“When we can only judge things by comparison, when all our knowledge is essentially based on the mutual relations of things that have similarities to each other, or from each other
discriminating; and if animals did not exist, then the nature of man himself would become even more incomprehensible to us: and having thus examined man in himself, should we not use to our advantage these paths that lead us to knowledge through comparisons? Shouldn't we examine the natures of animals by comparing their structure, delve into animal economy in general, in order to derive from this particular applications, determine consequences, bring together differences, and from the union of these connections, draw knowledge to a clear and consistent distinction of the main relief actions in the animal body and discover my own path to science, the subject of which is man himself” J. Buffon, 1792, part 5, p. 215
The topic in the title of the article presents an almost unlimited number of subjects for historical and scientific analysis.
The entire history of the study of behavior is based on a comparison of human and animal behavior, and its complete presentation in one article is almost impossible. I tried to identify some approaches that arose and are emerging in the comparative study of human and animal behavior, as well as their refraction in studies of different eras and trends - within the framework of the European cultural tradition. As such approaches, I consider atropomorphism, which emphasizes the fundamental similarity of behavior between humans (H) and animals (F) - (H = F), and logocentrism, which defends their fundamental difference. When highlighting certain stages in the study of the problem of the relationship between human and animal behavior, I was guided by the idea of ​​​​the unity of the two main components contained in
any study: “WHAT” and “WHO”.

1 . "WHAT "
To this day there is no unified science of behavior. Behavior is the object of various disciplines and directions, each of which has its own subject of study and uses its own categorical and conceptual schemes. I will try to show the origins of the main trends in the study of behavior and highlight their inherent features.
At the same time, despite the difference in the subjects of study, within all areas it is possible to identify an irreducible component, which allows us to qualify this study as behavioral: this is movement and its characteristics. It is movement that acts as an object for the entire complex of behavioral sciences.
However, at each stage of history this object is interpreted differently. For each study includes not only the direct results of descriptions (observations and experiments on the actual movements of animals and humans), but also the corresponding theoretical concepts that existed in this field of knowledge. There is no "pure" description. Each observation is theoretically loaded simply by virtue of the fact that it is “translated” into a verbal description. Moreover, each term, concept, category used contains a “hidden” explanation - a certain theory of observed phenomena. In addition, the methods of obtaining data themselves are an expression of certain theoretical ideas about the object being studied.
2. "WHO "
The content of this component includes not only the specific personality of the researcher, but also the corresponding worldview of society, the methodological prerequisites for the formulation of the problem itself.
The most significant point is that when studying behavior, a person acts both as an “object” and as a “subject” of comparative research, which cannot but affect the “objectivity” of the latter. The researcher’s subjectivism can manifest itself in two forms: personal – according to the principle “I like it this way”, and epistemological – according to the principle “man is the measure of all things”.
The very nature of comparisons between human and animal behavior directly depends on the solution to the question of “the place of Man in Nature.” Although this position seems like a truism, I consider it necessary to emphasize it. Most of the works had the goal (not always, however, consciously) to one way or another confirm, illustrate using behavioral material the very “place” that was assigned to Man in the system of the universe acceptable to the given researcher. This does not mean that the results of the discussion of a specific problem (comparing the behavior of humans and animals) were entirely determined by the peculiarities of the scientist’s worldview. Nevertheless, the presence of such connections cannot be ignored, although they are often mediated by many different factors. As an illustration, let us remember that the two creators of the theory of natural selection - Charles Darwin and A. Wallace - held directly opposite views on the relationship between human and animal behavior.
The unity of these two components “WHAT” and “WHO” is expressed in a certain style of thinking characteristic of each specific period in the study of the problem of interest to us. My message is fragmentary. Its individual sections are given names that are largely arbitrary, which reflect different “styles of thinking”, different justifications put forward for comparing the behavior of humans and animals.

Background. Animism.

