"But, alas, not a person yet"

Boris Shalyutin , Dokt, discusses the cognitive distance between a person and the highest monkeys. Philos. Sciences, professor, vice -rector of the Institute for the Development of Education and Social Technology (Kurgan).

1. Rene, you're wrong

It is clear that this cannot be
But it is, it exists, this is a fact!
Leonid Andreev

In the XVII century, the great mathematician Rene Descartes presented the whole physical world by the manifestation of simple mathematical functional dependencies. All that exists, including plants and even animals, turned out to be only mechanical bodies, processes and systems. Only human souls, thinking and free, remained outside this long, deprived of the thinking of the automatic kingdom. The strict beauty and fantastic effectiveness of the formulas of mathematics contributed to the fact that in the world of science this strange philosophy turned out to be a universal faith, which began to undress only after a couple of centuries. Gradually, a lot of sensitive blows accumulated, especially in relation to the highest animals, and by 1960 it, in general, remained in the past. But no one could have occurred to anyone how much Descartes was mistaken. Complete the modern primatologist incognito tell colleagues from that time about the possibilities of anthropoid monkeys, he would be raised to laugh. In the past half a century, a grandiose revolution has occurred in primatology, little comparable in the entire history of science. A brief overview of some of its most important achievements will begin with cognitive (cognitive) abilities.

In the experiment of France de Vaal, a narrow vertical pipe was installed in front of the chimpanze of Lisa, partially filled with water. On the surface - peanuts that it cannot reach. Having made sure of this, Lisa runs into the next room, dials water in a drinker in her mouth and, returning, pours into a pipe. Several repetitions - and she has peanuts. Of the eight -year -old children, only 58%solved this problem.

Ayumu chimpanze, Petzuro Matsuzawa, a pet, applies to the screen. Before him, randomly disposed numbers from one to nine, on which he, fulfilling the task, quickly and accurately presses in the order of increasing. The next time after several touch, the numbers are closed with white squares, but Ayuma accurately brings the matter to the end. Once from time to time, the numbers are reduced, up to 0.21 seconds. Looking through the video of the experiment, I barely have time to make out that the numbers are on the screen. But Ayuma again brilliantly copes with the task. Not a single person could do this.

In December 2013, Non Human Right Project, the Non Human Right Project, filed a lawsuit against the chimpanze of Tommy in defense of his right to bodily freedom. In this lawsuit, which under the oath of written testimony was supported by primatology stars Jane Gudoll, Sueh-Rambo, Tetsuro Matsuzawa and many others, it is stated that the chimpanzees have an autobiographical “I”, the ability to mental movement in time, self-awareness and self-knowledge, understanding of causal and investigative ties, etc.

It is clear that the monkeys need cognitive abilities not to defend dissertations, but to build behavior. In nature, they are most clearly manifested in gun activities. Since the long -standing, when J. Goodol opened that the monkeys make “fishing rods” for fishing termites, it was possible to establish that all the chimpanzees that live up to one on Earth have been practicing a system of diverse instrumental activity on Earth, so large -scale that without it they are not able to provide survival. Several examples. In the senegale of chimpanzees, spears are made to hunt the small primates of Galag. In Gabon, they use a set of five (!) Types of guns: a pestle (a thick stick for hacking the entrance to the hive), a drill (they pierce the hive to get to the separation with honey), the expander (to expand the passage), the collector (sticks with a split end to get honey) and brushes (a piece of cortex to clean it). As can be seen from the study of stone-cutting guns recently found in the cat-d'Ivoire, the so-called “stone age of chimpanzees” began at least 4,300 years ago and the corresponding technology was non-generatively broadcast over the course of more than 200 generations.

Numerous experiments show that symbolization and very complex and various generalizations, usually considered as the basis of the language, are available to the highest monkeys. In 1969, Allen and Beatrix Gardner shocked the professional community, telling about the development of Wausho chimpanzees the foundations of AMSELEN (American dumb language). Today, the wards S. Savejambo Bonobo Kanzi and Panbanish possess hundreds (at least, possibly several thousand) words, in addition to Ammonen use a specially created language of lexigrams (a certain analogue of hieroglyphs) Yerkish, understand oral English speech, complex syntactic constructions, and mastering elementary letters.

