Inside the minds of animals - Bryan B Rasmussen

Unutar životinjskih umova - Brajan B. Rasmusen (Bryan B Rasmussen)

Prevodilac: Milenka Okuka Lektor: Mile Živković

Your dog loves to curl up on the couch, but so do you,

Vaš pas voli da se sklupča na kauču, ali to volite i vi,

so you shoo him off and settle in for a cozy evening.

pa ga oterate i smestite se za ugodno veče.

After all, you're the human around here.

Ipak, vi ste ljudsko biće u kući.

You're an intelligent being, not a simple creature of instinct.

Vi ste inteligentno biće, ne prosto instinktivno biće.

You can plan and dream, and oh-

Možete da planirate i sanjate i, avaj -

Did your dog just outsmart you and feel happy about it?

Da li vas je vaš pas upravo nadmudrio i srećan je zbog toga?

Or was he just following his instincts?

Ili je prosto sledio svoje instinkte?

Is there even a difference?

Da li tu uopšte postoji razlika?

What is he thinking?

O čemu razmišlja?

Well, it depends on what we mean by "thinking"

Pa, zavisi šta podrazumevamo pod "razmišljanjem"

and the criteria we use to evaluate it.

i kakve kriterijume koristimo da bi to procenili.

Aristotle and Descartes both use the criteria of instinct and intelligence

I Aristotel i Dekart su koristili kriterijum instinkta i inteligencije

to divide animals from humans.

kako bi odvojili životinje od ljudi.

Aristotle believed that humans possess reason,

Aristotel je verovao da ljudi poseduju razum,

while animals could only follow brute instincts for survival and reproduction.

dok su životinje jedino u stanju da prate

surove instinkte za preživljavanje i reprodukciju.

Almost 2000 years later,

Skoro 2000 godina kasnije,

Descartes suggested a more extreme version of that idea,

Dekart je izneo ekstremniju verziju te ideje,

arguing that animals following instincts were indistinguishable

tvrdeći da se životinje, koje vode instinkti, ne razlikuju

from robots responding mechanically to stimuli in their environments.

od robota koji mehanički reaguju na nadražaje iz okoline.

But the consensus against animal intelligence began to unravel

Ali saglasnost protiv životinjske inteligencije počela je da se raspliće

with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

s Darvinovom teorijom evolucije.

Darwin hypothesized that intelligence could evolve from simpler instincts.

Darvin je pretpostavio da inteligencija može da evoluira iz prostijih instinkta.

He had observed earthworms making choices about how to drag oddly shaped leaves

Posmatrao je kišne gliste dok odlučuju kako da vuku lišće nepravilnog oblika

into their boroughs,

u svoja skrovišta

and was struck that a human might employ similar means to solve a similar problem.

i sinulo mu je kako ljudi mogu da na sličan način reše slične probleme.

And if, as he thought, humans are descended from simpler creatures,

A ako, kako je on smatrao, ljudi potiču od jednostavnijih bića,

then perhaps our minds lie at the far end of a continuum,

onda se možda naši umovi nalaze daleko na kraju spektra,

differing from theirs in degree, but not in kind.

razlikujući se od životinjskih u stepenu, ne po prirodi.

Recent experiments showing that many species can solve complex problems

Skorašnji ekspermenti koji otkrivaju da mnoge vrste mogu da reše složene probleme,

confirm Darwin's initial hypothesis.

potvrđuju Darvinovu početnu pretpostavku.

Elephants use objects to reach inaccessible places.

Slonovi koriste predmete kako bi dosegli mesta van domašaja.

Crows make their own tools,

Vrane prave sopstvene alate

and can use water displacement to get a reward.

i znaju da koriste posude za vodu kako bi stigle do nagrade.

Octopuses can open jars after watching others do so,

Hobotnice nauče da otvaraju tegle nakon što posmatraju druge kako to rade,

and can even remember the process months later.

pa čak mogu da se sete postupka mesecima kasnije.

Such tasks involve considering aspects of a problem

Takvi zadaci uključuju razmatranje aspekata problema

separately from the immediate situation, and retaining the strategy for later use.

odvojeno od trenutne situacije i pamćenje strategije za kasnije potrebe.

Still, while animals can solve complex problems,

Ipak, iako životinje mogu da reše složene probleme,

how do we know what, or even that, they are thinking?

kako znamo o čemu, i da li uopšte razmišljaju?