The main sources for reconstructions of the thinking of primitive man are studies of modern tribes at the stage of gathering and hunting. These studies allow us to conclude that the most characteristic feature of the worldview of the first people is the idea of ​​​​the universal “animation” of nature - animism. The unity of Man and Nature, the direct dependence of his existence on natural conditions and events leads to the identification of the sources of one’s own movements with the sources of changes in natural objects. It was in the societies of primitive people that the idea of ​​the spirit, the soul, which is the cause of the movement of all bodies in general, began to form, including animals and humans.
There are no differences in the behavior of humans and animals at this time. This belief system can be called “animistic anthropomorphism.”
Antiquity. Psychologism
The transition to agriculture and cattle breeding, the involvement of an ever-increasing range of objects in labor activity led to the division of natural bodies into animate and inanimate (living and dead).
The main criterion for such demarcation was the difference between movement in general and self-motion. It is self-motion that becomes the defining feature of an animate body.
For all philosophers of antiquity, the behavior of humans and animals is determined by the soul as an integral attribute of their very life. Behavior is seen as an “activity of the soul.”
In Antiquity, for the first time, a confrontation between two approaches to comparing the behavior of humans and animals arose - anthropomorphism and logocentrism, which acquired the character of psychological (in the literal sense of the word) teachings.
First, about anthropomorphism. Even in the early mythological ideas of the ancient Greeks, set out in the epic of Homer, no distinction was made between the souls of animals and humans. This position was developed in the teaching of the Orphics and Pythagoreans about metempsychosis (transmigration of souls), in which various bodies, whether animal or human, were considered only as stages in the wanderings of the soul on the path to perfection. Naturally, there is no significant difference between
They did not see the souls of humans and animals, considering the souls of animals only less perfect. The Ionians also held similar views. Heraclitus (520–460 BC), for example, considered the soul of animals only more “wet” than the soul of man, which is more “fiery”, and compared the soul of an animal with the soul of a drunkard, since under the influence of alcohol the soul , according to Heraclitus, “moisturizes.”
Atomists - Democritus (460-? BC), Epicurus (341-270 BC) and their followers, denying the immortality of the soul, emphasized the similarity of the human and animal souls. Thus, Lucretius (99–55 BC) attributed to animals a language similar to that of humans. Plutarch (45–120) in his dialogues devoted a lot of space to the rationality of animals, which he illustrated with numerous stories about their virtue, courage, love for offspring, etc. Plutarch's argument seems very interesting. He believed that since animals go berserk, that is, they lose their minds, it means they have something to lose, that is, animals, like humans, have reason.
Some elements of anthropomorphism were developed in the teachings of the Neoplatonists. According to Porphyry (234–301), all bodies are animate, but differ in the degree of animateness. Animals and humans are animated in to a greater extent than plants. Animals are similar to humans in everything and differ from him only in the degree of their rational abilities. They have their own language; just like humans, they are subject to passions.
For all supporters of “psychological anthropomorphism,” the soul is the “efficient cause” of body movements, and since special
They do not see differences in the movements of humans and animals, and they do not highlight differences in their souls (and perhaps vice versa!).
The appearance of logocentrism in the historical arena can be associated with the name of Plato (427–347 BC). If in his early works, for example in the Timaeus, he still adhered to Pythagorean ideas about metempsychosis and considered the differences between the souls of humans and animals
insignificant, then later (in the Phaedrus) he comes to the conclusion that the human soul cannot incarnate into an animal. Analysis of thinking led him to this view. Plato begins to attribute to the human soul not so much the activity of controlling the movements of the body as abstract thinking. Animals, according to Plato, do not possess “mental power” (λογίδτiχον).
These ideas were further developed and conceptualized by Aristotle (384–322 BC).
Aristotle “discovered” an extremely important characteristic of the movement of living bodies - purposefulness. And the soul appears in his works not only as a “motive”, but also as a “target”, “ultimate” cause. The focus on purposefulness and the understanding of the soul as an entelechy lead Aristotle to ideas about the gradation of souls, within which the “vegetative”, “animal” and “reasonable” souls are considered. The “vegetative” soul is inherent in all living bodies, its purpose is nutrition and reproduction. All animals, including humans, have an “animal” (or “sensing”) soul; its goal is sensations that are associated with aspirations. And finally, the “reasonable” soul is characteristic only of man, its goal is thinking and reasoning. Only the “rational” soul, according to Aristotle, is immortal and is not corporeal. The expediency of human actions (behavior), according to Aristotle, is the result of the activity of the “reasonable” soul, reflection, and mind. In animals, the expediency of behavior is the result of the influence of the “sensual” soul, which directs their actions towards the “pleasant”.
Aristotle can rightfully be considered the founder of the psychological direction in the study of human and animal behavior, the main task of which was to clarify the properties and qualities of the “soul” as an “internal determinant” of behavior.
The idea of ​​logocentrism was further developed by the Stoics. They also denied the presence of a “rational soul” in animals, and to explain the expediency of their actions they introduced the concept of “osme” (οςµη) - an incentive to benefit. “Osme” is put into the soul of animals by the demiurge (in some versions, by the world soul). A person in his actions is guided by “reasonable understanding.”
All philosophers of Antiquity reduce the characteristics of the behavior (movement) of living beings to the characteristics of their souls as a certain integral attribute, guiding “from within” and determining the actions of the body. At the same time, supporters of the anthropomorphic approach consider the soul only as an “acting” one, while followers of logocentrism also consider it
and as the “ultimate”, directing cause. It is interesting to note that in accordance with the views on the differences between the souls of humans and animals, ethical standards, affecting the relationship between humans and animals. Thus, supporters of anthropomorphism, who considered these differences insignificant, professed a refusal to kill animals and eat them. And the followers of logocentrism, who considered these differences to be cardinal, denied the moral obligations of man towards animals.
Middle Ages. Theologism
Christian teaching left an indelible imprint on all scientific research of the Middle Ages, especially concerning man. The world, according to Christian doctrine, was created by God for Man, who is the likeness of God. Godlikeness thesis
the exaltation of Man above the rest of Nature and determined all comparisons of human and animal behavior undertaken within the framework of the Christian worldview (until today).
It is quite natural that theologians continued to develop the ideas of logocentrism, giving it the appearance of theological anthropocentrism.
Christian scholastics borrowed the concept of "osme" from the Stoics, literally translating it into Latin language as “instinct” (instinct-tus – urge, urge). The concept of “instinct” meant Divine predestination, forcing the animal to act expediently. Man, according to Christian teaching, has free will and reason, which determine his actions. The human soul, according to Thomas Aquinas (1125–1274), is active, moving and rational.
Theologians asserted the primacy of the soul over the body. Hence the interpretation of the body as a “devilish vessel” and calls for the mortification of the flesh as a way of getting rid of “base animal instincts.” The human soul is directed upward to the knowledge of the Good, which consists in the comprehension of God. It is interesting that to confirm this thesis, even upright posture, a vertical position of the body, supposedly characteristic exclusively of humans, was used. Animals are guided by instinct (read by God) only for their own benefit - “be fruitful and multiply” - and are guided in this by their feelings.
Theologians, following Aristotle, distinguish between “sensing” and “reasonable” souls. Animals have only the first, but in humans both are combined. All animals are fundamentally different from humans; there is an impassable gap between them. It is interesting that the ethical teaching of Christianity in relation to animals is structured accordingly. Since the world was created by God for man, all animals and plants exist only for man, who is free to act in relation to Nature as he pleases. True, the Bible says: “Blessed is he who has mercy on livestock,” but here we are talking about domestic animals, and besides, you don’t have to have mercy.
Thus, “Christian logocentrism” is characterized by reducing the differences in the behavior of humans and animals to the differences in their souls. Everything was put into the soul of an animal by God at the moment of creation and nothing can change in it. Man, thanks to his “reason,” is capable
improve your soul. The attributive characteristic of the animal soul is “instinct”, and the human soul is “mind”.
According to these “mental” properties, two types of behavior are distinguished: “instinctive” and “reasonable” actions; the former are unchangeable, the latter can change. “Instinct” and “reason” were the main categories in describing the behavior of both humans and animals until the twentieth century.
New time. Mechanism
The revolution in natural science of the 15th-17th centuries led to the destruction of the medieval picture of the universe. Instead of a finite, hierarchically constructed (God-man-nature), created world, an infinite world-mechanism arises, in which God was assigned, at best, the role of the prime mover or “watchmaker” who gave matter the first impetus. In accordance with the changed picture of the world, a new solution to the question “about the place of Man in nature” is put forward. Man begins to be seen as a part of Nature, and not the center of the universe. This
the position encouraged the search for laws that determine the inclusion of man in a single physical mechanism of the world.
The first such attempt was made by R. Descartes (1596-1650). Based on the achievements of anatomy (the most developed biological science of his time) and mechanics, he introduced into the explanation of behavior
(movements, actions) a new principle of determination - the structure of the forest machine, the organization of the body. “Of course, one can hardly believe that for all movements that do not depend on our thinking, the structure of the organs is sufficient. So I will try to prove it. I will try to explain the mechanism of our body in such a way that we have as little reason to attribute movements not associated with the will to the soul as we have little reason to believe that a clock has a soul that makes it show time” (Descartes 1950, p. 548-549).
Descartes was the founder of the concept of “machine-like” behavior. He believed that the soul can only act as the “ultimate”, directing cause. Its goal is only thinking, reason, and, therefore, animals have no soul at all, this is the prerogative
exclusively human. Thinking as an attribute of mental activity directs movements human body, which themselves depend only on the “organization”. He notes: “All actions that we perform without the participation of our will (as often happens when we breathe, walk, eat, and in general perform all functions common to us with animals (emphasis added - N.K.), depend only on devices of our members... just as the movement of a clock depends
only from the elasticity of their springs and the shape of the wheels” (De Cartes 1950, p. 604).
Through the conditioning of behavior by the work of the “mechanism” of the body, Descartes comes to the concept of reflex” (although he does not yet use the term itself). In order for the “mechanism” to work in accordance with the principle of conservation of momentum put forward by Descartes, an external influence is necessary, a push, which, reflected by the brain, sets the muscles in motion. With the works of Descartes, a new - physiological direction in the study of the behavior of living organisms begins, the subject of which was (and to this day remains) the study of the mechanisms (!) of behavior. At the same time, physiologists proceed from the fundamental similarity of the mechanisms of behavior of humans and animals and, following Descartes, consider animals as an “organizational” model of man (H = F).
The separation of the soul from control of the body was continued by the followers of Descartes. B. Spinoza (1632–1677), in particular, argued: “Neither the body can determine the soul to thinking, nor the soul can determine the body either to movement or to rest...” (Spinoza 1957, p. 457).
N. Melebranche (1638–1715) and G.-I. Leibniz (1646–1716) came to the same conclusion, albeit from a different perspective. They insisted on complete independence of thinking and consciousness from the body, since thinking did not fit into the “material mechanism” of the universe. The dualism of soul and body in humans was a characteristic feature of the concept of “mA bus-like” behavior.
