No, I just went through this popularization paper until I found the cautious statement that I was thinking enough to rebut your concerns. Obviously I should have finish the reading, as the end just contredicts the cautious statement I had refered to.
Now I understand how you came to this opinion. I won't defend Ramanchandran's view here, and can understand the upset part. I will just make you notice that it is the view of a single one, published in a pop science journal so that a certain amount of bullshiting is to be expected, and, more importantly, that's certainly not the view that led many scientists to be interested in mirror neurons.
For the human specificity, or for self-awarness as we were discussing earlier? You may state that idea for an understanding of the human specificity, but if you want to explain self-awarness using Vygotskean approach, you'll have to pretend that self-awarness is specific to humans. It was maybe possible to think that at Vygotsky time, but not now. That's why I said earlier that all Vygostkean's views regarding self-awarness are simply outdated. Of course, if there is a hidden jewel that can escape this critic, I'll be glad to hear it. But no, I won't trust your word up to consider my homework is to search for something that has all reasons not to exit in the first place.