concepts have no relational meaning to a being if they’re not first aware of their self, because we define meaning in relation to our selves (what something means to us, what we value and how, etc.). Without that relational connect, we’re all just flat databases… unable to connect percepts into wider concepts. It’s the singular strike point of higher level intelligence: relating percepts to form concepts, and to relate multiple percepts you have to know what the (again in database lingo) primary KEY is that you’re relating to (your self as the principle basis of your existence and the beginning relation to other ‘things’ that exist).

    Reply
14. 

    angry shock

    Mar 26, 2007 at 11:13 pm

    Hi Jonathan: I wouldn´t say that self awareness and visual self-recognition are the same, or that there exist a direct connection between the two things. Otherwise blind individuals would have identity problems because they cannot recognize themselves distintic from others through their visual sense?

    I personally believe that awareness and recognition are two completely different things, at very different levels of cognition (awareness is a basic and intrisic condition of the self, it comes from within with nothing mediating it, while recognition is a simple learned behaviour related to an external stimuli, mediating our visual sense in between).

    Btw, it is very interesting, that you begin your comment inverting Descartes phrase and even labelling as incorrect, when all the rest of your comment could be interpreted as consonant with the idea of "I think therefore I exist" (…"as a conciousness" I would add). You say: "Self awareness for a conceptual being is not only automatic, but it’s a prerequisite to any further concept formation – we build concepts not in a vaccuum but in relation to ourselves, to our existence".

    Do we exist if we are not aware of ourselves, if we don´t perceive ourselves neither the world because it cannot be put in relation to "our selves"? That´s the first question, absolutely phylosophical one.

    Is visual self-recognition possible without self-awareness? That is the second question, to which you already posed the answer: no.

    I like you entry, reminded me very much of some controversial and thought triggering passages of "Being and Nothingness" from Sartre. =)

    Reply
15. 

    nels1

    Mar 27, 2007 at 12:42 am

    glad you’re enjoying Phantoms Steve:)

    his talent at logical deduction and lateral thinking are superb and it has certainly made me look at patients with neurological disorders in a totally new and illuminated way.

    i’d definitely be interested to hear his response to your question…

    Reply
16. 

    redundant frame

    Mar 27, 2007 at 1:07 am

    Hello Alieness, always enjoy your posts here btw. Steve has the best comments.

    My position is that visual self-recognition isn’t necessary for self-awareness to occur; that is, I wasn’t trying to imply they were the same concept. But I do believe they’re directly related. Let me elaborate. I would say you can be self-aware while being blind (or deaf, or lacking in touch, etc.), but you cannot recognize yourself without being self-aware on some level. The contradiction, the disproving error, would occur in the sense that: if you are not self aware, then what is it exactly that you think you are recognizing in a mirror for example (you wouldn’t know yourself to then follow on and identify it as being you to begin with; self recognition first requires there be a self that can recognize itself, and to recognize itself it must be able to know on some level: that is me, I am myself).

    I did indeed invert Descartes. The statement: "I think therefore I am" was intended to be a method of identification or proof of self-existence. The reason he got it backwards, is that he put consciousness before the requirement of existence in the proof – the idea that a person could think before they are, in other words (the "I think," cannot come before the "I am" – to first think, you must first exist obviously; however, to be able to know on some level that "I am" is always required before a person can actually "think"). In a proof on consciousness, it’s very important to get the order correct.

    I believe self awareness is automatic, but thinking is not; that thinking is the chosen / the volitional. So as to my statement of "I am therefore I think" – put it this way, saying "I am" is a form of thinking (the first demonstrates the second), but "I think" is impossible without first existing already (so saying I think therefore I am, fails not only as a proof, but it’s redundant if you’re already at the stage of "I think" – just to get to the "I" part of that you have to exist); one can occur first, the other cannot.

