That mirror test is fundamentally flawed. It presumes the animal actually 'cares' that there is a dot on them. Also, there truly is no such thing as a 'scentless' marker, especially when the dog has smell capacity several orders of magnitude better than man or machine.
Just as a note: This is an area I'm quite familiar with - my research focuses on the relation between brain volumetrics and cognition in humans. I'm working on an advanced degree in neuropsychology.
Then you should be looking at the correlation of the surface area of the brain to intelligence, not the total volume. Basically the greater the number of folds in the brain the more capacity the brain has. A large brain with few folds cannot 'do' as much as a smaller brain with a large number of folds.
My "automatic vision systems" teacher gave an interesting lecture about research on hens. Hens are awfully dumb.
It's well known that chickens are stupid. Any animal kept in captivity and inbred for generations for food and raised on steroids can't be that bright. Turkeys are also colossally stupid.
I agree completely - the mirror test is practically useless.
Here's the test I did which I think is much more conclusive. Feel free to poke holes it it (It is slashdot afterall)
1) First introduce your dog to the mirror and get him to look at himself
2) Stand directly behind the dog, ensuring he cannot see you (dogs typically have +/-120 view so you have to be directly behind them)
3) Now silently wave at the dog so he directs his attention at your 'reflection' and not you directly
4) Silently give him the 'come here' hand signal (he must know this). My dogs *without any hesitation* turn around and come directly to me. If the dog thought that what he saw in the mirror was in any way real, then presumably he would have started towards the mirror instead of directly towards me. This shows he gets the concept of a mirror.
I have two dogs and they can recognize both themselves in a mirror and me in a mirror. It's interesting actually - introducing them to the mirror as puppies, you can tell they think at first it is another dog, but after interaction they start to understand.
I've always thought it is sheer human arrogance to think that we are the only ones that are self aware. Animals are far smarter than we give them credit for.
I guess for some scientists it makes them feel better to think that the animals they are torturing aren't self aware and don't have any feelings.
What about sporting events? If you watch NFL, a lot of what you see is faked. From the artificial lines, to the CGI projections of the field. Even the advertisements along the sides are not real - the banners are resold to local broadcasters so that people watching will get local (or regional) advertisements. This is easy to see when you watch the same NFL game on Canadian and American channels - two completely different advertisements. Even the blimp is digitally altered.
It's not the wrong name, it's a pseudonym chosen by him.
But there are truly several wrong names in the history books, like Christopher Columbus. This is an anglicized name because Americans didn't like the idea of an Italian discovering 'their' country. His real name is Cristoforo Colombo.
And George W Bush. His real name is George Shouldabeenimpeached Bush.
And I said prove that statistic - cite the source because I think that's bullshit. Instead of stating where you got that you resort to insults and name calling. Nice.
Get a grip and stop acting like you are twelve years old. Either that or shut up and stop posting nonsense.
The fact that I stated was that you are far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than to actually stop a crime with one. This is statistically provable. Look it up.
Typically it is the gun owners that are afraid. That's why they own guns because they mistakenly think that it will protect them. Either that or they are compensating for sexual deficiencies.
Bullshit - show me a credible reference to the prevention of crimes by guns number you state.
What the heck do doctors and cars have to do with anything? That's a different argument. There are a lot more things that kill people including cigarettes, pesticides, and falling pianos. They've got nothing to do with guns.
Guns don't scare me - gun wielding idiots that think they are the last line of defense against everything that scares them do though. The facts I stated are true which you seem to be afraid to face. You are the coward - it's even in your name.
I doubt that is true - otherwise everyone who signs a mortgage they want to get out of would claim that they didn't have their glasses on when they signed it and couldn't read it.
I believe all they need to show is that it is possible for a reasonable person to read it in normal conditions. They don't have to prove you can read the terms displayed while watching internet tv on your iPhone for example.
Like you are far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than to actually stop a crime with one. And the US has far more gun deaths per capita than anywhere else in the world (including areas where drug gangs rule like Columbia and Bolivia).
Native North Americans did not have a concept of land ownership (just like we dont have the concept of 'owning' the sunshine or rain). How could you own something you are just using and was never given to you? So no, they couldn't suee for defiling 'their' land.
However the natice south americans may have a good case against the Spanish for stripping the land of every valuable resource including tonnes of gold religious artifacts.
Slashdot Mirror
That mirror test is fundamentally flawed. It presumes the animal actually 'cares' that there is a dot on them. Also, there truly is no such thing as a 'scentless' marker, especially when the dog has smell capacity several orders of magnitude better than man or machine.
My dogs watch tv and can recognise the images on them. Of course they can see 2D.
Just as a note: This is an area I'm quite familiar with - my research focuses on the relation between brain volumetrics and cognition in humans. I'm working on an advanced degree in neuropsychology.
Then you should be looking at the correlation of the surface area of the brain to intelligence, not the total volume. Basically the greater the number of folds in the brain the more capacity the brain has. A large brain with few folds cannot 'do' as much as a smaller brain with a large number of folds.
