Response to Gallup et al.: Are rich interpretations of visual self-recognition a bit too rich?

摘要

In our article we distinguish between rich and lean interpretations of what it means to pass the mirror mark task [1]. In their response Gallup, Platek, and Spaulding reiterate their rich interpretation [2] and give us occasion to explain why we advocate a cautious, moderate perspective.We did not claim that 'mirror self-recognition has nothing to do with self-awareness'. When self-awareness is defined as the capacity to become the object of one's own attention, then it seems relevant to passing the mark test. Indeed, we presented evidence that children rapidly update their expectation about their appearance and concluded that 'those who pass may be said to be self-aware about what they currently look like'. However, we also cautioned that 'this need not mean that they are self-aware in other respects'. Gallup et al. , by contrast, assert that visual self-recognition entails self-awareness in a much broader sense, including awareness about one's own mental states and even about one's eventual death. Both the rationale and the evidence for such a rich interpretation are problematic.