benjamino wrote:i was watching a programme on this a few days ago, a guy working with primates and mirrors, who used the paint test fredjones mentioned and also he would hide food out of the apes line of sight but where it could be seen with a mirror and the apes developed the ability to recognise the reflection for what it was. although while they could recognise the reflection of the food, most of them still didnt register the other ape as themselves. then he strated working with toddlers using the paint test, it was really interesting watching the idea of self develop. when they were really young they just saw another baby and tried to interect with it and crawl into the mirror, then there was a stage where they didn't like the mirror because they couldn't connect properly with the other child which apparently all children go through, they avoid eye contact with themselves and are quite upset by the reflection. then finally they recognised the image as a reflection of themselves when they were around 3 or 4 i think.
A baby cannot, "recognized the image as a reflection of themselves"Â…unless that already have a self.
There is no 'recognition' because without a mirror they never ?'see' their face ( or most of their body) so there is nothing to ?'recognize.
The mirror image is incorporated into a preexisting self identity which up to that point did not include a visual face.
Self identity, as such, is a construction not a recognition. Recognition comes after the fact of creating or constructing etc. That's to say, self identity is nurture not nature. Humans (and others) who have never seen their body, head or face reflection in a mirror or other reflective surface would have a very different ?'self' image and self identity etc.
imhv
As you say:
"it was really interesting watching the idea of self develop."
And the ontological question is, from first person observations, Who's watching the idea of self develop?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace