Why do not monkeys talk? If a person happened from the monkey, then why modern monkeys no longer evolve

Higher nervous activity Homo Sapiens. It is noticeably superior to its diversity and the possibilities of the highest nervous activity of other species, in particular the evolutionarly closest monkeys. But is it a great difference? High-quality it (that is, people know how to some things that monkeys do not know how in principle) or quantitative (that is, everyone knows how to approximately the same thing, only people think faster, better and know how to think more thoughts at the same time)?

Studies of recent time show that in reality the situation is closer to the second option, although it was not always considered.

Especially significant in this sense, the development of events in the field of training monkeys speak. The first such attempts were undertaken in the first half of the 20th century. But the case did not go further the pair of words. At some point, the hypothesis was put forward that the snag in the unsuitability of the speech apparatus of monkeys to human speech. Approximately simultaneously it became known that in the wild, communicating among themselves, man-like monkeys use gestures. After that, several independent scientists have made attempts to teach man-like monkeys with gesture languages. Others tried to teach monkeys to speak through a computer interface. In these experiments, certain successes were achieved. The smartest animals could boast of the vocabulary of about 500 (gestured) words. They could combine gestures to designate concepts for which gestures did not know, could think abstract to a certain extent, and even used in speech by metaphors. One female Bonobo taught her young gestures that knew. On average, if you abstract from the inability of monkeys to master the self-separated sound speech, their intelligence was at the level of 2-3 children.

Last week, two studies confirming that some abstract concepts of man-like monkeys perceive almost like people. One of these works is devoted to negative and positive ways of filing facts, and more - curiosity.

It has long been known that the perception by a person of information depends on whether it is submitted in a positive or negative key. That is why marketer methods of type "We first raise prices, and then declare discounts" are effective. In one study, for example, it was shown that people more often recommend a medical procedure to friends if the doctors talk about it that the probability of success is 50% than when doctors say that the probability of failure is 50%. Although it is absolutely the same.

It turned out that the thinking of this type is characteristic and monkeys. In the experiment conducted in the Congo, those who live in the Monkey Reserve: 23 chimpanzees and 17 bonobo. In the first series, the experimental monkeys were offered to choose a treat: a handful of nuts or a piece of fruit. If the animal chose a fruit, in half the cases he was given the second same piece. In the second series, they were offered to choose from handusty of nuts and two pieces, but in half cases, if the monkey chose a fruit, one was not given away. That is, from a mathematical point of view, in both experiments it was the same choice: a handful of nuts against a hundred-member piece of fruit. But it turned out that in the first series of monkey experiments, fruits were often chosen, and in the second - nuts. It turns out that the animals perfectly understood the rules of the game, and at the same time the prospect of obtaining an extra piece seemed more attractive to them than to lose already promised - even with the same end result, pleasant surprises even for monkeys are more pleasant to unpleasant, even when they do not affect anyone.

In the second study, scientists tried to understand whether monkeys are curious, and how much they are willing to pay for their curiosity. In the experiment, animals participated in a kind of lottery and could choose: to get a greater gain, but learn whether they won, only after a while, or get a little winnings, but learn the result right now. On average, the subjects were ready to reduce their gains of 25% for the sake of an immediate response.

Both of these properties: the preference of a positive context and curiosity is largely inherent in people. But it turns out that not only. In general, we tend to consider many manifestations of the highest nervous activity inherent exclusively to representatives of our species. It seems that this presentation will have to refuse. Yes, we form faster and better monkeys, but the same things are based on the same thing. Perhaps some of these things will be able to detect both more primitive species than monkeys.

Recent studies have proven - the abyss between animals and man is not so great, as it seemed before. It turned out that the ability to languages \u200b\u200band logical thinking By no means a monopoly of people, learn to talk can and a monkey. However, these discoveries do not answer the question: what is the uniqueness of our mind? As the old ideas are destroyed, this question is becoming more and more difficult.

The Dalya dictionary believes that the mind is "spiritual force that can remember, think, apply, compare and conclude." And also that this is the "the ability of the right, consistent clutch of thoughts ...". But today it is already obvious that in most these items some animals do not differ much from humans. It seriously shakeped the ideas about the boundaries of the human mind that existed earlier.

Even at the beginning of the twentieth century, the experiments of the German psychologist Wolfgan Keler clearly proved: animals are not just living machines that are completely subordinated to the instincts-programs in them. When the experimental monkey did not work off the banana stick or simply reach him, she thought for a while, and then put one on another scattered around the box and climbed on them. It turned out that animals can decide in the mind of the tasks and develop new behaviors. Later it was also proven that animals have good memory - for example, houses can memorize the location of the items in the room.

But even greater breakthrough happened to the seventies, when the works of Alain and Beatris Gardner, who learned the animal to talk to the real scientific sensation. Over the forty-three years of their lives, their chimpanzees, Washo mastered about 250 words on the ammsna - the American deaf and dumb language. Moreover, the monkey not only repeated gestures after people, but also speculated them by constituting their own phrases. So, one of the farm workers, where she dwells, Washo called "dirty jack", independently guessing the use of adjective "dirty" as an insult. In fact, she showed the beginnings of creative abilities.

Subsequently, it turned out that monkeys are able to master up to two thousand words, can play on the computer and even care for pets. Gorilla Coco solves the test tests and shows a high level of solution comparable to the level of average person.

At the same time, the observations showed that in nature the monkeys communicate with each other with the help of their own means of communication, and the dolphins are not only exchanged by complex signals, but also "invent" unique name-call names for each other.

And although the monkey brought up with people, mastering the simplified version of the human language, did not rise above the level of three-year-old children, it was shown the main thing - the ability to master the languages \u200b\u200band the logical understanding of reality are not a unique feature of a person.

"All animals adapt to the environment in which they get," a candidate of biological sciences of Varvara Meszyk says the head of the "Primate" department of the Moscow Zoo. - Experiments have shown that monkeys can really master the primitive language and even learn to play on the computer, but only if communication with the person they had a sufficiently dense and began at an early age. And at the same time we have reverse examples of the so-called Mowgli. All their stories ended tragically - none of them managed to become a full-fledged person. On the development of mental abilities and humans, and many animals, at least the highest mammals, the external environment has a great influence. If the child did not hear the human speech to three years, he will not learn to speak and cannot live in human society. Anthropoids reveal their potential "conversational" abilities in a special environment of communicating with a person, and in nature calmly cost them without them. The basis of thinking is the activity of neurons, which are equally arranged and working in a similar way in humans and animals. The man grows and forms two times longer a man-like monkey, because his brain is more difficult and he needs to master much more. "

It turns out, between the intelligence of a person and monkey there is no fundamental difference?

"Contemporary science is far from doing so radical conclusions," Candidate of Biological Sciences Elena Nakttszva believes that the animal behavior. - Of course, the higher animals can find the prerequisites for the formation of many of those abilities that man possesses. And perhaps the difference here is to the degree of their development. But still, although most of the mechanisms of behavior that animals can be found in humans, people are under the control of higher cerebral functions. It is probably that this top control distinguishes the behavior of a person from animal behavior. "

So what is this mysterious "highest control", which guides our existence? Why did he awaken in us the ability, "dormant" in animals, advan to create science, art and philosophy?

Modern science does not respond to these questions. After all, for this you need at least clearly understand the psychology and the course of animal thoughts, but it is not so easy to do it.

"Some scientists believe that it is impossible to study the psyche of animals, since the information on the sensations and" thoughts "of animals can only be obtained in an indirect way, because the dog can not be interviewed," says Elena Nakutseva. - We are still poorly understanding the logic of other living beings. "

Arguing about how exactly the animal thinks, we are to some extent trying to attach a tracker on it our own human logic. How much is the desire of an animal to correspond to the order of flocks comparable to the desire of a person to live according to the laws of his society? The attachment of the dog to a person is obvious, but is it possible to call it "love" or is it just submission to the main one in the stack? Do animals realize their own mortality? One thing is clear: such questions arise only in humans. A monkey can ask for a man's banana, but even the talking monkey will not put experiments on a person from a pure desire to truth. Our genuine interest in comprehending our smaller brothers is one of the evidence of our legal seniority.

Alexey Sokolov.

How scientified the Darwinian theory of origin of species?

Fight for non-existence

Russian schoolchildren once again celebrated the Day of Knowledge. From this very day, they will begin to study all the same unreformed Soviet school curriculum, which if in something and changed, except in part humanitarian Sciences... As for sciences of natural, there is truly amazing constancy. Schoolchildren who went to the seventh grade in September of the two thousandth year will accumulate the evolutionary theory of Darwin, as their parents are the same ancestors from which they occurred.

For God's sake, understand us correctly. No one calls to return to school the law of God (although such attempts were made to be made) or present to students of all kinds of pseudo-scientific hypotheses, which in such an abundance offers us modern home-grown occultism. From Blavat and Roerich, from every charlatancy school should be cleaned the most ruthless way. But the evolutionary theory of Darwin (although to call the theory this working hypothesis - it means it is quite a better to overpay) for a long time is no longer considered as the only one. Moreover: the last hundred years it was laid it, as no other fashionable hypothesis of those times. Darwin went from history even more than Marx. However, all this is not the same trouble and fewer nonsenses were driven into children's heads during the times of Soviet power - but, first of all, at the next change of the course, this nonsense was burned with Kalenny gland. No references to Trofim Lysenko and a minimum of information about Michurine - here's the result of the Khrushchev "thaw"; But then before the formation of someone else was the case and the program was equally delivered from rudiments and atavis. And secondly, the evolutionary theory of Darwin is a stage not only in the history of science, but, alas, and in the history of ethics. The struggle for the existence as the main engine of progress is bloodthirsty and dangerous error. Darwin very argument was objected by his contemporary, the famous Russian anarchist Kropotkin, on the basis of a huge actual material that concluded that in the animal world a mutual assistance was presented at no less than the notorious struggle. This combination is not only scientific - shocked the world not one decade, in the recent novel by Alexander Melikhov "Humpback Atlanta" it is described with almost detective fascination. The most discerning Russian philosopher Nikolay Lossky, relying on the facts collected by Kropotkin, built a whole alternative theory, according to which the only engine of progress looked good. In general, Soviet journalism was in vain sicked something about the most severe struggle for survival in capital countries. Darwinism was asleep soviet power - as an excuse for her countless atrocities. That's where the strongest survived! However, of course, not the strongest. Adapted.

Darwinian theory, announced the adaptation to the main condition for the survival required by virtue, was generally ideal for Soviet pedagogy. A man looked at Darwin exclusively cruel, cunning tweak, which feature of an evolutionary theory and illustrated recently Viktor Pelevin in the elegant story "Origin of species". There, Darwin in the Three "Beagle", on which he made his famous journey, kills a gigantic monkey with bare hands to prove her species over her superiority and justify the theory of struggle for existence. Long then spits wool. However, the facts are stubborn, and be a Darwinian theory of any evidence, it would have to come to terms with such a submission of human nature. Meanwhile, it is the actual confirmation of the main Darwinian conclusions in last years safely collapsed. This does not mean that the hypothesis is completely refuted. In the end, nothing more slim (except for a creature myth - hypothesis about creation) is not yet invented. This means only that it is impossible to present darwinism as a final truth today. It is necessary, finally, to explain to children that they did not happen from the monkey. Maybe it keeps them from some other nastiness.

Recall B. general features The main provisions of this theory, which so long ago was presented to our schoolchildren as the only and all-eligible. First, the matter has a property to be self-organization and self-rendered under the influence external powerThat is why more complex organisms are developing from less complex. Secondly, non-fatty matter seeks to become a living and continue to self-hold already in animate form. Finally, thirdly, living organisms have a property to adapt to life conditions. For the first time, this bright thought mastered Darwin, when he pointed the evolution of the beak of Galapagos Viskkov.

All would be good, but the trouble is: the types of living organisms that exist now are completely separate. That is, with a significant variability inside the species, they still never change so much to go from one species to another. Therefore, the main postulate of evolutionary theory is the variability of species - it is not checked experimentally. But, maybe something like this could happen in the former historical epochs, under the influence of cataclysms and is there anything else? Then Darwinists could have helped the archeology, but she was not in a hurry to help them. All one hundred and forty years, which have passed since the publication of the theory (1859), archaeologists have dug, like moles, day and night, without a lunch break, but did not go anything that could comfort Darwin. Especially summed up fellow Englishmen: London Geological Society and the Paleontological Association of England took a broad study of modern archaeological data, and this is what the head of this project John Moore said (by the way, also a professor of Michigan University): "About 120 specialists have prepared 30 heads of monumental work. .. Fossil plants and animals are divided into about 2500 groups. It was shown that each large form or form has a separate, special story. Groups of plants and animals suddenly appeared in the chronicles of minerals. Whales the bats, elephants, proteins, gophers are as different with their first appearance, like now. There is no trace of a common ancestor, even less visibility of transitional links with reptiles. "

Enlightened reader, if he did not quite still forgot school ProgramOf course, I will amaze. But what about transitional forms, monkeys, who are walking on the pages of Soviet (and at the base of their unchanged) textbooks of anatomy? Where are the children of all these Eoanthropes, Gesperopiteka, who generally turned out to be a pig, for was reconstructed on a pork tooth, Australopithek? Sinantropropa finally?

Yes, they do not need to give them anywhere. Because they were not in nature. There is no transitional link between monkey and man in the same way as we have no rudiment with you. There is a lot of science from Darwin Times: almost all organs that Darwin considered Rudimentary, that is, they have lost their functions, these functions have been successfully found. There are also at Appendix, and even Darwinov Bugorka, existing with us, if you remember, on the ear.

The long row of "monkey-like ancestors" was putting a picoantrop, invented by the Zolog of Ernst Henry Philip of August, Heckel, Professor of the University of Jen. To open Peteitrope, a scientist with long name It did not need to leave the native places: he simply came up with his "Eoanthrop" ("Man Dawn" - the time arising at the dawn, it became). The scientist of the world did not appreciate the heekkel, the scientific career was completely ended, and he devoted the rest of his life to the sermon of Social Darwinism in the working quarters. But a young Dutch doctor with a courageous and inspired face, not at all like a monkey, caught fire of Geekkelev's theory and decided to find Peteitertrop. The young scientist was called Dubois, and his task was extremely simple: to find the appropriate remains and correctly interpret them. What he did, having departed in Indonesia as a wolved surgeon of the colonial troops. In principle, such a self-sacrifice, nothing in common with mercantile motives would have to alert the Dubois himself, to make him assume that it was not a bodie and even more than one struggle for survival alive ... But Darwinism circled and not such heads.

Our hero arrived at the Malay Archipelago and began to find. There was nothing suitable on Sumatra. Soon, Dubua reaches a rumor about the human skull found on the island of Java. He moves there, finds another petrified skull on Java - but he is interested in the missing link, and he removes the skull for a while, and he continues the research of deposits. Soon he detects the fossil monkey tooth, and rushing another month, rushes on the cranial cap of the gibbon.

