Number 92 : May 1998 |
Possibility one (the popular belief) - Animals other than humans are not self-aware because they cannot recognise their own reflection in a mirror.
Possibility two (my original viewpoint) - Animals are self-aware because one’s own existence is the most obvious thing any creature can be aware of.
Question! Why is a macaque unable to realise that a reflection of itself is not another macaque when it can realise that a reflection of a crab is not another crab?
Possibility one (the established view) - the macaque has no concept of itself. The image cannot be its own image because it is not aware of itself as an object in the outside world. It has no objective imagination. It cannot visualise itself objectively.
BUT! Monkeys groom themselves! And each other! Where do they perceive the fleas as living? Fleas live in monkey fur! Monkeys know this and they don't like it. For monkeys to know that fleas live in monkey fur they must be aware of the existence of monkeys. They see other monkeys every day, these monkeys have the same fur that they do and the same flea problems. They treat other monkeys’ fleas the same as they treat their own. So how can they not realise that they are monkeys?
What’s more, the other monkeys behave in the same way that they do. And they can observe this behaviour. How can they possibly not perceive themselves as one of the other monkeys?
Monkeys have feelings! (as anyone who's ever been on the receiving end of an angry monkey will tell you). Monkeys can exhibit sympathy to the feelings of other monkeys. Would this not require them to perceive themselves as monkeys?
All this seems contrary to the established view but doesn't answer the question "Why is a macaque unable to realise that a reflection of itself is not another macaque?"
Possible solution! A monkey has never seen its own face. When it sees its reflection for the first time it's seeing its own face for the first time. BUT! ... It must know that it has a face. It sees other monkeys put food into their mouths, it puts food into its own mouth. It knows what a monkey’s face looks like and it knows that it’s a monkey. So how can it not realise that the reflection is a reflection of itself?
I know I said I would happily eat my words but upon trying I find them rather indigestible. The validity of your argument doesn't alter the validity of mine, however the two arguments do seem irreconcilable.
One final (if rather desperate) possibility does occur to me however. Perhaps the understanding of reflective surfaces varies from macaque to macaque. Seeing as you say that Gallup’s monkey, who couldn't figure out his own reflection after 2400 hours of mirror exposure, was a different individual to the ones who exhibited understanding of the reflections of food items, I can only guess that Gallup happened to be using a particularly stupid monkey.
I do definitely need to read this book though.
Rick Street