No less impressive studies of mutual behavior of hominoids. In the book of F. de Vaal “Politics of Chimpanzees: Power and Sex at Primates” (1982), the history of the struggle for power in the Chimpanzee community living on the island in the Arnem zoos in the Netherlands was analyzed. It turned out that the main role here is not the physical strength, but the ability to recruit supporters. At the same time, the males form and break both general unions and “contracts” on certain aspects of relations, can jointly undermine the authority of competitors, are able to create “agents of influence” by bribes, maintaining power for years. Such strategies are developed by leaders independently and significantly different in different groups. The end of the plot is the murder of an alpha male united by the beta and gamma samers, who formed the Duumvirate after that.

Today it is established that the alpha male in the chimpanzees not only receives benefits from his position, but ensures compliance with mutual behavior standards. The very identification of the existence of norms in the communities of higher monkeys is the largest discovery, since the norms are stable forms of behavior, which, however, are not biologically predetermined, respectively, can be violated by the individual, from where the need for special mechanisms for maintaining them. The presence of such complex ways of building behavior was previously associated exclusively with a person. The norms functioning in the chimpanzee communities are still waiting for their classification, but a significant part of them ensures a decrease in the level of aggression in the group. It is important that the norms are not established by “power”, and if the alpha male himself tries to violate them, he meets the aggressive joint rebuff of the group.

In the works of recent years, de Vaal showed that empathy plays in the group life of chimpanzees and especially a bonobobobo, an enormous role (in primatology this term is almost synonymous with empathy). Here is one of the mass of examples: “Lody generally patronized many, including a female named Kitty. She was blinded and deaf from old age and could easily get lost in a building full of doors and tunnels. In the morning, Lody carefully brought her to his favorite sunny place on the grass, and by the end of the day he woke up to spend his hand back into the house. ” The peaceful order of life is supported, in addition to empathy, resolving conflicts with high -ranking individuals, punishments of the perpetrators (sometimes after a while, if impossible), “social economy of intercom” for everything: food, sex, grooming, and support in a fight. Undoubtedly, an important role is played by an experimentally revealed sense of justice, up to failure of remuneration, if others do not receive it.

2. Hominid - it sounds proud, or glove from de Vaal

And for the fifth time ... So am I more beautiful ?
Natalia Reznik

Do not think that you are special.
The law of Yante

Every scientific revolution seriously affects the worldview, to talk about fantastic discoveries regarding our closest animals of relatives. Drummers and working with them in a bunch (so that often do not distinguish borders) ethologists, psychologists, linguists, etc., although not absolutely, but almost universal position for their scientific community.

The comprehension of phenomenal cognitive achievements was in the statement of "... the absence of a gap in the cognitive abilities of a person and humanoid monkeys" (Zoya Zorina, Anna Smirnova). “... chimpanzees can surpass people in solving cognitive problems. Many still retain the naive faith that people surpass other animals in all intellectual areas. This is not true. Each species has developed its own unique way to adapt to the environment ” (Matsuzawa). “I consider the human mind as a variant of the animal mind” (de Vaal).

Under the influence of the study of tools, the primatologists reduced the culture , translating it from the prerogative of a person into an inherent system inherent in the highest animal system of non -generally broadcast behavior.

The struggle for power in chimpanzees is characterized as a policy; The behavior based on empathy is as interpersonal morality . “Morally binds them and helps to form an acceptable way of life,” says de Vaal, who, in addition to political and ethical, also legal terminology: for example, prescribing rules , legal coercion . Since law, morality and politics - system -forming regulators of a developed society, does not surprise its resume: "The social organization of chimpanzees is so reminiscent of human that it is barely believed to be believed."

So. Hominoids have a culture close to a person with cognitive abilities and a social organization, including politics, elements of morality and law. Accepting this as parcels, in conclusion we get: the traditional ideas “On the qualitative uniqueness of a person” (Marina Butovskaya), “On the abyss that separates a person from the rest of the animal world” (Zorina, Smirnova) are insolvent; In general, “people are one of the species in the animal kingdom” (Matsuzawa).

In November 2017, John Richardson, Executive Director of Blackstone Ranch Institute, formulated a great question in an interview with de Vaal: “For many years you have done a huge job to establish and explain the community of our behavior with other types, primarily primates. What is your biggest message [Message] of the human audience? ” The answer of an undoubtedly outstanding scientist, perhaps today, is the number one primatologist and at the same time the banner of the “primatological philosophy” is frank: “I believe that the main message is addressed to those who work in the field of humanities, psychology, social sciences, business, philosophy, etc., because they very often proceed from the assumption that a person is special and incomparable with other types, while I I think that people are animals and in many ways we act like animals. Even in the fact that we are most impressive regarding us, like morality and culture, we can draw parallels with other species. We all have a common evolutionary background, and I want to shake the humanitarian sciences and anthropology, which live in this illusory, dodarvin world, which, in my opinion, is more religious than scientific. I want them to understand that we are essentially [Basically] animals. "

3. The annexation of the dictionary?

The most important characteristic of scientific revolutions is a change in knowledge about nature included in the language ...
Distortion or breakdown of a previously accepted scientific language is the most important indicator of the scientific revolution.
Thomas Kun

“When I take a word, it means what I want, no more and no less,” Shaloti said contemptuously.
“The question is whether it will obey you,” Alice said.
Lewis Carroll

The primatological revolution is more likely to pushes that people are animals, but to the fact that some animals are people, because we are not talking about explaining the world of people through natural science tools, but about the opposite process. When Guddollah informed her mentor Luis Lika about the opening of the guns at the chimpanzees, he said: “Now we must reconsider either the concept of“ tool ”or the concept of“ man ”, or consider chimpanzees by people.” The logic of the last option is behind the influential movement for the provision of hominoids of some human rights, and the Saedge-Rambo considers the position in which we call bonobo and chimpanzees to animals, and ourselves by people, a biased way of thinking.

The primatological revolution partially integrated the tools of humanitarian science: its own names instead of numbers of individuals, attention to unique events, fundamental and previously prohibited anthropomorphism. In the framework of this that difficult to break through the method of methodological diffusion, which allowed to adequately describe the world of higher monkeys, the attempt to “raider seizure” of a number of the most important humanitarian categories caused by the insufficiency of the usual dictionary. The human border descends "down", including at least chimpanzees and bonobo. And if the entire humanitarian dictionary here had not lost its significant content , this would confirm the lack of qualitative differences between a person and the highest hominoids. However, the situation is different. The analysis of why, for example, for the concept of culture, such an extension is legitimate, but for politics, rights and morality , it will allow you to see high -quality, including cognitive, the specifics of a person in comparison even with bonobo and chimpanzees, for which we are closest relatives.

If we continue in the humanitarian tradition to cling to the definition of culture through a person, then the question cannot be posed about its presence in other creatures. Without culture, even more developed, but unlike us aliens, which is absurd.

In inanimate nature, at the level of Macrome, the basic units of being are individual bodies: this stone, a piece of clay, etc. In the world of the living, otherwise: the body of an individual is only a “flash drive”, on which a program of vital activity is recorded and multi -stage (in animals - including behavior). Blended in many coexisting “flash drives” and transmitted by the new, until the old ones begin to crumble, it is unique for each biological species. In other words, here the basic unit is a type, that is, a unique, genetically recorded program (law) of behavior.

Protagor first realized that a person lives "not by nature." Kinji Imanisi, the author of a new understanding of culture, translated Protagora into a modern language. Culture blurs a natural species genetically recorded law as a basic unit of being and thereby bringing being beyond nature. But culture could arise only inside nature - from the ephemeral intermediary between individuals and the medium it developed into the system -forming environment, which sets a new vector of mental and physical evolution. It is such an interpretation of culture that explains the mechanism of overcoming nature, which otherwise would have to be recognized as a miracle.

As for politics, in social science it is understood as an expression in the system of institutionally organized centralized power of the interests of various social groups . The political structure is nadile and correlates with the social structure of society. For more than ten thousand years, centralized power, so that even the Homo sapiens sapiens society did not know politics for tens of thousands of years. Chimpanzees do not only have politics, but also its much earlier prerequisites - the social structure, since all intra -group relations are exclusively interinjudic character. The logic of political and standing social relations behind them is fundamentally different than the interinuum. The latter play a purely subordinate role in politics.

Societies are initially socially structured, since the dual unions of groups arise that previously considered each other to be destroyed by non -humans. The conflict of individuals from different halves is not resolved by reconciliation (as inside each, where, as in the chimpanzees groups, reconciliation restores impaired emotional connection), and replacing the power clash by the rational procedure for establishing the perpetrators and determining the punishment. The formation of this judicial procedure, proceeding according to certain procedural norms, that is, the formation of law , is a condition for the emergence of the Union itself. The conflict inevitably turns out not to be interinced, but social, since each of its participants is not just an individual, but a personification of his half.

As for morality , de Vaal, although he uses ethical terminology, believes that it only grows out of empathy (I mention that this idea was brilliantly argued by Schopenhauer in the 19th century), and the monkeys lack moral thoughts to genuine moral subjects. Meanwhile, the genesis of the latter is again associated with the social structure. Since empathy arises primarily in relation to “its own”, dual self -identification (and it is already in the first societies, since half of exogamous inevitably gives rise to situations when empathy acts “for the gap”. Внутренне раздираемые индивиды не имеют механизма разрешения такого рода ситуаций на эмоционально-эмпатическом уровне, вследствие чего и формируется рациональный моральный выбор.

4. О постприродном необществе и эмпатическом познании

Ты иглой орудовала рьяно,
Не сводя с меня мохнатых век.
Ты была уже не обезьяна,
Но, увы, еще не человек.
Александр Мень

Это всё француз гадит.
Почтмейстер (Гоголь, «Ревизор»)

«Стена рухнула», — торжественно звучит многоголосая приматологическая оратория. Так вот, никакой стены между человеком и высшими обезьянами и не было, ибо стена невозможна, если нет соседства. Между ними — гигантское пространство, сегодня усилиями уничтожившего конкурентов Homo sapiens sapiens пустое, а некогда насыщенное живым движением, обусловившим, наряду с антропологической, колоссальную культурную и когнитивную эволюцию.

Постприродный мир , эмбриональную фазу которого можно представить благодаря современным шимпанзе, формируясь долго и постепенно, обрел собственную, принципиально отличную от природной логику развития и за миллионы лет подготовил предпосылки для сравнительно недавнего качественного скачка к способу существования, характерному для всех живущих сегодня на Земле людей, — к обществу.

Сегодня широко признана концепция социального интеллекта, считающая главным фактором интеллектуальной эволюции внутригрупповое межиндивидуальное взаимодействие, породившее способности обманывать, распознавать обман, строить связи, способствующие «карьере» и т. п. При этом почти вне поля глубокого исследования приматологов осталась связь социального интеллекта и эмпатии. And in vain.

Эмоция, как известно, не просто энергетический выброс в его внутреннем восприятии субъектом. Это сила, направляющая к действию (гнев — к нападению, страх — к бегству, и т. п.), поэтому эмпатическое вчувствование позволяет прогнозировать поведение, что и составляет когнитивное содержание этой простейшей формы эмпатического познания. Более сложная форма позволяет прогнозировать и моделировать уже внеситуативное поведение: в психику субъекта как бы водружается (термин Фрейда) другой индивид, с которым есть опыт эмпатического взаимодействия. Обе эти формы, доступные высшим обезьянам, и позволяют строить сложнейшее внутригрупповое поведение.

Третья, сегодня присущая только человеку форма — обобщенный водруженный другой — позволяет прогнозировать поведение надындивидуального субъекта или входящего в него индивида. Воспринимая во время войны кого-либо как врага, представителя нейтральной стороны или своего, человек строит разные поведенческие прогнозы, никак не связанные с физическими свойствами другого.

Становление этой третьей формы означает появление качественно новой, понятийной (рациональной) когнитивной системы, свободной от сенсорного «обременения». Первые понятия и есть такие обобщенные модели поведения, соотнесенные с надындивидуальными субъектами, не имеющими роста, веса, цвета и прочих чувственно воспринимаемых свойств. Изюминка новой когнитивной системы не в самом по себе обобщении, вполне доступном на сенсорном уровне, к которому и относятся все эксперименты на обобщение, как и на символизацию, у животных. Понятийное познание несенсорно , и эта базовая оппозиция абсолютно четко была осознана еще в Античности.

Освобождение от сенсорности не результат автономного когнитивного развития, а плоть от плоти эволюции постприродного мира. В постприродном мире носителями уникальных развивающихся систем предметной деятельности, коммуникации и взаимного поведения (базовыми единицами бытия) становятся не виды, а сообщества, каждое из которых — надындивидуальный субъект. Именно их фиксация и требует появления новых когнитивных единиц, создающих чистое рациональное познание. Последнее, впрочем, тоже функционирует в тесной связи с некими сенсорными комплексами, однако уже искусственными — конвенциональными знаками, первыми из которых, видимо, были специфические для каждого сообщества раскраска, нюансы одежды и т. п., аналогично современным субкультурам. Связь эта сложна и исследуется в рамках совсем другой, вполне классической, проблемы соотношения языка и мышления.

We will summarize. Великая приматологическая революция показала, что высшие обезьяны несопоставимо ближе к нам, чем это представлялось ранее. Но тезис об отсутствии качественных различий — психологически понятное, но ошибочное порождение эйфории успеха. Эволюционная теория познания, одним из основоположников которой был переоткрывший Канта подлинный знаток истории когнитивной мысли нобелевский лауреат Конрад Лоренц, исходит из того, что априорное для индивида является апостериорным для вида. Наряду с общим с высшими обезьянами эволюционным бэкграундом мы имеем и специфический — миллионы лет постприродного мира. В рамках последнего сформировались принципиально новые единицы бытия — не воспринимаемые сенсорно надындивидуальные субъекты. Их когнитивная фиксация потребовала формирования несенсорной познавательной системы. Человек рождается, не имея готовых понятий. Но он имеет их априорные формы, образовавшиеся в ходе постприродной эволюции и отсутствующие у обезьян. Сенсорный и первичный эмпатический интеллект обезьян могут качественно не уступать нашему. Но когнитивные системы, возникшие для обеспечения физического поведения, не могут обеспечить поведение в мире нефизических сущностей, составляющем нашу специфику. Мы можем восхищаться эйдетической памятью Аюму, но не спросим его мнения, например, о перспективах борьбы государства с наукой. Наша уникальная когнитивная система интегрирована в социальное поведение человека, во все основные механизмы социальной регуляции, которые, таким образом, кардинально отличаются от регуляторов взаимного поведения высших обезьян.

PS Гносеологически самое интересное здесь, пожалуй, состоит в том, что когнитивный инструментарий, сформировавшийся для того, чтобы обслуживать жизнь в постприродном и социальном мире, будучи обращенным и на саму природу, оказался ключом к ее подлинному познанию, позволил заглянуть под ее сенсорную рубашку, обнаружив и там фундаментальные сенсорно не фиксируемые, а лишь умопостигаемые сущности и отношения между ними (в том числе выражаемые законами науки), проявлением которых, как это понял еще Платон, выступает пространственно организованный и сенсорно воспринимаемый мир. Впрочем, это уже совсем другая тема.

Борис Шалютин