Descartes put forward two types of determinants that determine the behavior of animals: internal - the organization of the body; and external – physical influences of the environment. The emphasis on the external determinism of the movements of “living machines” led to an analysis of the influence of external influences (study of the senses), which were considered, on the one hand, as direct physical reasons movements, and on the other hand, as a source of mental states (sensations). However, these two hypostases of sensory processes were separated from each other. The concept of “machine-likeness” could not explain the activity, initiative of “living machines” and the expediency of their actions. In contrast, the concept of “autonomy” of behavior was put forward, which tried to link two “internal” determinations: “organization” and “soul”. According to supporters of this concept - for example, G. Stahl (1660–1734) - body movements are not caused by the structure of the organism (substrate) itself, but by certain attributes inherent in living (and only living) bodies. Such attributes are still the same: “soul”, “instinct” or their modification - life force. It was in the confrontation with the concept of “machine-likeness” that vitalism was born and... such attributive characteristics were discovered
living matter, like irritability and sensitivity! Thanks to the focus of researchers on searching for non-mechanical internal determinants of behavior, the external determinants themselves no longer received a physical, but a physiological interpretation.
However, it should be noted that supporters of both concepts equally emphasized the difference between humans and animals - the ability to think and the “intelligent” behavior determined by it.
Education. Sensationalism
The concept of “ natural man”, which developed and supplemented the Cartesian understanding of the inclusion of Man in the Universe. “Man is a product of Nature,” wrote P. Holbach (1723–1789), “he exists
in nature, subject to its laws, cannot – even in thought – leave nature” (Holbach 1963, p. 59). It is from this angle that numerous comparisons have been made between human and animal behavior.
This topic has been studied by many major researchers who have made significant contributions to its coverage. However, I will focus mainly on the views of one of this cohort of greats - J. O. La Mettrie (1709–1751).
The 18th century was a century of militant empiricism, and La Mettrie’s great merit was the transfer of the problem from the realm of speculation to the soil of strictly scientific research: “In this work we should be guided only by experience and reflection” (La Mettrie 1983, p. 179). He
used almost all the materials available to him, as well as the results of his own research and observations: “... let us use comparative anatomy here,” he wrote, “we will open the insides of humans and animals. For how can we know the nature of man if we do not compare his structure with the structure of animals?” (Ibid., p. 186). However, La Mettrie is not limited to anatomy; he carefully examines the behavioral characteristics of various animals and humans, making extensive excursions even into the region
age-related and pathological deviations in behavior.
La Mettrie's main idea is clearly expressed in the titles of his two main works devoted to the problem of interest to us: “Man is a machine” and “Animal is more than a machine.” If Descartes made an attempt to destroy the “sensual” soul as a principle explaining the behavior of humans and animals, then La Mettrie decided to do away with the “rational soul”. He tries to show that “reasonable” actions can be explained by “natural” causes, without appealing to the God-given soul. The similarity in the structure (organization) of humans and animals serves La Mettrie, as well as Descartes, as a justification for the similarity in their behavior. However, this similarity, according to La Mettrie, is much broader. Both humans and animals are equally characterized by “autonomy” of individual forms of behavior – “instinctivity”. But instinct, according to La Mettrie, is not some mysterious attribute of the soul, but “consists of purely mechanical bodily properties that force animals
to act independently of all reflection and experience, as if out of necessity, and, however, in the best way to preserve their lives” (La Mettrie 1983, p. 99). Polemicizing with G. Stahl, La Mettrie denies the participation of the “intelligent” soul in committing a huge amount of
movements in humans (such as walking, maintaining balance, etc.) and emphasizes their similarity with the instincts of animals. Both humans and animals, according to La Mettrie, are characterized by rational actions. Moreover, the greater the similarity in the structure of their bodies, the greater the similarity in their behavior. The basis of the mind, in accordance with the principles of sensationalism, is feelings, and the brain is considered its seat. La Mettrie believes that since animals have senses and a brain, we cannot deny them intelligence. La Mettrie's views on the reasons for the similarities in human and animal behavior were supported by many scientists. J. Buffon (1707–1788), for example, wrote: “... animals most similar in appearance and build to humans will always retain their dominion, despite the protectors of insects” (Buffon 1792, p. 305). This problem was developed in most detail by J.-B. Lamarck (1744–1829), who directly linked the behavior of an animal with its structure nervous system. Having identified three types of structure of the nervous system, Lamarck described three corresponding types of behavior, attributing to all vertebrates the ability to act intelligently.
Emphasizing the undoubted similarity in the behavior of humans and animals, La Mettrie also points out their significant differences: “... no matter how great the understanding of monkeys, humans reveal a much greater receptivity to learning.” And further: “Thanks to this qualitative superiority of the human soul, thanks to the excess of knowledge, which obviously follows from the structure of man, he is the king among animals and alone is capable of social life, for which his industriousness invented languages, and his wisdom - laws and morals” (La Mettrie 1983, p. 239).
La Mettrie examines in some detail the problem of language, in which even in Antiquity they saw the fundamental difference between humans and animals. According to La Mettrie, animal language is similar to human language, which is just richer and more complex, just as the human brain is larger and more complex. He writes: “...animals speak with the help of excellent pantomimes, we speak with the help of words” (La Mettrie 1983, p. 101).
The most important thing in language for La Mettrie is that a person learns it in communication with his own kind. Training and upbringing is (in addition to bodily organization) the most important advantage of a person. La Mettrie gives examples of teaching language to deaf-mute people from birth and tries to reconstruct the historical formation of language in human society. La Mettrie substantiates the social determinacy of language and, accordingly, human thinking and behavior, illustrating it, in particular, with examples of children raised by animals who are only outwardly human. It was the emphasis on sociality that allowed La Mettrie to significantly expand the sensualist interpretation of reasonable behavior. Thus, the external determinants of behavior, which for Descartes had an exclusively physical (mechanical) nature, and for the vitalists - a physiological nature, in La Mettrie acquire the character of social ones (learning).
Naturalism
The Age of Enlightenment was also the heyday of naturalism, a general fascination with “natural history.” The concept of “natural man” served as an impetus for the study of his “natural” environment – ​​the “works of Nature”. Significant role in maintaining
This interest was played by the demands of the developing capitalist economy, medicine, etc. In the works of numerous “natural historians,” a new direction in the study of naturalistic behavior is put forward.
In connection with the formulation of the species concept and the emergence of taxonomy, the idea of ​​species-specific behavior is developing, which is now beginning to be considered as a “way of life.” The description of the “lifestyle”, in addition to the movements and actions of the animal, includes the habitat. The role of external determinants of behavior thus receives a new interpretation in naturalistic research - biological, i.e. behavior begins to be seen as an adaptation to the environment. The subject of the naturalistic direction is the study of the behavioral characteristics of different species of animals in a specific environment. The comparative anatomical “ladder of creatures” begins to “overgrow” with behavioral characteristics, forms of behavior are identified and described - feeding, sexual,
defensive, construction, etc.
Naturalistic studies have been largely descriptive. However, as noted in the introduction, each description was theoretically loaded. Explanatory principles of psychological and/or physiological directions acted as “theories”, or more precisely, interpretations of naturalistic observations.
The most important task of all directions in the study of behavior was the explanation of expediency. If the purposefulness of rational forms of behavior of both humans and animals (when such in animals were allowed) was explained by reflection and the choice of the most suitable actions for a particular situation, then the explanation of instinctive actions presented significant difficulties and gradually emerged as the main task in the study of behavior.
To explain the amazing diversity and adaptability of various animal instincts, a significant part of researchers turned to Divine intervention. Their interpretations of instinct differed from the views of theologians only in their elaboration and detail [see, for example, the works of A. Haller (1708–1777), G. S. Reimarus (1696–1768), etc.]. Reimarus, for example, has a clear separation of two different meanings put into the concept of “instinct” - instinct as a “blind”, unconscious impulse
(what is now referred to as “motivation”, “drive”); and instinct as a set of actions characterized by immutability, innateness, and species specificity.
E.B. Condillac (1715–1780) came up with an extremely interesting hypothesis. Based on the external similarity of habits (which he considered as “reasonable” actions, due to frequent repetition, becoming automatic, machine-like) with “instincts,” he suggested that instinctive actions are the result of inheritance over generations of habits acquired during the life of an individual . This idea was vigorously promoted by S. J. Leroy (1723–1789), who was the first naturalist to specifically study the behavior of animals in natural conditions. Condillac was the first to encroach on the divinity of “instinct,” suggesting that instinctive actions can change. Leroy cited as proof
This situation changes, in comparison with wild ancestors, the “instincts” of domestic animals.
Behavioral studies turned out to be a significant stimulus to the development of the problem of development (evolution) of the animal world. Condillac's hypothesis served as the basis for Lamarck's doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Lamarck extended this idea not only to behavior, but also to morphological characters and made it one of the main laws of evolution.
The most important source of evolutionary ideas at this time, in my opinion, was the analogy between the behavior of animals and humans (anthropomorphism). The thesis about the social conditioning of human behavior and the role of learning in this process, formulated by La Mettrie, was supported by many researchers (for example, Buffon). Leroy's own observations clearly demonstrated that learning is the most important element in the formation of behavior in animals. It seemed natural to assume that just as a person “inherits” the knowledge of his society through learning, so animals inherit the “reasonable” behavior of their ancestors in the form of “instinct.” It was the analogy between the individual and historical, social and biological development of behavior (essentially, their confusion) that formed the basis of Lamarck’s general evolutionary idea, in which Man was considered as a natural stage of progressive complication, the evolution of Nature. However, only fifty years later the concept of evolution and a new understanding of the “place” of Man received recognition from scientists.
The interpretation of Man as a social, public being, which was the most important result of the work of the Enlightenment, served as a prerequisite for the “bifurcation” of the understanding of the “place” of Man and the “division” of “natural” and “human” history. If throughout almost the entire 18th century the problem of Man was considered in the unity of humanitarian and natural science aspects (an example of this is the work of encyclopedists who tried to substantiate “natural law”, “natural religion”, etc.), then at the turn of the 19th century a whole series of specifically humanities was formed : ethnography, linguistics, archeology, sociology, etc. Humanitarian studies also touched upon issues of human behavior, but they considered
not natural (physical, physiological, biological), but socio-cultural determinants.
At the same time, natural scientific directions in the study of human and animal behavior continue to develop intensively: psychological, physiological and naturalistic. The first of them concentrates efforts on studies of the sensory organs, the second on neuromuscular mechanisms, and the third on comparative studies in nature. By the middle of the 19th century, it had accumulated great amount material, however, is very scattered. Not enough
the core that unites ideas.