    You mention: do we exist if we are not aware of ourselves. In the literal sense *you* don’t exist if you’re not aware of yourself – your body may still exist however, a machine may still pump your lungs. Can something exist without self awareness, absolutely; a vegetable in a coma, can, for example; a rock can exist without self awareness, etc. I believe self awareness obviously requires existence, but more specifically you cannot consciously identify yourself as aware or existent without being able to say the "I" part of the I exist (and I don’t mean verbally when I use "say" of course). If something exists without self-awareness then there is no "I" in that equation to start with. The act of pronouncing one’s own existence with concepts like I or we or us etc. requires self-awareness, because if you weren’t aware of you, what are you identifying with I or we or us. And if you exist without self awareness – a proof against that, is in the question: how do you know you exist without it… you don’t, there is no ability to even form the question without starting from the I part of self awareness.

    If you remove the self awareness and the specific quantity that represents the *you* (your personality, the values you hold, all Alieness is) ceases to be; remove the existence and obviously there can be no self awareness due to lack of self. To me then, self awareness and existence are linked (although existence doesn’t require that something exists that is aware of existence, it has the primary over all things).

    Just some more food for thought. 🙂

    Reply
17. 

    biotron

    Mar 27, 2007 at 1:35 am

    enjoying the continuing discussion, although still nowhere near clearly elucidating why and how the capability of self-recognition has evolved…

    great fish vision applet, thanks 🙂

    Reply
18. 

    angry shock

    Mar 27, 2007 at 2:52 am

    Thanks for the reply Jonathan! I perfectly understand you. I said that your words reminded me of Sartre because he makes a point in distinguishing the being-in-itseff (with no conciousness of existance but which exists in itself, just "is") and the being-for-itself who is concious of its existance, self aware. If you understand existance parting from the being in-itself, then the reversion of Descartes phrase suits perfecty. Indeed, something has to exist prior to be able to think… and therefore "exist" as a conciouness. The being for-itself Sartre talks about responds in a way to the Descartes idea "I think therefore I exist" because to this conciousness reality and existance is its perception of it, its own awareness. There´s nothing beyond that about neither the world nor itself as an individual. His existance is determined absolutely by his thinking, how he perceive the world and itself.

    I find this subjects of study and discussion most pleasurable. I´d brainstorm and read and listen about this for hours. It stamps a smile on my face. Thx for this exchange, jonathan and all, and to the host, Steve. =)

    My little experimental analysis of the matter at hand -literally-, in tribute for you:
    

    Biotron, come on! don´t tell me you are still interested on that evolution thing! Existentialism is more catchy! 😛

    Reply
19. 

    complexify.

    Mar 27, 2007 at 5:24 am

    I arrived late to this photo but am intrigued by the great discussion.

    I like the evolutionary angle. Having watched March of the Penguins recently, I’m amazed at the ability of other animals to recognize their own offspring – in the case of penguins, through auditory clues. No doubt the ability to recognize oneself visually (and similarities to oneself) is helpful in finding your offspring in a crowd!

    On a less serious note — without the ability to recognize oneself, would out-of-body, near-death experiences be possible? Would you think you were just floating above the hospital bed looking down on a stranger? 😉

    Reply
20. 

    aeroculus

    Mar 27, 2007 at 11:51 am

    call me a geek, but I still defer to the genes

    Reply
21. 

    biotron

    Mar 27, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    This is just a great thread… pardon the length of my next contribution, a veritable can of worms has been opened!

    To clarify something first, when I mentioned above about one factor being "related to how an animal’s consciousness can be intentionally directed to parts of its body other than the head", I suppose it would be more accurate to say I was speculating about the tendency to assume or feel that consciousness is seated in the brain, in the head, as opposed to a less "conscious" awareness that might be expected in a smaller brain operating in tandem with a functioning nervous system. I just read that if you remove the brain of an earthworm, it will move continuously. A grasshopper can walk and jump without its brain. I would be interested to see what an octopus does when confronted with a mirror over long periods under experimental conditions, given that it has a relatively large brain.

    Coming back to the dolphin / water issue, may I now flip the question and ask if these creatures’ brief sojourns above water may have occasionally resulted in seeing themselves reflected on the surface, under certain conditions…?

    nels – the Ramachandran book looks great, actually – will try and pick up a copy soon.

    jonathan0766 – interesting contributions, which I’d like to respond to in detail. The question GG raised was not strictly about the mutual dependence of "self awareness" and "existence", but rather if "self awareness" and "visual self recognition" are necessarily closely related. I think there’s always a certain danger of presumptuous arrogance when any of us discuss what it means for "entities" to be "conscious" of themselves, as human beings capable of conceptual abstraction – and added difficulty arises because language certainly mediates between subject and object, and infringes in ways that vastly complicate matters. We may "define meaning in relation to ourselves" but it is futile to ask someone to try and identify a simple concept such as "table" "while being unaware" of ones’ / their self – of course, despite having the capacity for conceptual abstraction, we simply aren’t able to do this. "Meaning" is in itself a very loaded term. I happen to agree with certain elements in what you say relating to human beings and their perception of their "selves", but I don’t see how we can instantly extrapolate these principles in bulk to other animals.

    For instance, you say : "self recognition first requires there be a self that can recognize itself, and to recognize itself it must be able to know on some level: that is me, I am myself" – but plenty of animals that do not pass the mirror test are able to operate as if they are independent, ie are "conscious" of recognising themselves as subjects responding to what appears as objective stimuli to them, and they learn to manipulate their environment and act accordingly. The key point at which true self-consciousness begins, in my view, is when a being that recognises itself (in its own mind, for all intents and purposes) is able to think "what is it that makes ‘me’ an ‘I’?" and begins to analyse internal patterns of thought, and reflect upon them from a position of relative detachment, in relation to a world outside of its’ "self", after time has elapsed. Still, a dog can be said have rudimentary self-consciousness if it has learned that begging for food at a table will result in punishment. This does not carry the inference that a dog is capable of advanced conceptual abstraction.

    As GG points out, cases exist where animals not listed among those that passed the test do behave as if they understand their reflection is actually them, and not an "other". I am willing to believe that many individual / smart animals do understand it is themselves reflected, but may just happen to be unconcerned about the large red blotch Gordon Gallup Jr. (another "GG"!!) has smeared on their forehead…. why? Perhaps it is because they are not exposed to constant imagery of other animals of their own kind, how their "kind" should look, and consequently feel under pressure to remove the blotch for cosmetic reasons borne out of peer pressure! 🙂 None of this means that awareness of self is a necessary pre-requisite for self-recognition in a mirror, though, which is why – as Steve points out – there is an absolute dearth of decent explanation concerning "why" and "how" this capability has evolved.

    I do agree that "self awareness obviously requires existence", but are you then implying that if "you cannot consciously identify yourself as aware or existent without being able to say the "I" part of the I exist" that some animals who fail the mirror test cannot "consciously identify" themselves "as aware or existent" in some way or other? Some of these animals may not mentally pronounce to themselves "I exist", or ponder over their lot on this planet, but I don’t know how we can say finally they are not able to "consciously identify" themselves "as aware or existent". This is very tricky territory indeed! The means with which they express themselves are not necessarily predisposed to helping our understanding of the issue. Despite all of this, it shouldn’t be presumed I am ready to accept the possibility that there are starfish suffering from bipolar disorder, or similarly outrageous claims…

    As for Descartes, well even he believed his poorly-worded instantiation principle was misleading 366 years ago, and changed it to "I am, I exist". No deduction or induction necessarily exists at the point in his meditations where he posits it. It seems to me you are only echoing Ayn Rand as a way of providing a criticism to something which Descartes had already revised, indeed something he did not intend to be read as a deduction-based inference or syllogism requiring an extra premise! IMHO, any nitpicking over the order – if we are seeking "proof on consciousness" – is irrelevant, given that I would rather look elsewhere for more practical approaches to our understanding of what it is to "be".

