ウェブサイトを移転しました
本ブログの更新と過去のすべての記事を下記に移転しました：
yakuruma.blog.fc2.comなお、2006年末月から令和元年までの記事は当面、本サイトに残していますが令和2年1月以降の記事を含めて上記サイトをご覧ください。
なお、はてなブログには、以前上記サイトで公開していた『矢車SITE』を移転しましたので、入れ替わりのような形になりました。
両サイトともに今後ともよろしくお願い申し上げます。
The Distinction between Mirror Recognition and Mirror Reversal (Topics on the mirror problem and the visual space - 1)
In the last article of this blog, I publicized a report in English. However, it was in the context of an article in Japanese so that the title of the article was in Japanese. From this time on, I would like to publicize several articles in English on topics on the issue.
The Distinction between Mirror Recognition and Mirror Reversal, and Personification
Junichi Tanaka
Keywords: mirror recognition, mirror reversal, personification, materialization, mirror problem
The need to distinguish the mirror reversal process from the mirror recognition process
The observer should recognize the image seen on the opposite side of the mirror surface as the mirror image before recognizing any mirror reversal. Thus, processes of recognizing the mirroring pair and recognizing the mirror reversal are another things to each other. Mirror reversal of the mirror self-image is also relevant to both processes, so mirror self-recognition must precede the mirror reversal.
There are other criteria to distinguish the two. One is that we can suppose sensations other than the visual sensation, such as tactile sense in the mirror recognition, for example, touching the mirror surface. Another is that two-mirror reflections may be included in the mirror recognition but should not in the mirror reversal.
Examples
1) As mentioned above, mirror recognition must precede the mirror reversal, so it cannot be avoided that any consideration on the mirror problem may include processes of the mirror recognition. Though, the two elements should not be confused in reasoning, especially in the conclusive reasoning. I pointed out the confusion in the reasoning of Takano’s “hypothesis of multiple processes theory” (Takano, 1998) in my Technical Report in Japanese with English abstract on the issue to the Japanese Cognitive Science Society as follows:
http://www.jcss.gr.jp/contribution/technicalreport/TR70.pdf
http://www.jcss.gr.jp/contribution/technicalreport/TR70.pdf
2) The study of Bianchi and Savardi (2008) seems to deal with mirror recognition and mirror reversal. However, it does not mention such distinctions or definitions. I am not prepared to review the paper as a whole, so I will mention it so long as the concept of mirror recognition and the mirror reversal is concerned. It distinguishes self-images of one’s own face from images of others by the reason that self-images of one’s own face cannot be seen directly. At that point, it is relevant to self-mirror recognition. As for the mirror reversal, it conducted experiments to examine whether observers do or do not perceive in mirror images any difference or reversal to the “real body.” Nevertheless, the methodology seems to fail so long as the mirror reversal is concerned because of the personification and materialization.
In the experiments, Bianchi and Savardi (2008) asked the participants three kinds of questions that are “general relationship question”(a), “orientation question”(b), and “arm extension question”(c). The (a) seems to be relevant to the mirror self-recognition because it refers to the “relationship perceived between their reflection and themselves.” On the other hand, the (b) and (c) seem to be relevant to the mirror reversal because both concern “difference or reversal” of any orientation of the pair or direction of the body parts of the pair. As for the question (a), the mirror is indispensable in the experiment because it is relevant to mirror recognition. However, for questions (b) and (c), we can perform those experiments without any mirror, for example, by using real persons or puppets instead of the mirror image. It is because such questions are only relevant to the orientation and general body parts and not related to the identity of the image, which is concerned with the mirror recognition. However, if the person substituted for the mirror image takes the same orientation and pose with the observer, the result would be different from what has been obtained in the experiment using the mirror.
In fact, those experiments are relevant to four kinds of different cognitive elements such as follows: (1) orientation recognition, (2) self-recognition, (3) mirror recognition, and (4) recognition of mirror reversal. As for the recognition of mirror reversal, it differs from the other three kinds in the point as follows. Recognition of the mirror reversal is relevant to not only the observer’s subjective recognition but also mutual relations between the mirror image and the direct image, which are objective and independent to the observer’s mind. That means that the mirror reversal as a whole cannot be investigated and verified by any psychological experiment except for concerning specific conditions such as mental rotations. Such psychological experiments are relying on, or based on the personification or materialization of the mirror image in the mind of participants. Thus, the distinction among the above mentioned four cognitive elements, including mirror reversal and mirror recognition is crucial and necessary.
Also, in the study of Bianchi and Savardi (2008), illustrations are used to represent the situation. In those illustrations, the author represents geometric differences between the mirroring pair so that readers may find any differences. However, such differences have not been expressed in the text, so they have not been considered in reasoning.
In contrast, for example, Corballis (2000) and Tabata and Okuda (2000), both of which Bianchi and Savardi (2008) have cited repeatedly, uses no illustration to depict any mirroring pair. They represent the mirroring pair by words such as enantiomorphic pairs, as well as Gardner (1964), Ittelson et al. (1991), and some other authors, and they are explaining the mirror reversal with the enantiomorphism as the main principle. That is, the mirror reversal itself is relevant to geometric figures, and though the recognition of mirror reversal is relevant to the recognition of the human or other objects, it must include geometric relations of the pair.
Thus, When there is no distinction between mirror recognition and mirror reversal, consideration of the mirror reversal would be affected by personification and materialization.
The difference between studying (investigating, understanding) and recognizing
What I mentioned in the previous section is relating to the difference between studying (or investigating or understanding, etc.) and recognizing. For example, children and general persons that do not know any optical mechanism such as light reflection can recognize mirror reversal. For mirror recognition, even some animal kinds are said to have the ability. In contrast, to study and understand the (recognizing of) mirror reversal requires at least some basic but exact understanding of geometric optics and other non-physical factors. On the other hand, studying mirror recognition may be somewhat different. Any aspect of mirror recognition, including the recognition of any mirror reversal of general persons, can be investigated using statistics as needed and can deal with factors relating to mutual relations between the mirror image and the direct image (see Figure 1, 2) in the black-box. Studying mirror reversal cannot use such a black-box.
Conclusion
At least the following conditions must be considered:
1. Mirror recognition should be the recognition of the identity of the mirror image as the counterpart of the direct image of an object, whether the image is self-image or not.
2. Mirror recognition can include sensations other than the visual sense, such as the tactile sense.
3. If mirror recognition could not occur to the observer, the observer cannot help but personify and materialize the mirror image.
4. Recognized mirror reversal can occur after the mirror recognition by the observer, but mirror reversal cannot occur without the mirror recognition.
5. Mirror reversal must include geometric relations or differences of the pair images.
6. Mirror reversal cannot occur on the two mirror reflection.
It must be noticed that personification and materialization can occur even after mirror recognition has occurred. Whether or not, personification and materialization should be considered and investigated as the mirror recognition process so that the process of the mirror reversal should not include personification and materialization.
References
Bianchi, Ivana & Savardi, Ugo (2008). The relationship perceived between the real body and the mirror image. Perception, 2008, volume 37, pages 666-687. doi:10.1068/p5744.
Corballis, M. C. (2000). Much ado about mirrors. Psyconomic Bulletin & Review, 7 (1), 163-169. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210736.
Gardner, M. (1964). The new ambidextrous universe. New York: Basic Books.
Ittelson, W. H., Mowafy, L., & Magid, D. (1991). The perception of mirror-reflected objects. Perception, 20, 567-598.
Tabata, T., & Okuda, S. (2000). Mirror reversal simply explained without recourse to psychological process. Psyconomic Bulletin & Review, 7 (1), 170-173.
Takano, Y. (1998). Why does a mirror image look left-right reversed? A hypothesis of multiple processes. Psyconomic Bulletin & Review, 5 (1), 37-55.
Note: My Japanese articles are described in the body text.
予備的論文を公開します：Main elements and a Conditional theoretical result on the mirror problem
一編の予備的論文を公開します。これは本ブログでも、筆者の別ブログ『意味の周辺』と並行して、掲載してきた鏡像問題関連で準備中の、より包括的な作品の、主要な基本構成部分をひとつにまとめたものです。タイトルは［Main Elements and a Conditional Theoretical Result on the Mirror Problem］。PDF形式のためリンクからアクセスできますが、最初の一部を以下に掲載します。
Main Elements and a Conditional Theoretical Result on the Mirror Problem
Junichi Tanaka
Introduction
For the initial consideration, I will introduce optical and geometrical properties for the mirroring pair. Figure 1 illustrates the basic optical scheme and geometric factors for mirroring pair.
Figure 1. Main Factors in the MR-Space.
You can see the symmetricity of the pair easily in this illustration. Enantiomorphism can be explained in this Figure as follows. If the head faces the mirror directly, the front-back axis of the head images should reverse each other. And if the crown of the head faces the mirror directly, the top-bottom axis of them should reverse. Thus, any only one axis of the head images should reverse each other at any time. That implies enantiomorphism of the pair.
Other than those physical (optical) and geometrical factors above, there should be mental factors and situational or historical factors. The difficulty of the mirror problem lies in how to handle and integrate such different types of factors as physical, psychological, and other incidental factors. Therefore, the key lies in theoretical thinking; in other words, the methodology. Thus, the method and analytical premises should be more critical rather than experiments because general persons have already experienced the mirroring phenomenon.
Methods and Analytical Premises
I have introduced analytical premises and methods that traditionally have not purposefully employed in investigating the recognition of visual images including mirror images as follows.
（以下と全文を表示するにはThe whole text: http://www.te-kogei.com/Ronbun/MEaCTRoMP.pdf
をクリックしてください）
以上。