Evolutionism
A turning point in the development of studies of human and animal behavior was the publication of Charles Darwin’s work “The Origin of Species...”. Although the book itself deals with a single, repeatedly quoted phrase (“Light will be shed...”), the principle of historicism was the key to the synthesis of ideas and materials accumulated in the study of behavior. It is hardly worth dwelling on Darwin’s contribution to the development of the problem that interests us; he is well known. I will only note that one of Darwin’s most important achievements (though fully appreciated only in the twentieth century) was the explanation of the expediency of instincts as a result of natural selection. Thus, he introduced a new explanatory principle into the study of behavior - phylogenetic determinism and filled the concept of “biological determinants” of behavior with new content, presenting them as the result of the Struggle for existence. However, the most important thing was Darwin’s substantiation of a new understanding of the “place of Man in Nature.”
In just twelve years - from the appearance of "The Origin of Species" to the publication of "The Descent of Man" - many scientific works were published, from small articles to voluminous volumes, which examined the position of Man in the series of natural
objects. In accordance with the principles of evolution, Man turned out to be included in Nature not as part of a general “mechanism”, but as a natural stage in the development of Life on Earth. The change in the physical basis for the “naturalness” of Man served as a biological one, on the one hand
on the one hand, an impetus for the “biologization” of Man, and on the other hand, a reason for the “humanization” of Nature. In the comparison of humans and animals at this time, two dominant lines can be distinguished: anthropomorphism in the study of animal behavior and its mirror image - zoomorphism in the study of human behavior. The principle of complete similarity of behavior between humans and animals triumphed.
For some time, there has been an ideological unification of humanitarian and natural science approaches to the study of human behavior on the basis of evolutionism. Research into the sociocultural prerequisites of human behavior is replaced by reasoning about the struggle for existence among people (social Darwinism), and all the biological prerequisites for individual and social behavior are reduced to a countless number of “instincts”, from which consciousness, will, and all other qualities are derived personality (instinctivism), or to the phenomena of heredity (eugenics). In general, a person overwhelmed by instincts, due to his bestial origin, begins to thirst for the blood of his brothers, and to a greater extent, the more bloodthirsty his parents were.
In the study of animal behavior, various directions are also united - zoopsychology (or, as it was also called, comparative animal psychology) emerges. Since the birth of the naturalistic movement main task there was a description and explanation of differences in the behavior of animals of different species. However, before Darwin, such “comparative psychology,” to the development of which Frederic Cuvier (1773–1838) made a significant contribution at the beginning of the 19th century, as well as the comparative anatomy of J. Cuvier (1779–1869), was far from evolutionary problems. It is very significant that in 1866 (!), the famous natural philosopher K. G. Carus (1789–1869) published a book devoted to comparative psychological research, in which he tried to refute Darwinism (Carus 1867). Zoopsychology
“reinterpreted” the materials accumulated by naturalists from the perspective of evolutionism. The destruction of the gap between man and animals in the work of Darwin and his followers led to "rampant anthropomorphism" in explanations of animal behavior. Scientific and pseudo-scientific literature begins to proliferate in huge quantities, in which cranes held courts of honor, ants held general meetings, and elephants discussed problems of the political structure of society. It is interesting to note that it was at this time
A broad movement for “animal rights” is unfolding, numerous “animal protection” societies are being created, and corresponding magazines are being published. Within the framework of zoopsychology, a number of questions were raised that were of exceptional importance in comparing the behavior of humans and animals. One of these questions was the relationship between sociality in humans and animals. Repeated attempts were made to derive the social organization of human society from animal communities, for example, by G. Spencer (1820–1903). Various biological prerequisites for sociality have been studied: mutual assistance
(P.A. Kropotkin, 1824–1921), maternal instinct (A. Sutherland), imitation (J.M. Baldwin, 1861–1934). The study of zoosociality has had significant influence on the formation of group psychology, social psychology.
In zoopsychological research there has been accumulated most interesting material, however, their main flaw was their style of explanation: from similar actions to similar causes. In fact, in animal psychology there has been a replacement of the explanation of the causes of similarity by the identification of human and animal behavior.
One of the reasons for the widespread use of this analogy was the “revival” of the Condillac-Lamarck scheme in explaining the origin and expediency of instincts (Charles Darwin himself played an important role in this). Mixture of “instinctive” and “reasonable” actions,
resulting from the inheritance of acquired characteristics, was the basis for the humanization of animals. However, in addition to this, anthropomorphism had deep roots in the very methodology of studying behavior.
First of all, it must be emphasized that during the previous period, the main method of studying human behavior was introspection and self-observation. All judgments about the determination of the behavior of other people were made exclusively by analogy with
determinants of the behavior of the observer himself, i.e. subjectively. Naturally, the same analogy was used to explain the behavior of animals. In addition, the main method of work of naturalists was observation. Therefore, it is not surprising that at all times they turned to the study of “instincts”. Instincts are species-specific and constant. Therefore, in natural studies, diversity in constancy is easily detected, i.e. variability of instinctive actions. “Intelligent” actions are extremely variable, individual (even among individuals of the same species) and therefore the discovery of constancy in diversity, i.e. It is difficult to establish stable characteristics of “reasonableness” in natural research. Since since the time of Thomas Aquinas, the main feature of “instincts” has been considered immutability, and there were no reliable criteria for “reasonableness,” any variability in behavior was attributed to “reasonable” actions.
These methodological flaws led to the fact that “subjective” zoopsychology began to fall apart under the pressure of criticism that fell on it from “above” and “below”, and “from the right” and from the “left”. The main object of criticism was the main explanatory principle of animal psychology - a direct analogy between the behavior of humans and animals. “On the right”, animal psychology was attacked by theologians. Along with arguments dating back to Thomas Aquinas, they cited a number of objections of a scientific nature (such as, for example, the works of E. Wassmann).
Naturalists spoke on the left. Their criticism was directed against random, untested observations. They called on experience and multiple data checks to help (works by V.A. Wagner, N.A. Kholodkovsky).
Physiologists were tinkering from below. They were not even satisfied with the use of psychological (introspectionist) terminology, not to mention the sins against experimental testing of the material. “There is no psychology for a physiologist” - this was the most popular slogan of that time (works by I.P. Pavlov, A. Bethe, etc.).
And finally, psychologists attacked zoopsychology from above. Within psychology at this time there is also a struggle for the “objectification” of research, the destruction of introspectionist methodology (the works of V.M. Bekhterev, J. Watson).
Let me quote: “There is only one external sign by which we can judge this (mental life - N.K.), this is the action of animals” (author’s discharge). Any of the opponents of “subjective” zoopsychology would subscribe to this phrase, and it belongs to the journalist (!) I.V. Skvortsov (1886, p. 1).
Criticism of animal psychology, no matter from what position it was carried out, oriented researchers towards the search for objective methods of studying and towards an objective interpretation of behavior, towards the discovery of real similarities and real differences. The “instinct-mind” controversy, established in the Middle Ages, is being destroyed and replaced by the “innate-acquired” dichotomy in behavior. In the fight against subjectivism, a new terminology is born - it was at this time that the word “behavior” acquired the status of a scientific term. Criticism of zoopsychology allowed new directions and
approaches to the study of behavior. It can be said that animal psychology played the role of a fuse in the explosion of behavioral research that erupted in the twentieth century. In addition, this criticism has made some scientists realize that outside of truly evolutionary thinking, comparing human and animal behavior is simply not productive: no matter how much we discover similarities and/or differences, the main thing is to explain the ways and means of their formation in the process of evolution (unfortunately , not everyone is still aware of this).
In the first half of the twentieth century, in naturalistic works, the problem of comparing human and animal behavior faded into the background, but two new approaches emerged. Some researchers turn to the study of onto- and phylogeny of various forms of behavior
(construction, food, etc.) in different types of animals. Their work led to the formation of “classical” ethology in the 1930s, which placed greater emphasis on the innate components of behavior. Other researchers are beginning to study the relationship between animals and their environment. Their work led to the creation of autecology, which until the mid-1930s was built mainly on the description of behavior (feeding patterns, migration, etc.).
The problem of the relationship between human and animal behavior becomes the prerogative of the psychological and physiological direction. Psychologists, teaming up with physiologists, began experimental laboratory research, the meaning of which was to search for certain “elements”, “building blocks” that make up behavior. The main focus of research in this area is on acquired forms of behavior—learning. A group of concepts appears, where the following “elements” of behavior appear: “tropisms” (J. Loeb), “trial and error” (G.S. Jennings, E. Thorndike), “reflexes” (I.P. Pavlov, V. .M. Bekhterev), “stimuli and reactions” (J. Watson). It should be noted that if at the beginning of the twentieth century scientists worked with a fairly wide range of species, then by the 1930s experiments were carried out mainly on rats and dogs, i.e. comparative research itself is being curtailed.
In many ways, this situation was determined by the very ideology of the “analytical” approach. In fact, if the “building blocks” underlying behavior are in principle the same in all animals (and this seems to follow from the principles of evolutionism), then it is possible to work with species convenient for laboratory research. This seemed to be confirmed by the similarity of the “laws of learning” in different species discovered already in the early works of E. Thorndike. On the other hand, in work on primates, as animals closest to humans, it was discovered that they are capable of behavior that was previously considered specifically human (W. Köhler’s experiments). In human research, introspectionist methodology is destroyed and a set of methods (partially borrowed from physiology) is created that makes it possible to obtain objective information about mental processes and psychodominant behavior. A number of directions are emerging: differential, developmental and other types of psychology. At the same time, the discovery of similarities in the basic “elements” and “mechanisms” of learning in humans and animals stimulated the search for specifically human properties of behavior. As such
The features were socio-cultural phenomena: “work activity”, “language”, “communication”, etc. There is a reorientation of research from individual to social psychology.
By the end of the 1950s, under the influence of mutual criticism, there was a tendency towards convergence of ethological and psychological-physiological approaches. The “pain point” of contact turned out to be the “innate-acquired” dichotomy in behavior. Ethologists dealt primarily with the first, their opponents with the second. As a result of convergence, epigenetic ideas about the ontogenesis of behavior are formed. It was at this time that the genetics of behavior was institutionalized, the subject of which was to find out WHAT and HOW in behavior is determined by the genotype. Although the first studies of the role of genetic factors in learning processes were started back in the 1920s by M.P. Sadovnikova-Koltsova, they did not attract attention at that time.
Modernity. Systems approach
Almost until the 1960s, the study of human and animal behavior occurred to a large extent independently, in parallel, excluding rare comparative physiological or comparative psychological comparisons. In the 1960s, the problem of the relationship between human and animal behavior again began to come to the fore and currently attracts the attention of most researchers working in the field of behavioral sciences.
The growth of interest in this problem was associated with the penetration of a systems approach into behavioral studies, and more specifically, with the promotion of populationism as the basis of general biological thinking.
Systems thinking necessarily required the study of mechanisms-regulators of the integrity, stability and connectivity of populations as unified system. Initially (in the 1920-1930s), exclusively genetic mechanisms were considered as such mechanisms.
interactions between individuals (population genetics). A little later, ecology is included in population studies, which focuses on external regulators (biotic and abiotic environmental factors). It was only in the late 1950s and early 1960s that behavior began to be considered as internal mechanisms of regulation. The study of any system also implies clarification of its internal structure, ways and means of transmitting information and energy. It is no coincidence that research therefore focuses on the study of communication and social structure of populations in animals.
Invasion of the field by animal behavior researchers social interactions caused a twofold reaction. Some scientists even rejected the possibility of using sociological terminology and constructed masses of what they thought were neutral terms: “group”, “communicative”, “gregarious”, “herd”, etc., designed to describe the social behavior of animals. They believed that everything that is “social” is the exclusive prerogative of man. Others, quite in the spirit of evolutionism, saw in the sociality of animals the prerequisites for social phenomena and processes in humans. However, just like a hundred years ago, some of them have slipped into anthropomorphism.
As in the 19th century, one of the sources of anthropomorphism was the methodology of studying behavior. In “classical” ethology, animal sociality is considered in the context of “pairwise interactions.” The idea of ​​the dialogical nature of language and its function as a means of communication in animals formed the basis of “communication anthropomorphism.” It was functional analysis, the search for the real and mystical functions of social contacts - all this led to numerous attempts to “construct” semantic messages in animal communication. Researchers who adhere to this direction proceed from the complete similarity of communication processes in humans and animals. Their works began an attack on the eternal stronghold of “logocentrism” - language! There is great interest in Lately experiments on teaching chimpanzees and other animals various symbolic languages. The number of studies devoted to non-genetic systems for storing and transmitting information in animal populations is increasing. The “traditions” of animals, which attracted the attention of the creators of evolutionary theory, are once again becoming the subject of discussion.
Epigenetic ideas lead some researchers to the problem of the ontogenetic formation of social behavior in animals. Numerous experiments have shown that normal social behavior is formed in young animals (as in humans) only in the process of communicating with relatives, that young animals can learn certain “roles”, “manners”, “styles”, depending on the behavior of others. And finally, studies devoted to the “labor activity” of animals are of great interest. The “tools of labor” made by various animals and the methods of transferring “labor skills” are described.
On the other hand, evolutionary problems, in particular the need to explain the origin and sociality of animals, were the source of the creation of sociobiology. The evolution of social behavior attracted the attention of researchers at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Interest in this problem has especially increased in the works of ethologists of the “classical” direction. The main focus of their work was comparative studies of social behavior and attempts to reconstruct its phylogeny in various taxa, “tied” to phylogenies constructed using other methods. This kind of research was most often carried out on social insects and birds and constituted an essential descriptive part of sociobiology.
In the 1960s, scientists became interested in the mechanisms of the evolution of social behavior and their relationship with the processes of selection and the struggle for existence. The ideological basis for the theoretical constructions of sociobiologists was the postulates of population genetics and the revived ideas about “egoism” and “altruism” as elementary manifestations of sociality. Arbitrarily attributing strict genetic determination to “altruism” and “egoism” (the most surprising thing, in my opinion, is that in sociobiological schemes these “behavioral” traits are determined by one or several genes, i.e., all material from the genetics of behavior is simply ignored), sociobiologists turned to designing mathematical models. It is interesting to note that, just like a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin found in
In economics, the model of the mechanism of natural selection is competition, current researchers have borrowed a number of concepts and models from economics: pay-to-win analysis, the principle of cost optimization, the concept of manipulating parental investment.
Such formal mathematized models formed the basis of sociobiological explanations. In animal studies they act as a significant stimulus (for many researchers - as an irritating object requiring refutation), but in
In sociobiological interpretations of man, outright zoomorphism flourishes.
First of all, such “sociogenetic zoomorphism” postulates the unity of the mechanisms of genetic determination of social behavior in humans and all animals, including invertebrates, which Buffon objected to (1792, p. 13). In addition, sociobiologists completely ignore ontogenetic processes and the presence of non-genetic (sociocultural) determinants of human and animal behavior, trying to reduce and equate cultural phenomena and processes with genetic ones and thereby avoid discussing the role of culture in the evolution of sociality.
The flip side of sociobiological constructs is “rampant anthropomorphism.” Discussions about “assessment of final fitness”, “choice of reproductive strategy”, “sacrifice of interests”, etc. create the impression that at least a university graduate is acting instead of the animal whose behavior is being described.
Conclusion

Let's summarize some results. Throughout the history of studying the problem, there has been a confrontation between two main approaches: anthropomorphism and logocentrism. Their interaction at each stage determines the specific situation that arises when comparing the behavior of humans and animals. The anthropomorphic approach emphasizes the similarities between them, the logocentric approach emphasizes the differences.
It is important to emphasize that anthropomorphism always historically precedes logocentrism. Apparently, the reason for this is the peculiarity of our cognition - when faced with an unknown (be it an object, phenomenon or process), we first look for similarities in it with something already known to us and only with further study do we highlight the differences. That is why the first researchers of animal behavior (as well as current ones when studying new behavioral features) turned to what was more “known” to them. own behavior. That is why, when studying the distinctive features of human behavior, we always look for analogues to these features in the behavior of animals (this was the case with “soul”, “mind”, “language”, “labor”, this is how things are now with “cognition”). And when we compare them, we again discover differences. This process is apparently endless, just as man’s desire for truth is endless. IN historical process Achieving the truth of studying animal behavior is like a mirror in which successes and difficulties in the study of human behavior are reflected, and vice versa.

At the same time, as already noted, the essence of the matter is not simply to describe, state certain similarities and/or differences in the behavior of humans and animals, but to explain the reasons for their existence, to consider the processes that provide or condition them
Availability. This is precisely the meaning of the evolutionary approach. We too often thoughtlessly use the word “preconditions” (for example, biological prerequisites for speech, etc.), forgetting that it is extremely little to simply point out that animals have something similar.
It is important to understand how this something in the process of evolution led to the emergence of specifically human behavioral properties. It is also not enough to indicate that some characteristic distinguishes humans from animals: it is necessary to show from what and how this characteristic became distinctive.
Throughout history, the prerequisites for searching, the content and methods of explaining the similarities and differences in the behavior of humans and animals have changed repeatedly. Changes in the content of the identified similarities and differences are determined by the mutual influence of the two mentioned approaches. The success of one serves as a powerful incentive for the development of the other. Constant confrontation and mutual criticism ensure the progressive development of research aimed at finding both similarities and differences. So, for example, accentuating the language,
the second signaling system as a distinctive feature of humans led to intensive research into animal language, during which important patterns of communication common to humans and animals were identified. This ultimately had a significant impact on the development of semiotics as a metascience that describes any sign systems. In turn, the development of semiotics stimulated a broad study of human speech activity and the discovery of new specific properties and functions (which ultimately had a huge impact on psycholinguistics).
Various “universal laws” act as prerequisites for the discovery (and at the same time leading principles of explanation) of specific similarities in the behavior of humans and animals: from the general inclusion of humans and animals in a single “mechanism” of Nature (in Descartes) to the unity of the phenomena of heredity for all organisms (in sociobiologists). A similar role in the search and explanation of differences is played by “private laws”, which, according to researchers, apply only to humans (or only to animals): from godlikeness (among theologians) to labor activity (among Marxist psychologists). The promotion and justification of such “laws” is inseparable from the development of all science, or more precisely, the entire culture of society as a whole. Such “laws” serve as guidelines, sometimes unconscious, for solving specific problems. scientific problems. On the other hand, it is precisely the orientation of researchers towards confirming or refuting such “laws” that causes a loud public outcry when publishing seemingly purely scientific works(as was the case with “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, “Reflexes of the Brain” by I.M. Sechenov, with the book by K. Lorentz “On Aggression” and with “Sociobiology” by E. Wilson).
The discovery of such landmarks in the work of past scientists is of significant interest to the historian of science. However, it seems to me that every researcher engaged in a seemingly narrow specific task must be aware of the global orientation of his scientific activity. A scientist’s reflection on the prerequisites and origins of the problems he solves is a powerful tool on the path to the truth and the first condition for a truly theoretical understanding of the results obtained (which, unfortunately, is still lacking in biological research, especially in the field of behavior).
Literature
Buffon J. 1792. General and particular natural history. SPb., 5: 1-480.
Golbach P. 1963. Selected works in 2 volumes. M., 1: 1-715.
Descartes R. 1950. Selected works. M.: 1-712.
Karus K.G. 1867. Comparative psychology or the history of the development of the soul on
different levels of the animal kingdom. M.: 1-207.
Lametrie J.O. 1983. Essays. M.: 1-509.
Skvortsov M.V. 1886. The world of man and animals. St. Petersburg
Spinoza B. 1957. Selected works in 2 volumes. M.