Note that Dubuy understood from the very beginning: the cover belongs to Gibbon. But in dreams he has already planted her on the skull of Peteitrontrop. He stumbled upon, however, on the bones of other representatives of the animal world, but this was worried about the least. The monkey part of the monkeeper was already found, it remained to find a human, preferably lower. Only in a year, when Dubois himself began to doubt the success of the enterprise, in fifteen (!) Meters from the skull covers found earlier there was a bertovaya bone. Human. Petetecanthroproprope was very hidden - not otherwise how he blew up. The owner of the bone was a woman, and the full and suffering from a serious bone disease, with which the animal would not stretch for a long time - and the fossil aunt lived a long life. This just testified to her belonging to the genus of the human, manifesting non-wingo taking care of his weak member. Dubua, however, all this was not embarrassed: He combined the gigantic effort to the tooth, the lid of the skull and the beam bone - and he turned out the famous "Yavansky man". Following four more human berth bones, discovered immediately, Dubua is waiting for a year and finally refers to the mainland a telegram that announces colleagues about the great opening. Conservatives did not understand anything and began to pester with questions: after all, on the site of the same excavations, the bones of crocodiles, hyenas, rhinos, pigs and even workers were discovered. Why was it not to grow a man's bone to the Hyien skull? A comparative anatomy, Professor Rudolf Virhov, spoke about the skull lid categorically: "This animal is most likely a giant gibbon, and the bertovaya bone has nothing to do with it." Of course, if the scientist knew the world about the planned human turtles, he would not speak seriously from Dubois at all. After all, this would testify that ancient man peacefully coexisted with his gigantic ancestor. But Dubois reliably stunned all other fossils. And yet, despite all the measures taken by him, scientific and social recognition, he did not achieve. Then the ambition fell from "ignorant colleagues" and only occasionally snarled in response to accusations. In a voluntary gate, he sat until 1920, until Professor Smith reported that he found the remains of the most ancient people on the territory of Australia. Here Dubuy could not stand - after all, he dreamed of entering the story as the discoverer! He found the most ancient skulls, and not some Smith! Then Dubua presented a stunned public and the remaining skulls, and other berth bones. No one expected this! The opener of the Yavansky man drove the public behind his nose! So the myth of the "Yavansky man" burst with a crash to be reborn on the pages of the works of Soviet scientists. Open the 1993 textbook, yes not simple, but for 10 - 11 classes, for schools with in-depth study of biology, - and you will learn that "Dutch anthropologist Eugene Dubua (1858 -1940) irrefutably proved the correctness of the theory of Ch. Darwin on origin a person from animals related to the highest monkeys. " We do not know how Dubois, but the textbook irrefutably proved that someone still wants to see some monkeys around him ... 1 insertion of Eoantrophop. This generally discovered strangely: all evidence of his belonging to the glorious tribe of monkeysminds went to Piltdown. As needed, we left the missing details of the jaws until they were taken to a full-fledged exhibit. Oxford experts surprisingly quickly recognized the authenticity of the find, the employees of the British Museum with suspicious hasty took all this for storage, and the anthropologists who studied the phenomenon of the Piltdown Man, were given only gypsum casts of the remains. For forty years, the scientific world lived with Eoanthropom, breathed and dreamly by Eoanthropom - until one day, 1953 did not collapse. Genuine bones of the Eoanthrop were provided for an analysis to fluorine anthropologists. In the British Museum, simply relaxed, and the Piltdown Find was immediately exposed as a fake! Almost modern jaw of Orangutan with "plug-in", slightly tinted teeth stick to the ancient human skull! The scientist of the world tears his hair. Hundreds of monographs, thousands of theses went the shock! That would be when Soviet scientists talk about the sales of bourgeois science. But Darwin was more expensive to us. A similar story happened to Synanthropic found from Chinese comrades. Fourteen leaky skulls without a single skeleton bone were interpreted as the remains of monkey-like ancestors. At the same time, no word said that they were found on an ancient factory for lime burning. Who would be interesting, she fought it there? Grasshoppers? Eared owl? Hardly. Most likely, ordinary Homo Sapires worked in the factory, which in their lunch break were traded by the brains "Sinantropra". And not a single bone was found to be found because the meat of the monkeys because of its stiffness is unsuitable in food - but the brain of them in many cultures is considered a delicacy. The holes in the population of "Synantrophov" are by no means evidence that their comrades were dealt with them throughout the rigor of revolutionary time. Thus thus removed monkey brains. Realizing that to do a similar operation with scientific world It will not be possible, the synantropological lobby found it for the benefit of losing the famous remains under unexplained circumstances. So there are no more traces of Sinantroph, except in Russian biology textbooks. In general, not a single scientifically proven fact of the transition from monkey does not exist. But the textbooks about this are silent - the upset of the evolutionary theory has long acquired a religious character. Darwin himself would envy his current followers: "I am confident that in this book there is hardly at least one point, to which the facts leading to the exact opposite conclusions cannot be selected," he wrote to the first edition of his "origin of species" . The sober all seems to be the current state of minds in domestic biology assessed by I.L. Cohen, leading researcher at the US National Archaeological Institute:

"To defend the theory of evolution is not the task of science. If in the process of impartial scientific discussion it will be found that the hypothesis about the creation of an external superflum is a solution to our problem, "let's put the umbilical cord that bind us with Darwin for so long. She shakes and delays us. "

And if the external superflum has nothing to do with it? So please. Show the facts, argue, prove. But for God's sake, do not prevent a schoolboy as the final truth is a rather controversial and offensive hypothesis that he has occurred from the monkey, and that, in turn, from infusori-shoes. And then the schoolboy may think three times before participating in the injury of the smartest in the classroom. And even the book is honored at leisure. And he will see in himself, finally, the likeness of some more merciful creature than giant gibbon ...

Magazine "Spark"
September 2000.
(reduced)

Although, of course, it depends on what you mean by "thinking". And by the way, what do you mean?

Climbed in the dictionary? Do not work, I already climbed, there is nothing there, except for "thinking - to direct your thoughts on anything" (Dictionary of Ozhegov). Okay, I will try to formulate myself.

"Think - means to make the right decisions about changing your life depending on environmental conditions"

Beautifully said? But it is useless - it is not "thinking", so all living organisms are coming - including completely brainless mushrooms, plants and bacteria. Ready-made knowledge of these creatures are sewn into their DNA (hereditary information), and judging by how tight bacteria, mushrooms and plants populate our planet - the knowledge-sewn in DNA do not lie.

"Think - use the knowledge gained during life" (and not the information laid down in DNA)

This definition is trying to split animals into two groups: clever (such as us, monkeys, dolphins ...) and Tickets that do not study anything, but only thoughtlessly fulfill the innate forms of behavior (instincts) laid in them. And what? We will not find such:

• first, any, even very primitive (according to our ideas) animals may learn,
• secondly, many "instinctive" things are actually purchased during his life,
• thirdly, animals perform their instincts not mindlessly, but just the opposite, very much dumuno.

May learn

If shaking test tube with infusorias, they "reflex" will be squeezed, and after a while they will disappear back. If you carry out such an operation 100-120 times, then before the infusories it will reaches that the shaking is not dangerous and they will stop compressing, and such a "learning" will remain in single-cell creation for half an hour. Since infusories do not have nervous system, it is completely unclear - in what place are they cells Can hide knowledge, skills and skills. However - hide: infusoria retain the trajectory of movement while transferring them from a triangular vessel into a round; held in an unlit part of the test tube if they are punished with current blows; And even increase the speed of passage in the curved tube (almost learning in the labyrinth!)*

If tap the tentacle actia Some not a particularly edible object, for example, a piece of paper impregnated with fish juice, then a stupid internally will send him to his mouth, thoughtfully pecks, and then spare. If we are for a long time feeding the acting paper, then on the sixth day she will understand, "that something is wrong," and stop the bait (this reaction will continue 10 days).

