Research in recent years has revealed unexpected abilities in monkeys to use "tools" and "language."
For a long time already, the use of special tools and instruments to achieve a particular goal is not considered a distinctive feature of "Homo sapiens". At the same time, the tools were used not only by our ancestors, such as the Neanderthals attributed to a separate species - the species of great apes that are now living close to us are also capable of this. Even during the First World War, German psychologist Wolfgang Koehler demonstrated in epoch-making experiments the ability of chimpanzees to get banana cages suspended from the ceiling, using for this purpose stacked boxes as a stand and a stick as a "tool". At the same time, according to Koehler, the chimpanzee first develops an image of the final, desired situation (a monkey somehow lifted up to the bananas), and only then, in accordance with this image, or gestalt,chimpanzees begin to think about "handy" (or "underhand") means, which may be the boxes that happen to be nearby, or maybe something else. So, one day a researcher, patiently sitting in a cage and waiting for another great ape - an orangutan - to give birth to a gestalt (Kohler's classic experiments were repeated many times), felt the touch of his front hand on his shoulder, - the orang led him along, put it under the bananas and took them out by climbing onto his shoulders!felt the touch of his front hand on his shoulder, - the orang led him along, put under the bananas and took them out, climbing onto his shoulders!felt the touch of his front hand on his shoulder, - the orang led him along, put under the bananas and took them out, climbing onto his shoulders!
Here we are dealing with a kind of foresight and construction of the desired situation. Moreover, it is observed only in higher monkeys - the lower ones, such as monkeys or macaques, are not capable of this, and their reaction is limited to stereotypical actions repeated to exhaustion (jumping, throwing around the cage, etc.) However, the planning of actions and the choice of tools are limited in Kohler's experiments the situation "here and now", which gave reason to say: between how the tools are used by a person, and how - by his relatives - there is a real abyss. In one case, the use of tools occurs on a long-term and conscious basis, in the other, it is situational and random. All the more interesting are the experiments reported on May 19, 2006 by the journal Science: great apes chose, preserved and transferred tools from place to place, counting,that they will need them in the future!
The study was carried out by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig and the Center for Primate Research at the same institute. Monkeys - 5 orangutans and 5 bonobos pygmy chimpanzees - were placed in the room along with a special, difficult to open container with food, they were also given a set of various tools, some of which - two out of eight - could be used to open the container. After the monkeys managed to get into the container and get food, they, along with all the tools, were transferred to another room. But when the monkeys were allowed to return back, they did not take with them all the tools, but only the necessary ones, and with further repetition of the experiment they did this almost without error. Thus, they did not behave like an amateur amateur, ready to drive a nail with the butt of an ax, a stone,volume of the "Great Soviet Encyclopedia", but rather, as a professional master, leaving "on site" with the tools that, as he knows, he will definitely need.
Anthropomorphic metaphors inevitably come to mind, since fellow citizens who grew up in the Soviet Union remember well the depressing slogan “labor created man” and F. Engels's work “The role of labor in the process of turning a monkey into a man,” from which the slogan was taken. (Soviet people studied and outlined the long-obsolete work of Engels both at school and at the institute, and in the evening universities of Marxism-Leninism - truly Sisyphean work!) But here's a striking fact - although great apes are capable of using tools in accordance elaborated and rather complex plan, he rarely uses tools in nature, as the authors of the publication in Science note. And this means that a high level of intelligence could not develop in them "in response" to tool activity.
Talking monkeys
Perhaps we are dealing with a certain "excess" of intellectual powers that are not used in "everyday life." And this is in good agreement with the fact that gorillas and chimpanzees are capable of assimilating human speech, while in nature their forms of communication are infinitely more primitive. In the course of experiments that have been going on for several decades, American psychologists and primatologists have managed to teach experimental gorillas and chimpanzees several hundred human words (in the case of the Coco gorilla, the number of words has already exceeded a thousand!). Since the monkeys cannot speak because of the special device of the larynx, the American alphabet for the deaf-mute "Ameslan" was used for training. It is fundamentally important that the monkeys did not copy the statements of the trainers, but built their own syntactic constructions consisting of different words and constructed new ones,the words and concepts they need (for example, "eye-hat" - in response to the first seen mask). How subtle the understanding of human speech can be in chimpanzees and gorillas can be judged by the following experience. A tomato was placed in front of the monkey, and another was placed in the microwave. If the monkey said: "Go to the microwave and take a tomato," then most often she took a tomato from the microwave, but sometimes she took it with her from the table and carried it to the oven. The instruction “Go to the microwave and take a tomato from it” has always been understood unambiguously.then most often she took a tomato from the microwave, but sometimes she grabbed it from the table and carried it to the oven. The instruction “Go to the microwave and take a tomato from it” has always been understood unambiguously.then most often she took a tomato from the microwave, but sometimes she grabbed it from the table and carried it to the oven. The instruction “Go to the microwave and take a tomato from it” has always been understood unambiguously.
Promotional video:
The first successful attempts to communicate with monkeys using gestures date back to the 17th century, and in the 1960s. Alain and Beatrice Gardner taught the chimpanzee Washaw the American version of the deaf and dumb language: she mastered 132 characters and could build phrases of up to 5 words from them.
Congenital gestures and signals
And at the same time, in the wild, the fantastic speech abilities of great apes are practically "not in demand." But what if you get the monkeys to fuck in the language of the deaf and dumb among themselves - for example, females with cubs? The latter has long been a "blue dream" of specialists, which has so far come true only in science fiction novels (such as "Congo" by M. Crichton), which is largely due to the high cost of great apes.
But all this prompts a more general conclusion. Some abilities - such as the ability to speak or "work" - we still, in spite of the accumulating facts, we consider the exclusive property of man, his "diagnostic feature" that allows us to objectively justify the boundary - which separates us from all other species living on Earth … However, these abilities do not appear "suddenly" neither in man nor in his ancestral forms, but rather "smeared" over a much wider set of species - even those that have a very, very distant relationship to man and his ancestors. And in this sense, another recent study, undertaken not in a laboratory setting, but in the wild African nature, is indicative. Scientists from the Scottish University of Saint-n-drews have establishedthat one of the species of monkeys (in terms of intellectual abilities, monkeys, like all lower monkeys, are much farther from great apes than those from humans) - can, apparently, construct new statements from "ready-made" innate signals. These monkeys (so-called "mono monkeys") live in the jungle in groups: 1 male surrounded by 12-30 females with cubs. When a leopard approaches, the male gives a series of identical sound signals. When a crowned eagle appears, he warns the females by repeating another signal. By giving the first signal, the male orders the females to flee, and giving the second - to hide: the eagle attacks from above, and flight would only make the monkeys more visible and accessible prey. These signals are used by absolutely all groups, but in some groups, males use their combination when a leopard approaches, - a series of signals,consisting of antonymic pairs "run away-hide!". With the help of global navigation devices, it was possible to establish: the "mixed" series ("run away, hide!") Encouraged the animals to run away faster and further than just "run away!" And if the data is confirmed, and the composite signals are not innate (that is, not inherent in all monkeys), then this will mean only one thing: male monkeys are able to arbitrarily combine innate signals, creating new meanings and teaching them to their group - remember, in particular, the compound word "eye-hat" invented by the gorilla. But for monkeys, this alone is an intellectual miracle. And if the data is confirmed, and the composite signals are not innate (that is, not inherent in all monkeys), then this will mean only one thing: male monkeys are able to arbitrarily combine innate signals, creating new meanings and teaching them to their group - remember, in particular, the compound word "eye-hat" invented by the gorilla. But for monkeys, this alone is an intellectual miracle. And if the data is confirmed, and the composite signals are not innate (that is, not inherent in all monkeys), then this will mean only one thing: male monkeys are able to arbitrarily combine innate signals, creating new meanings and teaching them to their group - remember, in particular, the compound word "eye-hat" invented by the gorilla. But for monkeys, this alone is an intellectual miracle.
So what's next?
Does it follow from what has been said that the differences between species are surmountable and that one day a man can be raised from a monkey, and a lower ape can be gradually turned into a higher one? Of course no. The transformation of species is based, among other things, on long-term selection, which cannot be replaced by training. The significance of the experiments described here is not practical - how to educate a man from a monkey, but from a bear a hammer (remember A. Platonov's "Foundation Pit") - but, first of all, philosophical. The fact that other species have typically human abilities, or at least their inclinations, allows the organic world to be seen not as one "branch" or "main line" of development, but rather as a kind of giant plant with many points of growth.- For historically random reasons, it is “our” shoot and only one (there are trees with two trunks or tops!) That grew higher than the rest. Otherwise, other species could "grow" to the level of the language and the public independently of us.
We somehow forgot that science can be not only a source of useful practical inventions and curious details about the world around us, but can also change our worldview.
Contrasting man and all other species
This opposition is closely related to the idea of a “simple” diagnostic trait (for example, it has long been considered the ability to speak). But since there is no such diagnostic feature, the opposition itself turns into a tautology (“man is not an animal,” “an animal is not a man”). Now we can talk about differences, even if very deep, but not about the "abyss", not about a binary opposition. The danger of dualism lies in the fact that, taken "at face value", it is able to subjugate our thoughts and actions no worse than a different ideology. According to one of the versions of the categorical imperative of I. Kant, we should treat other people as a goal and never as a means, but it is permissible to treat animals as a means (excessive and unnecessary cruelty to animals is condemned by Kant solely becausewhich hardens the human heart). But then what about the amazing intellectual abilities of great apes, are they “animals”? In the most recent years, medical experiments on gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons have been officially banned in England and New Zealand, although other countries do not pay attention to the ban. But what happened under the influence of new discoveries in England and New Zealand is apparently only the beginning; the Kantian opposition of man as a "end" and other species as "means" can be safely put an end to, it must be replaced by a much more nuanced ethical code, in which there must be a place not only for man as a simple opposite of the "animal", but for different species with different intellectual abilities. But then what about the amazing intellectual abilities of great apes, are they “animals”? In the most recent years, medical experiments on gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons have been officially banned in England and New Zealand, although other countries do not pay attention to the ban. But what happened under the influence of new discoveries in England and New Zealand is apparently only the beginning; the Kantian opposition of man as a "end" and other species as "means" can be safely put an end to, it must be replaced by a much more nuanced ethical code, in which there must be a place not only for man as a simple opposite of the "animal", but for different species with different intellectual abilities. But then what about the amazing intellectual abilities of great apes, are they “animals”? In the most recent years, medical experiments on gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons have been officially banned in England and New Zealand, although other countries do not pay attention to the ban. But what happened under the influence of new discoveries in England and New Zealand is apparently only the beginning; the Kantian opposition of man as a "end" and other species as "means" can be safely put an end to, it must be replaced by a much more nuanced ethical code, in which there must be a place not only for man as a simple opposite of the "animal", but for different species with different intellectual abilities.are they "animals"? In the most recent years, medical experiments on gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons have been officially banned in England and New Zealand, although other countries do not pay attention to the ban. But what happened under the influence of new discoveries in England and New Zealand is apparently only the beginning; the Kantian opposition of man as a "end" and other species as "means" can be safely put an end to, it must be replaced by a much more nuanced ethical code, in which there must be a place not only for man as a simple opposite of the "animal", but for different species with different intellectual abilities.are they "animals"? In the most recent years, medical experiments on gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons have been officially banned in England and New Zealand, although other countries do not pay attention to the ban. But what happened under the influence of new discoveries in England and New Zealand is apparently only the beginning; the Kantian opposition of man as a "end" and other species as "means" can be safely put an end to, it must be replaced by a much more nuanced ethical code, in which there must be a place not only for man as a simple opposite of the "animal", but for different species with different intellectual abilities.although in other countries the ban is not paid attention. But what happened under the influence of new discoveries in England and New Zealand is apparently only the beginning; the Kantian opposition of man as a "end" and other species as "means" can be safely put an end to, it must be replaced by a much more nuanced ethical code, in which there must be a place not only for man as a simple opposite of the "animal", but for different species with different intellectual abilities.although in other countries the ban is not paid attention. But what happened under the influence of new discoveries in England and New Zealand is apparently only the beginning; the Kantian opposition of man as a "end" and other species as "means" can be safely put an end to, it must be replaced by a much more nuanced ethical code, in which there must be a place not only for man as a simple opposite of the "animal", but for different species with different intellectual abilities.in which there should be a place not only for humans as a simple opposite of the "animal", but for different species with different intellectual abilities.in which there should be a place not only for humans as a simple opposite of the "animal", but for different species with different intellectual abilities.
K. Russians. “Interesting newspaper. The world of the unknown”№5 2008