Or, why do they call baby rabbits 'Kittens'?
Geez.. here all this time I've been calling them 'bunnies'
And the Xena episode where she would wake up to the rooster crowing every morning (same day repeating) and kill Jockster out of frustration.
My "automatic vision systems" teacher gave an interesting lecture about research on hens. Hens are awfully dumb.
It's well known that chickens are stupid. Any animal kept in captivity and inbred for generations for food and raised on steroids can't be that bright. Turkeys are also colossally stupid.
I agree completely - the mirror test is practically useless.
Here's the test I did which I think is much more conclusive. Feel free to poke holes it it (It is slashdot afterall)
1) First introduce your dog to the mirror and get him to look at himself
2) Stand directly behind the dog, ensuring he cannot see you (dogs typically have +/-120 view so you have to be directly behind them)
3) Now silently wave at the dog so he directs his attention at your 'reflection' and not you directly
4) Silently give him the 'come here' hand signal (he must know this). My dogs *without any hesitation* turn around and come directly to me. If the dog thought that what he saw in the mirror was in any way real, then presumably he would have started towards the mirror instead of directly towards me. This shows he gets the concept of a mirror.
I have two dogs and they can recognize both themselves in a mirror and me in a mirror. It's interesting actually - introducing them to the mirror as puppies, you can tell they think at first it is another dog, but after interaction they start to understand.
I've always thought it is sheer human arrogance to think that we are the only ones that are self aware. Animals are far smarter than we give them credit for.
I guess for some scientists it makes them feel better to think that the animals they are torturing aren't self aware and don't have any feelings.
What's that got to do with anything?
Or, were you talking about a 'grill'? A different beast from a BBQ pit/smoker, which is low and slow cooking.
Nope. I mean I have a natural gas barbecue. Stainless. Only the US has a distinction between a grill and a BBQ - I'm not American.
Here both 'grills' and wood BBQs are called BBQs and 'grill' is typically a verb - eg. 'I grilled the chicken on the barbecue'
My electricity is nuclear and my BBQ is natural gas..
I like stick, but I'll never give up my CVT.
And the fireworks don't change the results or the actions of the games themselves.
What about sporting events? If you watch NFL, a lot of what you see is faked. From the artificial lines, to the CGI projections of the field. Even the advertisements along the sides are not real - the banners are resold to local broadcasters so that people watching will get local (or regional) advertisements. This is easy to see when you watch the same NFL game on Canadian and American channels - two completely different advertisements. Even the blimp is digitally altered.
None of that gets a disclaimer.
For crying out loud. If Harry Potter can keep track of his invisibility cloak you'd think a bunch of scientists wouldn't have a problem with it.
It's not the wrong name, it's a pseudonym chosen by him.
But there are truly several wrong names in the history books, like Christopher Columbus. This is an anglicized name because Americans didn't like the idea of an Italian discovering 'their' country. His real name is Cristoforo Colombo.
And George W Bush. His real name is George Shouldabeenimpeached Bush.
You're clearly an argument troll who makes up bullshit just to rile people up.
Stop bothering me asshole. Fuck, you're a loser.
Wow you are childish. Just read your post.
Your stats are bullshit. They are false and you are a liar.
And I said prove that statistic - cite the source because I think that's bullshit. Instead of stating where you got that you resort to insults and name calling. Nice.
Get a grip and stop acting like you are twelve years old. Either that or shut up and stop posting nonsense.
The fact that I stated was that you are far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than to actually stop a crime with one. This is statistically provable. Look it up.
Typically it is the gun owners that are afraid. That's why they own guns because they mistakenly think that it will protect them. Either that or they are compensating for sexual deficiencies.
I'm not afraid - that's why I don't own a gun.
Bullshit - show me a credible reference to the prevention of crimes by guns number you state.
What the heck do doctors and cars have to do with anything? That's a different argument. There are a lot more things that kill people including cigarettes, pesticides, and falling pianos. They've got nothing to do with guns.
Guns don't scare me - gun wielding idiots that think they are the last line of defense against everything that scares them do though. The facts I stated are true which you seem to be afraid to face. You are the coward - it's even in your name.
I doubt that is true - otherwise everyone who signs a mortgage they want to get out of would claim that they didn't have their glasses on when they signed it and couldn't read it.
I believe all they need to show is that it is possible for a reasonable person to read it in normal conditions. They don't have to prove you can read the terms displayed while watching internet tv on your iPhone for example.
Take some of your own advice coward.
Like you are far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than to actually stop a crime with one. And the US has far more gun deaths per capita than anywhere else in the world (including areas where drug gangs rule like Columbia and Bolivia).
Native North Americans did not have a concept of land ownership (just like we dont have the concept of 'owning' the sunshine or rain). How could you own something you are just using and was never given to you? So no, they couldn't suee for defiling 'their' land.
However the natice south americans may have a good case against the Spanish for stripping the land of every valuable resource including tonnes of gold religious artifacts.
And unless you have a hi-def TV, you cant even read most of the small print.