During his life

Very many things that were previously considered congenital, are actually the result of "bond learning". In the animal at a certain time, as it turns on the tape recorder, which writes sensations - and this record is then used when performing the most tough without conditional reflexes.

If the tape recorder turns on on very a short timeThis process is called "Imprinting" ("Imprinting"). Imprinting is most fully studied on the young birds and mammals - because the child is very important to remember appearance His mother, because it is she who will feed him and defend at first. So, most often the child has no congenital mother's imageBut there is a congenital team "Remember the very first impression."

• Newborn lambs and deer remember the voice and smell of the mother in the first half hour after birth. Providant moms at the same time are slightly behind the herd, to stay with their child alone - because inside the herd (where, undoubtedly, safer) the young can easily go to the roof from the abundance of "mothers."
• The range of objects that can cause the reaction to the reaction is very wide - from the matchbox to humans. By the way, the ducks are captured and individuals of the opposite sex. If they have them from early age in single chambers, then they will grow, will try to mate with people, absolutely no paying attention to other ducks.**

Dumuno

Instinct is "rigidly innate and stupidly executed" only in its own the last stageAs long as preparations for this very "last stage", animal behavior can be very flexible - based on the experience gained throughout life. (In the same way, for example, all genetic tasks are solved elementary automatically, and the most important problem for students is to correctly understand the condition, prepare raw materials for solving).

• Parrots-decendants in nature linse their nests with blades. When maintaining at home, instead of blades, they use narrow strips of paper, which are scented with a beak from a whole sheet of paper.
• Bobras - the most amazing builders among mammals - can create an extensive water mirror from a loose forest stream. The area is covered with a network of channels, moderately filled with water (the beavers are fused on them). Neither the complex relief, neither sandy or clay soil the premium is not a hindrance. Experts, considering the plans of beaver amelioration, in one voice, they say that every time the new, non-trivial and optimal solution is found, requiring not only considerable knowledge (they give them an instinctive program), but also deep creative thinking.***

Third attempt! Will be harsh in relation to animals !! Thousand Cheerry !!! "Think - it means to solve new tasks without prior learning."

Before presenting such wild beasts, let's experiment in humans. We collect 25 tenth-graders and give them new For them, tasks in mathematics, physics and chemistry, plus an hour on reflections. What will make the vast majority of students (24.95 people from 25)? Zamuchit-War will shout the phrase familiar to the teacher's ear: "We do not know how to do it, we did not solve this before! " Right? Agree: a person with great difficulty and reluctance solves new tasks, much easier for us write off - Find out how this task was solved earlier, other people.

On the other hand, of course, someone solved each task for the first time - as a new one. Anyone, if it feels like, is able to solve some new tasks for him. - How are things in animals?

Yes normally. Just let's clarify the phrase "without prior learning." To arguing, the animal (and it also treats a person) should accumulate a rather big luggage of knowledge about "surrounding items and laws that they interact", so it will not be completely without learning. For example, any monkeys, if you give them a box and hang down to high, guess to get up on the box and get a bait - without any learning, no one showed them and the conditioned reflexes did not produce. But in order to guess to do this, the monkey must (still in childhood) understand that if you get up on the exaltation, then you become higher.

Just as easily, possessing some knowledge, monkeys in experiments decide and other offered to them new tasks. Often several different ways - and, as on the selection, ways are simpler than the experimenter assumed. A monkey, which needs to be attended by fire, can pour it not only with water from the mug, but also its own urine, as well as to blew or score with a cloth. Orangutans, who were offered to push the edible bait from the tube with a stick, shakeped the bait, knocking the tube about the floor, blown out her mouth, rolled the tube on the floor, etc.*

* Filippova G.G. Zoopsychology and comparative psychology: Tutorial For university students.
** Hind R. Animal Behavior
*** Dolnik V.R. Naughty Biosphere Child

© DV Pozdnyakov, 2009-2019