Quote Originally Posted by Oneironaut View Post
You say "the" empirical evidence, as if to conclude 2 things:

1) That you have access to all of the empirical evidence given in all documented cases of the scientific exploration of the comparability of animal-to-human perception.
I have seen enough evidence and been lectured enough on how animals cannot distinguish an externally existing reality.

If an animal could distinguish as such, then results would have shown this - and they do not. The closest that has come is apes and the post I have provided.

2) That there is no empirical evidence that shows that such an assertion may, in fact, be incorrect.
If you are saying that what I am saying is unfalsifiable, I would say that that is certainly not the case. It is simple, if an animal could empathise and be aware of an externally existing reality, they would react appropriately to all of the tests I have provided.

Please provide substantiation for both of the above claims. I've yet to see it.
Read previous posts.

One in which the outcome seems to be the same, for both a human child that may have had interaction with a mirror, before, and with a non-human animal that may be encountering a mirror for one of its first few times. Nothing more, from what I've seen so far.
There are several longitudinal tests that provide animal mirror-self tests over the period of their life spans. Tell me the local library or university to you and I can provide these journal entries as they require membership. (ie. http://www.jneurosci.org )

Well, I'm sorry, but because of the way the results of that test can be explained away, due to the variables I've mentioned, it really does nothing to evidence that such a reaction is exclusively human.
I never said it was. I said that, as far as it has been so far, it has been exclusive to humans.

Note, if animals were capable of distinguishing an externally existing reality, the following sorts of things would happen:
- Less animals living in areas where they will be killed (ie. my furnace, construction zones)
- Animals would congregate develop complex socieites in relation to social status considering that they can recognize and individualise each other. Why? Because if an animal has the ability to distinguish an externally existing reality, they will inevitably develop their own individual identity to separate them from the rest of their species. This is not a choice, it simply happens. (Do you choose to be an individual? No, it just occurs naturally due to a flexible society and atmosphere. Considering animals do not the same restrictions as we do, I see no reason why they could not develop such a complex society).
- We would have anomolous cases of animal behaviour. ie. the movie "Happy Feet" (I am repeating myself now) where he dances for humans entertainment is a perfect example of anomalous animal activity that requires the ability to distinguish realities. Unfortunately, I have yet to see such a case that is not subject to simple reflexive behaviour.

~