Russian Journal of Ornithology 2009, Volume 18, Express Issue 514: 1659-1682

1.1. The evolution of human relations with animals

1.2. Ideas about animal behavior in the 17th - 18th centuries

1.3. Study of animal behavior in the 19th and early 20th centuries

1.1. The evolution of human relations with animals

1.1.1. Animal cult in religions

1.1.2. Ideas about animal behavior in the Middle Ages

Throughout its history, man has been closely associated with animals and even depended on them to one degree or another. They served as a source of food and clothing for him, predicted various changes in the world around him, and warned of dangers. By changing the behavior of wild animals, people learned about the approach of earthquakes, floods or volcanic eruptions. In the caves that occupied primitive people, a variety of animals were also frequented. Some of them turned out to be undesirable neighbors and were expelled, while others, on the contrary, could turn out to be useful. People could use food reserves made by rodents, game caught by predators, bird eggs, honey from wild bees, etc. The ancestors of domestic dogs warned people about the approach of a stranger, barking to signal a hunted animal, which was much easier to catch with a bow or spear. Understanding the patterns of animal behavior in a number of cases was essential, and often decisive, in man’s struggle for existence. By studying the buildings of ants, termites, bees and birds, he learned to build, and beaver dams made him think about the possibility of transforming the surrounding landscape. Among the animals there were many that one should be wary of and know how to avoid collisions with. Using animals for food, plundering their storerooms, or driving them out of their habitats had to be done with great caution. In addition, man was well aware that in many cases animals have more advanced hearing, vision or sense of smell, and some of them have types of sensitivity inaccessible to humans, for example, the ability to perceive seismic signals, echolocation, etc.

1.1.1. Animal cult in religions

In fact, at the dawn of human existence, animals for him did not perform the functions of the notorious “our little brothers,” but, on the contrary, served as objects for imitation and veneration. In this regard, there were a lot of ceremonies and rituals that were carried out, for example, before going hunting or collecting honey from wild bees. The corresponding rituals were performed after cutting up the carcass of a killed animal and after burying its remains. An unusually respectful attitude towards animals was characteristic of religions ancient world. Many ancient deities appeared to people in the form of animals or semi-animals, for example with the head, legs or tail of a lion, bull or eagle. Thus, the God Ptah appeared in the form of a bull, the god Osiris with the head of a hawk, the Phoenician goddess Ashtart in the form of a cow, etc. The veneration of animals, which left its traces in later developed religions, was once extremely widespread. The role of animals in the religious beliefs of the peoples of the Earth was surprisingly diverse. The deity himself often appeared in the guise of an animal. The animal was considered a companion or helper of God. Thus, in the religion of the ancient Greeks, the goddess of hunting Artemis was depicted with a doe, and the terrible dog Kerberus guarded the entrance to hell. Many peoples associated the origin of people with mammals, birds, fish and even insects. The California Coyote Indians believed that their ancestors were coyotes. Many groups of Siberian peoples - the Ob Khanty, the Narym Selkup, the Ural Mansi - traced their origins to the bear, hare, goose, nutcracker, crane, pike or frog. Animals acted as patrons of people and helped them in their crafts. Among the Eskimos of Canada and Baffin Island, the goddess Sedna in the form of a walrus was considered a benefactor; among the Eskimos of Labrador there was a male deity in the form polar bear. In the myths of many peoples, animals give people fire, serve as a source of various benefits, and teach customs and rituals. According to Buryat legends, the first shaman was an eagle. He entered into a relationship with a woman and passed on to her the art of shamanism. The divine raven among the Koryaks and Chukchi was revered as the creator of the Universe, the Earth, rivers, mountains, as well as the people whom he taught crafts and gave them deer. In different parts of the world there was widespread belief in werewolf- transformation of sorcerers and witches into animals: crows, owls, wolves, black cats. The human soul was also represented in the form of an animal. When the famous philosopher Plotinus died (3rd century AD), his colleague allegedly saw a snake under the deceased’s bed, which immediately disappeared into a crack in the wall. The philosopher was sure that the snake was the soul of the deceased. Among the ancient Persians, dogs were surrounded with the greatest honor, for it was believed that they could carry human souls after death, so the human corpse was given to stray dogs to be eaten. Among Siberian shamans, helping spirits “existed” in the form of various animals. The facts of the veneration of sacred animals, which could not be destroyed or offended, are well known. The murder of a sacred animal in Ancient Egypt was punishable by death, and the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who lived in the mid-5th century. BC. testified that the death of a cat was mourned more bitterly among the Egyptians than the death of a son. The cats were mummified and then buried. During archaeological excavations in Egypt, entire cemeteries of mummies of sacred cats were discovered. For many peoples, an animal was considered the best sacrifice to a deity, and in different regions of the globe different animals were preferred for sacrifice. Lopari they slaughtered deer, Turkmens and Kazakhs slaughtered rams, in a number of regions of Uzbekistan the hen or rooster came first, and in some places in the Caucasus - a goat or goat. One way or another, traces of the veneration of animals in one form or another are found in religions of all times and peoples. The oldest form of animal veneration was universal - totemism , this is one of the reasons for the widespread cult of animals. The origin of totemism is obviously connected with the fact that in the early stages of development man had not yet distinguished himself from nature, from the animal world, for him animals and birds. the plants were creatures like himself. Indeed, on early stages During the development of human civilization, man differed little from the living beings of other species around him and largely depended on them. Some ideas and rituals that originated in primitive societies passed into subsequent religions. The further development of the veneration of animals was influenced by the development of the trade cult, as well as the presence of such a factor as superstitious fear of dangerous animals. The killing of an animal, regardless of its purpose, be it for the purpose of sacrifice or simply for food, was accompanied by mandatory rituals. Remnants of a special attitude towards animals are preserved to one degree or another in almost all peoples, especially among peoples with developed hunting economies. A striking example of this is the peoples of Siberia and the ocean coasts, who still maintain the cult of the bear, deer, walrus or whale to this day. If in the first stages of the development of human society the forces of nature dominated man and determined his worldview and religious ideas, then later religions began to reflect the relations between people in society to a much greater extent. For most peoples who switched to agriculture and cattle breeding, with the development of class society, the vestiges of totemism were erased or disappeared, and traces of the former veneration of animals were preserved only in mythology, art and some superstitions. The massive use of animals for purely utilitarian purposes no longer required any rituals, and, on the contrary, required placing them on a much lower level compared to humans.

Ancient science and its attempts to understand the place of man in Nature. The idea of ​​reflex in R. Descartes. Bell-Magendie law. “Reflexes of the brain” by I.M. Sechenov. Moscow and St. Petersburg physiological schools. The emergence and development of the physiology of higher nervous activity in Russia. Scientific activity of I. P. Pavlov.

The ancient science of Nature gave rise to numerous attempts to penetrate into the essence of human mental activity. Under the influence of everyday observations, under the impression, for example, of pictures of death, when with the last breath a person’s consciousness flies away and he turns into an insensitive, motionless corpse, the concept of the psychic (from the Greek psichos - soul) took shape in the minds of ancient thinkers. However, it must be admitted that the ancient Greeks had not yet invested religious and mystical content into it; this happened later, in the Middle Ages.

Two great thinkers of the 4th century. BC. Plato and Aristotle were the founders of European idealism and had a profound influence on the philosophical thought of mankind for many centuries. Although Aristotle’s philosophy contained some postulates of idealism (primarily the postulate that the engine of all earthly creatures is a higher incorporeal form), his teaching had some features of a biological direction, in other words, it was dominated by materialistic tendencies. Aristotle taught that the soul consists of three parts. The plant part regulates nutrition, growth, and reproduction. The animal part is in charge of simple sensitivity, mobility, and emotions. Finally, the human part carries out thinking, that is, mental activity. The soul, according to Aristotle, is a purposefully working organic system. “If the eye were a living being, its soul would be vision,” wrote Aristotle. The first attempt to determine the physiological mechanism of associations is also associated with Aristotle. He believed that the soul has the ability, through the “general sensory”, to restore in the senses traces of previous impressions that were produced by external objects. The name of Aristotle is associated with a description of some mental phenomena. For example, he described sequential images, the phenomena of sensory adaptation, some illusions of perception, and at the same time rejected the idea that the brain is the organ of the psyche. Aristotle proceeded from the established fact that the surface of the brain does not have sensitivity.

The Roman physician C. Galen (2nd century AD) suggested that mental activity is carried out by the brain and is actually its function. There is information that experiments were carried out on living people (on gladiators and criminals sentenced to death), who, for example, had their exposed brain mechanically irritated. Galen considered the brain, heart and liver to be the organs of the soul. Each of them was assigned one of the mental functions proposed by Plato: the liver is the bearer of lust, the heart is the bearer of anger, the brain is the bearer of reason. Galen pointed out that the brain has centers for swallowing, chewing, and facial expressions. Another outstanding physician of antiquity, Hippocrates, proposed a theory of human temperaments that has survived to this day. It should be noted that the development of psychophysiological concepts in the ancient world stopped at the level of Galen’s system of ideas. Only after about one and a half thousand years did scientific knowledge about the structure and functions of the body receive further development.

Along with these guesses, religious and mystical ideas about the activity of the human psyche begin to take shape - the spiritual is opposed to the physical. These are, for example, “ immortal soul Dalton or “entelechy” of the late Aristotle. With the strengthening of religious influences, such views are becoming more widespread. The soul is separated from the body, and the “spiritual” becomes mystical.

Profound changes occurred in anatomy and medicine during the Middle Ages. The authority of Galen was shaken and then overthrown. A treatise by A. Vesalius (1514-1564) “On the structure of the human body” (1543) appeared. At the same time, the famous book of N. Copernicus “On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres” appeared, which revolutionized not only astronomy, but also in the worldview of the people of that time.

At the origins of materialistic thought is R. Descartes (1596-1650). Starting with Descartes, the terms “body” and “soul” are filled with new content. In all views before Descartes, the structure of the body was thought of as similar to mechanical machines, and the organizing principle was considered to be the soul. Descartes hypothesized that there are two entities. The body is one entity - an extended substance, while the soul is a substance, that is, a special entity. The soul consists of unextended phenomena of consciousness, or “thoughts.” This category included not only the mind, but also sensations, feelings, ideas - everything that is conscious. This is how it arose famous saying Descartes: “cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I exist”).

The largest event XVII V. was the discovery of the reflex principle in the behavior of organisms. The concept of a reflex arose in the physics of Descartes and was intended to complete the mechanistic picture of the world, including the behavior of living beings. Descartes believed that the interaction of the organism with the external environment is mediated by a “nervous machine,” consisting of the brain as a center and neural tubes radiating from it. This design was very reminiscent of the circulatory system discovered by W. Harvey. The nerve impulse was thought to be similar in composition and mode of action to the process of moving blood through the vessels. Descartes designated the flows of these particles with the term “animal spirits,” which was often used by scientists of that time. The term “reflex” was absent in the works of Descartes, but the main contours of this concept were clearly outlined. R. Descartes presented the reflex reaction as follows: “If, for example, fire approaches the leg, then the smallest particles of this fire, moving, as you know, at high speed, have the ability to set in motion the place of the skin that they touch. By pressing this on the delicate fiber attached to this place of the skin, they at the same moment open the pores (of the brain) at which this fiber ends, just as we pull a rope so that the bell at the other end rings. When these pores are open, the animal spirits from the recess enter the tube and are carried by it partly to the muscles that withdraw the leg from the fire, partly to those muscles that force the head to turn towards the fire and the eyes to look at the fire, and, finally, to those that serve to stretch out the arms and bend the whole body to protect it.” “Animal spirits” rush through tubes from the site of the burn to the brain, then are reflected from the pineal gland, return back and “inflate” the corresponding muscles, which causes a withdrawal reaction (Fig. 1.1).

R. Descartes was aware of the complexity of reflexes. For example, he built intricate patterns of arrangement of nerve “tubes” through which “animal spirits” could not only set muscles in motion, but also increase blood circulation. Descartes, in particular, believed that life experience could “tune” the brain and the visual image through sensory nerves would direct “animal spirits” along different motor nerves than before. According to his concept, if life experience shows that the sight of something is a sign of danger, then the valves will open in the neural tubes that move the legs, i.e. preparations are underway to escape. At the same time, Descartes did not extend the reflexive principle of activity to the “higher mind.” This, of course, showed his dualism: the conscious life of people was not subject to materialistic explanation.

The 18th century was marked by the fact that the concept of a reflex, which was built on the principles of physics, received a biological justification in the works of the Czech physiologist I. Prochazka (1749-1820). He coined the term “reflex” and developed ideas about reflexes as a mechanism for the body’s adaptation to living conditions. In his work “Physiology, or the Doctrine of Man,” Prochaska argued that the concept of a reflex should explain the activity of the entire nervous system, including the brain. “Thus, the doctrine of the reflex structure of behavior was enriched with a number of new ideas: the concept of the biological purpose of this structure (biology, not mechanics), its suitability for the analysis of all levels of mental activity (monism, not dualism), the determining influence of feeling ( affirmation of the active participation of the psyche in the regulation of behavior, and not epiphenomenalism),” writes the famous historian of science M.G. Yaroshevsky (1985).

Materialist ideas began to spread extremely quickly throughout Europe and especially in France. It was the eve of the Great French Revolution. The figure of the French doctor J. O. de La Mettrie (1709-1751) is very interesting. He wrote that Descartes' separation of two substances was nothing more than a "stylistic trick" invented to deceive theologians. The soul does exist, but it cannot be separated from the body. If the body is a machine, then the person as a whole with all his mental abilities is just a feeling, thinking and pleasure-seeking machine. In 1748, La Mettrie published the book “Man is a Machine.” Even the title of the book sounded like a challenge to contemporaries. This book marked the turn of philosophical thought towards militant materialism.

The idea of ​​different levels of integration of the organs of the “human machine” was developed by P.Zh. Cabanis (1757-1808). He was a direct participant in the French Revolution. It was he who was instructed by the Convention to find out whether the guillotine knife causes physical suffering to a person whose head is cut off. Cabanis' answer was negative. He concluded that the movements of the headless body are purely reflexive in nature, and conscious sensations are impossible after cutting off the head. By a strange coincidence, I.P. Pavlov was also interested in this problem. Cabanis's conclusion was based on the idea of ​​three levels of behavior: reflexive, semi-conscious and conscious. The continuity between them, in his opinion, was expressed in the fact that “the lower centers, when the higher ones fall away, are capable of independent activity.”

Discoveries in the field of spinal cord anatomy made in the 19th century further strengthen the doctrine of reflexes. The English neurologist Charles Bell (1774-1842) established the difference in the function of the posterior and anterior roots of the spinal cord. Thanks to this discovery, a rather speculative idea of ​​the reflex turned into a natural scientific fact. Independently of Bell, the French physiologist F. Magendie (1783-1855) came to the same conclusion. The transition of impulses from the dorsal roots to the anterior roots of the spinal cord is called the Bell-Magendie law. Thus, for the first time, the idea of ​​the reflex received indisputable anatomical confirmation.

Another important area in European science was the physiology of the sense organs. German scientist I. Muller (middle

XIX century) proclaimed the principle of “specific energy of the senses.” According to this principle, each of the senses perceives only energy specific to it. Even if a sensory organ (eye, ear, etc.) is excited by a type of energy that is not characteristic of it, for example, instead of light energy, a mechanical blow is applied to the eye, a light sensation, the so-called phosphene, will still arise in our brain. On this idea, Müller's students and followers built a three-component theory of color vision (the Young-Helmholtz theory). This period is characterized by discoveries in the physiology of vision, accommodation, and the law of color mixing (G. Helmholtz). The English physicist C. Wheatstone (1802-1875) discovered the disparity of retinal images, which underlies stereoscopy of vision. The Czech scientist J. Purkinje (1787-1869) discovered a number of phenomena of visual perception: the “Purkinje figure” (observation of the blood vessels of the retina), the “Purkinje phenomenon” (changes in light blue and red colors in twilight lighting). This was the period of formation of psychophysics. In the western science XIX century, it was completed by G. Fechner and E. Weber, who formulated the fundamental law of psychophysics: the constancy of the differential threshold.

Scientists of the Middle Ages knew about the existence of the ventricles of the brain and placed one of the mental functions known at that time into each of the ventricles. In the 15th century, the cerebral cortex, and not its ventricles, began to be considered as the substrate of mental activity. The doctrine of the Austrian physician and anatomist F. Gall (1758-1828) arose - phrenology, based on the fact that various mental abilities (mind, memory, etc.) are localized in certain areas of the brain. According to Gall and his followers, these areas of the cortex correspond to “bumps” and other reliefs on the surface of the skull. However, quite soon the French physiologist J. Flourens (1794-1867) refuted phrenology as a science. Using the extirpation method, he came to the conclusion that the basic mental processes (intelligence, perception, etc.) are the product of the brain as an integral organ. Flourens was the first to experimentally establish, for example, that the cerebellum coordinates movements, and the quadrigeminal tract is associated with vision.

In the 40s of the XIX century. in Germany, a group of students of J. Müller, among whom were G. Helmholtz (the creator of physiological optics) and E. Dubois-Reymond (the founder of electrophysiology), formed the “invisible college”, known in history as the physicochemical school. The “leaders” of this school included the future luminaries of European science - G. Helmholtz, E. Dubois-Reymond, K. Ludwig, E. Brücke and others. It must be admitted that they were, in fact, the founders modern building European physiological scientific schools.

