Kids (and Animals) Who Fail Classic Mirror Tests May

Still Have Sense of Self

Flaws in a long-accepted test used to search for signs of self-awareness are revealing that
selfhood varies culturally and exists on a continuum

By Maggie Koerth-Baker

Scientific American Magazine, November 29, 2010

The comment of Marcel Chelba (Kantinomus):

If any animal has an instinct of preservation (ie, all that does is meant to preserve its
existence as an individual), it is assumed that any animal has a certain self-consciousness.
The problem is that this "consciousness" is manifested in two ways, depending on how
the individual relates to reality. This difference of attitude is manifested in our way of
thinking. Consequently, there are two fundamental ways of thinking (two fundamental
perspectives of thought): "bird's perspective" and "mole's perspective" (as I like to say).

"Mole's perspective" is the perspective of analytical thinking (and I mean now Kant's
distinction between analytic and synthetic), one in which the individual is connected to
reality and does not distinguish between him and the subject of empirical experience. It is
the perspective of thinking where Aristotle's Logic works. The specific behavior is that of
the beast: the type of "tertium non datur" or "tooth for tooth". It is the "freezing
behavior", which speaks Tanya Broesch, from Emory University's Department of
Psychology. It is a behavior that has no concept of irony or humor.

"Bird's perspective" is the perspective of synthetic thinking, that the individual is

disconnected from the "empirical reality" and reflects somewhat outside (or above) on
this "reality". Proof is the smile of the child in the mirror. What he means is: Oh! Is fake
(untrue). It is a joke. It's just an illusion. He realizes that there is an obvious difference
between what he sees (perceives with the senses) and what really exists. He sees the
"transcendental illusion", in Kant's terms.

"Cold eyes" and "searching behind the mirror" is proof that the dominant thinking of that
individual is in analytical perspective.

We can not say that one perspective is better than the other. Each perspective of thinking
has its own advantages and its own limits (its own illusions, as Kant said).
Also, we can not say that some beings think in one way and another in another way. But
there are some dominants of thinking. You could say, for example, that the dominant of
female's thinking is in analitical perspective and the dominant of male's thinking is in
synthetic perspective. In fact, these two perspectives of thinking alternate to every
individual, depending on the attitude (on how it relates to reality). It is important to
understand what is the ontological profile of these two perspectives of thinking, how they
are intertwined and which is their appointment in the economy of our existence.

I have already completed the first steps towards this research, in a book that,
unfortunately, is not yet translated into English.

Marcel Chelba