    Basic self-awareness – or even relatively advanced "consciousness" – may exist, but I tend to believe that the first real signs of self-consciousness are a direct result of self-recognition in a mirror, whereby a conscious being aware of itself and responding to perceptual stimuli sees itself as "another" and then reconciles and integrates this "other" with its "self", which is why I quoted Lacan above. The profound shock and lasting implication of such a realisation and new state of being is surely massive.

    GG – It’s good all of this makes you happy. I’m afraid, yeah, I’m probably more interested in evolution than existential philosophy. I mean, I’ll happily defer to aeroculus’ superior genetic knowledge – and anyway, his / her answer is brief and easy to read! 😉 I’m sure s/he can give us a much wordier response justifying hir thoughts… 🙂 But that doesn’t mean I think philosophy of mind has no place in helping to elaborate certain positions on very difficult questions like this. Indeed, I am no dualist, but not a total monist either, and have struggled to tread a fine line for some time. Currently (I remain open to change, thankfully) I find non-reductive physicalism, supervenience and emergentism all useful strands in the philosophy of mind, and ones which very quickly lead into other areas of fruitful research. I must confess I am slightly tempted by eliminative materialism, dialectical monism and holism, but since studying Derrida I have never been able to take Searle and his biological naturalism seriously, much as I find a lot of what he says fascinating. Sometimes I wish I had paid more attention to Merleau-Ponty when I’d had chance, but I just can’t bring myself to pick up "The Phenomenology of Perception" at the moment! As it is, I applaud Heraclitus for his instigation of "process" into philosophy, will take "becoming" in favour of "being" any day, Hegel over Heidegger etc…

    Eppie – I’ve only just read your comment, after writing most of my entry, and you articulate your thoughts very well indeed, thanks! I pretty much agree with everything you say about the mirror and the ego, as my comments above may indicate, except I couldn’t have put it as succinctly or clearly. I can only respond right now with the classic Bucky Fuller quote : "Unity is plural, and, at minimum, is two" 🙂

    What’s great about this whole discussion is not just that I have now learned to see like a fish (or an underwater mammal) but especially that when scanning wikipedia on physicalism for a brush up, it was but one click away to "modal realism", and then one more click to "multiverse", then very quickly into discovering something I had forgotten to follow up, that is, the fact I have been obsessed for years with the idea of an oscillating "Big Bounce" / "heartbeat" universe, which is neither Big Bang nor Big Crunch. Joyous! In next to no time, I learned that this was elaborated as the "cyclic model" by Tolman in the 30s – widely refuted since then – and was delighted to see a more recent cyclic model (Baum-Frampton, not Ovrut-Turok-Steinhardt) which does not depend absolutely on string-theory and may yet overcome difficulties in reconciling the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. How great it is to have unexpected avenues open up so quickly from an already stimulating discussion about something only very tenuously related….

    Reply
22. 

    angry shock

    Mar 28, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    I´ve had a hard time yesterday and today to come back here as I would like to, just wanted to say I read this last entries, that I am following eagerly this discussion for all the multiplicity of voices which includes and I look forward to reading more opinions and to contributing as soon as I am able to. Thank you -again- for this exchange. Keep it coming!:D

    [Off topic: They say that a person comes to meet their vocation and mission when it happens to them that doing something particular they feel completely elated, envolved, complete, joyful and alive, atuned 100% with the task at hand. In 3 situations I feel like that: when I am in love -actively loving the person-, when I sing, play the guitar and listen to music, and when I engage in conversations as these -as those at our Eclectic´s community too- and/or read and learn, and while I engage in my own creative process triggered by the subject that may interest me at a given time. Heaven on Earth the day I will finally dedicate myself entriely to this by finding a way to make a living with it. Design and Art is ok, but it´s not what fulfills me entirely, it is just my work, I exploit a skill commercially. It´s not about my essential energy, but a tiny side effect of it. Well, I need to express that aloud to the Universe who is being made manifest in this dommestic version of the collective conciousness we all are part and witness of here (Do you hear me Universe?!!!! Don´t tell me afterwards that you didn´t help make my dream come true because I didn´t tell you about it! =) ). Back to work now… uhm. ]

    Reply
23. 

    arvind k

    Mar 29, 2007 at 1:20 am

    There is an interesting book – Mirror Mirror

    It addresses part of the question in a different context.

    Reply
24. 

    “CAVE CANEM”

    Jun 3, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Strong idea but you have to remove the yellow cast to get a fav sorry.

    I discovered and faved this brilliant photo in 10-25 Favorites group

    Reply
25. 

    chrstphre

    Jul 1, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Hallo…!!!

    i am attempting to start a new group that is concerned
    with both the fronts & backs of things.
    Since this is such a radical idea, there are very few pictures,
    that are ready to post, that fulfill the requrements of this group.
    Consequently; i’m looking for photographers that are aware that things have both backs to their fronts; and that fronts are the backs,
    when backs are facing out…!
    While you may not have any pictures that contain both the fronts & backs of something, readily available, you may be willing to paste two pictures together to obtain the desired effect.
    ( Plenty of examaples are available @ Front & Back to view & emulate, or approximately emulate, or go off in your own direction…! )

    Thankyou for your consideration of this
    dangerously revolutionary proposal…???

    Reply
26. 

    *STARKIT*

    Jul 12, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Hi, I’m an admin for a group called Robots, Automatons, Mainframes and the Silicon Revolution, and we’d love to have this added to the group!

    Reply
27. 

    angry shock

    Jan 19, 2011 at 12:11 am

    What a GREAT conversation this was!!! I see that I never came back to fully thank you, specially Eppie and Biotron for their last comments, which were extraordinary enriching.

    Thank YOU all!

    I may add an update = my guinea pig, Snuggles, doesn’t seem to be very interested in the mirror… yet it doesn’t seem to surprise her either to see herself and me holding her. She is definitely looking, but her body expression is like "why are you greeting me through the reflection?"… Important to mention, they are very clever mamals.

    It’s so nice to come back to this… which is "just" 46 months old… yet so lively current…

    Reply
28. 

    biotron

    Jan 19, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    ha! praise be for Snuggles, a beacon of sense and calm amid the storm of cogitation 🙂

    frankly, i had real trouble following what on earth i was on about up there. the coffee must have been strong that day… or weak today, perhaps. nice indeed to return to old threads like this with message alerts out of the blue!

    Reply
29. 

    angry shock

    Jan 20, 2011 at 12:10 am

    LOL! It’s fantastic when you come back at something you said years ago and cannot make sense of it, isn’t it?! happens to me too! But I could follow what you said in your post, perhaps because I read the entire conversation from the beginning?!

    Good to be back any-way! We were so clever at the time… 😀

    Reply
30. 

    TrombaMarina

    Mar 7, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    The bit about mother birds rejecting offspring that have been handled on the basis of scent is a common myth (at least in North America – I wouldn’t know about anywhere else). In fact, most birds have no more sense of smell than humans. One notable North American exception to this rule is the Turkey Vulture which has a very sharp sense of smell, being able to detect carrion from many miles away.

    Bird predators, on the other hand (snakes, raccoons, etc.), often hunt by smell and the act of walking up to a nest and away again leaves a dead-end scent trail that often leads predators to a nest. Regardless of scent, it is illegal to tamper with the nest of a native songbird in the US. Only pigeons, starlings, and house sparrows are exempt from this law (because they are alien invaders).

    Sorry to be a killjoy, but I thought you’d want to know.

    Reply
31. 

    jurvetson

    Mar 7, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    thanks. So do the birds that need to find their offspring in the crowd (e.g., penguins) do it by sound alone?

    Reply
32. 

    angry shock

    Dec 7, 2012 at 4:52 am

    Relevant piece of video (and cute)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYU1eayaXs

    Reply