Behaviorists, such as Pavlov and Thorndike, argue

Bihevioristi, poput Pavlova i Torndajka, tvrde

that animals that appear to think

da životinje koje izgledaju kao da razmišljaju

are usually only responding to reward or punishment.

obično samo reaguju na nagradu ili kaznu.

This was the case with Clever Hans,

Ovo je bio slučaj s Pametnim Hansom,

a horse with the amazing ability to tap out answers to math problems.

konjem s čudesnom moći tapkanja rešenja matematičkih problema.

But it turns out Hans wasn't especially good at math,

Ali se ispostavilo da Hans nije naročito dobar iz matematike,

but at reading his unwitting trainer's subtle nonverbal cues

već je čitao dreserove nesvesne, suptilne neverbalne znake

for when to stop tapping.

kada da prestane s tapkanjem.

So Hans couldn't count, but does that mean he wasn't thinking?

Dakle, Hans nije znao da broji, ali da li to znači da nije razmišljao?

After all, he could interpret nuanced social messages,

Konačno, mogao je da tumači istančane društvene poruke,

a quality he shared with many other non-human animals.

osobina koju deli s velikim brojem drugih neljudskih životinja.

Elephants recognize each other after years apart,

Slonovi prepoznaju jedni druge nakon godina razdvojenosti,

and even seem to mourn their dead.

čak se čini da oplakuju svoje mrtve.

Bees communicate using a special waggle dance

Pčele komuniciraju koristeći se posebnim krivudavim plesom

to indicate the location and quality of a food source to other bees.

kako bi nagovestile drugim pčelama lokaciju i kvalitet izvora hrane.

Chimpanzees engage in complex deception schemes,

Šimpanze učestvuju u složenim spletkarenjima,

suggesting not only do they think, but they understand that others do, too.

nagoveštavajući nam da, ne samo da misle, već da razumeju da i drugi misle.

And then there is Alex the Grey Parrot,

A tu je i sivi papagaj Aleks,

who could use human language

znao je da koristi jezik ljudi

to distinguish the colors and shapes of absent objects,

kako bi razlikovao boje i oblike udaljenih predmeta,

and even understand abstract concepts, like bigger and smaller.

čak je i razumeo apstraktne koncepte, poput manjeg i višeg.

That sounds a lot like intelligence,

To poprilično zvuči kao inteligencija,

and not just the work of mindless machines.

a ne samo rad bezumne mašine.

But while a non-human animal can solve problems and even communicate,

Ali dok neljudske životinje mogu da rešavaju probleme, pa i da komuniciraju,

for humans, thinking also involves consciousness,

za ljude razmišljanje takođe podrazumeva svest,

the ability to reflect on our actions, not simply to perform them.

mogućnost sagledavanja naših dela, a ne samo njihovo izvođenje.

So far, none of our studies tell us if having the intelligence to outsmart us

Do sada nam nijedno istraživanje nije otkrilo

da li to što poseduje inteligenciju da nas nadmudri

means that our dog can also feel good about doing so.

znači i da je naš pas zadovoljan zbog toga.

What we really want to know is what is it like to be a dog,

Mi bismo zaista želeli da znamo kakav je osećaj biti pas

or an octopus,

ili hobotnica

or a crow?

ili vrana?

Philosophers of mind call this The Hard Problem,

Kognitivni filozofi ovo nazivaju teškim problemom

because while you and I can report what it feels like to be a human,

jer, dok vi i ja možemo da prenesemo kakav je osećaj biti čovek,

nobody speaks horse.

niko ne govori konjski.

Even a talking parrot, like Alex,

Čak ni papagaj koji govori, poput Aleksa,

couldn't tell us how he feels about the colors he could name.

nije u stanju da nam kaže šta misli o bojama koje imenuje.

And what if consciousness comes in different forms?

I šta ako svest dolazi u različitim oblicima?

Would we even recognize the consciousness of bees?

Da li bismo uopšte prepoznali svest kod pčela?

For that matter, how can we know for sure that other people have consciouness?

Shodno tome, kako možemo uistinu znati da drugi ljudi imaju svest?

Perhaps they're just well-functioning zombies.

Možda su prosto sasvim funkcionalni zombiji.

Regardless, animal minds continue to test the limits of our understanding

Kako bilo, životinjski umovi i dalje testiraju granice našeg razumevanja

and how we frame them may reveal more about our minds than theirs.

i to kako ih zamišljamo može da otkrije više o našim umovima nego njihovim.