A huge role in the creation of modern physiology belongs to the outstanding French scientist C. Bernard (1813-1878). He developed the concept according to which all cells of the body are in an intercellular environment (milieu interieur) with constant parameters - constant salt composition, tension of oxygen and other gases, etc. Maintaining Consistency internal environment the body occurs despite constant destabilizing environmental factors. Thus Bernard introduced the concept self-regulation as a fundamental principle of life. Thanks to the work of the outstanding American physiologist W. Cannon (1871-1945), the ideas of C. Bernard have become firmly established in the arsenal of modern physiology. Cannon designated the self-regulation of the internal environment with the term homeostasis, which has become entrenched in modern science. An important difference between the concept of homeostasis and previous views was that the body is regulated by its own components, i.e. self-regulating. In contrast, “living machines,” according to scientists of that time, from Descartes to La Mettrie, were controlled by the hand of a being (the Almighty), endowed with Consciousness and Will.

In the 19th century The question of including living organisms in the physical picture of nature was put on the agenda of science. The problem was fundamentally solved by Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species...” (1859). A new explanatory principle was formulated - The driving force for the development of organisms lies in adaptive relationships with the environment. The book was extremely convincing to scientists also because it contained a huge amount of evidence taken directly from nature. The understanding of the body has changed radically. Previous biology since the time of C. Linnaeus (1707-1778) considered species unchangeable, and the animal organism as a kind of machine with a fixed (created) physical and mental structure. According to Darwin, an organism is a product of constant interaction with its environment. The development of an organism in the onto- and phylogenetic sense is determined by the laws of evolution. According to Darwin's concept, heredity becomes the most important determinant of the life of an individual. It is known that the first translator of Darwin’s book “The Origin of Species...” into Russian was I.M.’s wife. Sechenov, on whose worldview this work undoubtedly had a huge influence.

The external manifestation of brain function is behavior. His most famous book I.P. Pavlov called “Twenty years of experience in the objective study of higher nervous activity (behavior) of animals.” The analysis of behavior and its physiological mechanisms has a rich history in science. Behavior is understood as a complex of responses caused by the effect of external and internal conditions on the body. Through behavior, the organism communicates with the external environment. Humans, unlike animals, have activity- a process always associated with labor, as a result of which a product of labor is created. We will repeatedly compare humans and animals. This comparison has been a stumbling block for philosophers, biologists, psychologists, and doctors for many centuries.

The recent trend is the creation of a whole complex of neurosciences - neurobiology. It includes all scientific areas related to the study of the structure and functions of the nervous system.

Animal behavior is characterized primarily focus. Since the time of G. Hegel, it was the concept of “goal” that underlay the explanation of the differences between technical devices and living organisms. The concept of “goal” has a rich scientific history. Ancient philosophers formulated it as “telos” or “entelechy” (soul). At that time, the concepts of “determinism” and “goal” were not opposed. As mechanics developed, they began to contrast “goal” and “reason.” The only scientific explanation was considered to be the explanation of natural phenomena in terms of linearly related causes and effects. Philosophical teleology began to be expelled from science, and with it the concept of “goal,” even in relation to human behavior. Biological science owes it to Charles Darwin that purposiveness in living nature was recognized as a real fact and “entelechy” (soul) was removed from it. Expediency has become a scientific fact requiring explanation and research. Thus, when analyzing the behavior of animals and humans, two questions are posed: “for what?” (goal) and “why?” (cause); these two questions are not mutually exclusive. The task of the physiology of higher nervous activity may consist in finding the cause (physiological mechanisms, as my teacher Professor L.G. Voronin liked to repeat) of the purposeful activity (behavior) of animals and humans.

Thanks to the proclaimed reflex principle of the nervous system, natural science is beginning to approach an understanding of the most complex manifestations of animal and human behavior, including mental processes. Behavior began to be understood as the result of the most complex work of the nervous system. At the same time, there were both extremes and simplifications along this path. For example, in studies of the mid-19th - early 20th centuries. It has often been stated that “the brain secretes thoughts like the liver secretes bile.” This interpretation, of course, can be classified as vulgar materialistic. Such views, which spread in the middle of the 19th century, could not explain the uniqueness of the psyche and turned out to be powerless in the face of the eternal question of the relationship between spirit and body.

A significant step in the study of the psyche was made by the Russian physiologist Ivan Mikhailovich Sechenov. In 1863, he published the book “Reflexes of the Brain,” where he provided convincing evidence of the reflex nature of mental activity. Sechenov wrote that not a single impression, not a single thought arises on its own, but always for some reason, as a result of the action of some reason - a physiological stimulus. On the other hand, a wide variety of experiences, feelings, and thoughts ultimately lead, as a rule, to some kind of response. He wrote: “Whether a child laughs at the sight of a toy, whether Garibaldi smiles when he is persecuted for excessive love for his homeland, whether a girl trembles at the first thought of love, whether Newton creates world laws and writes them on paper - everywhere the final fact is muscle movement " Sechenov did not leave without explanation such cases when a person just thought about something, but did nothing. He explained this fact by inhibition of the executive link of the reflex. Such a reflex with a “delayed end” is, according to I.M. Sechenov, the basis of thought, not put into action.

Extensive material was obtained by Sechenov during careful observations of the formation of the child’s behavior and consciousness. These observations clearly showed how simple innate reflexes gradually become more complex with age. Through education and training they enter into ever new relationships with each other and ultimately create the enormous complexity of human behavior. THEM. Sechenov was convinced that “...all, even the most complex manifestations of mental activity, by the method of their origin, are reflexes.” His book marked the beginning of experimental scientific research into mental phenomena.

Relation to the book by I.M. Sechenov in Russia on the part of the public and official authorities was exactly the opposite. She was arrested and the author was brought to trial. The indictment read: “This materialistic theory, destroying the moral foundations of society in earthly life, also destroys the religious dogma of the future life; it does not agree with either Christianity or criminal legal views and positively leads to the corruption of morals.” While waiting for the trial, Sechenov told his friends: “I will not take lawyers, but I will take a frog with me and show the judges my experiments: let the prosecutor refute them.” However, the protest of wide public circles prevented judicial reprisals against the scientist. In the year of the 100th anniversary of “Reflexes of the Brain,” UNESCO announced the day of publication of the book by I.M. Sechenov in the light of this book. The proceedings of the scientific conference held in Moscow in 1965 were published in Russian and English.

In a number of articles, Sechenov proves that the material processes of brain activity are primary, and mental and spiritual processes are secondary. Our consciousness is only a reflection of the reality of the world around us. The development of the psyche is determined by the improvement of the nervous organization of the brain, its historical and individual development.

Historical background for the emergence of the physiology of higher nervous activity in Russia. Let's look into the distant 19th century. To prepare for a professorship in the field of physiology, N.I. arrived at the University of Dorpat (1827) from Moscow. Pirogov, from St. Petersburg - P.A. Zagorsky, from Kharkov - A.M. Philomafitsky.

A.M. Filomafitsky (1807-1849) later became the founder of the Moscow University Physiological School. Having successfully completed the course at the University of Dorpat, Filomafitsky went to the laboratory of I. Muller, where he thoroughly mastered modern research methods, becoming aware of the problems that concern world (European) physiology. In 1835, Filomafitsky became a teacher at Moscow University in the course of physiology. The subject is introduced at the university in the second (physics and mathematics) department of the Faculty of Philosophy as “Physiology and Comparative Anatomy”, and at the Faculty of Medicine as “Physiology of a Healthy Person”. Filomafitsky is an ardent advocate of the experimental method in physiology. His book “Physiology, published for the guidance of its listeners” (1836) was the first textbook on experimental physiology in Russia. She was highly praised by her contemporaries and was awarded the Demidov Prize of the Academy of Sciences in 1841 (the prize had been awarded since 1831). Reviewer Academician K. Baer wrote in his review that Philomafitsky’s textbook is at the level best guides in physiology. A.M. Filomafitsky was one of the first in Russia to use the microscope A.M. Philomafitsky Plössl for the study of blood cells. Interesting and new for that time were his experiments with transection of the vagus nerve to study the neuro-reflex nature of the cough reaction. Using the method of cutting the vagus nerve, Filomafitsky studied the chemistry of gastric digestion. Archival materials indicate that the medical faculty of Moscow University received money for an experimental study of the effects of painkillers. Professor of physiology A.M. was involved in the work. Filomafitsky and professor of surgery N.I. Pirogov. The result of these studies was the use of ether by Pirogov as an anesthetic when treating the wounded during the siege of Salta. N.I. Pirogov wrote proudly: “Russia, having been ahead of Europe with our actions during the siege of Salta, shows the entire enlightened world not only the possibility of implementation, but the undeniable beneficial effect of broadcasting over the wounded, on the battlefield itself. We hope that from now on the etheric device will be, just like a surgical knife, a necessary accessory for every doctor during his action on the battlefield.”

The significance of the textbook by A.M. Philomafitsky was enormous: an entire generation of Russian doctors and physiologists, including I.M., learned from this book. Sechenov. Filomafitsky’s special merit was also that he was the first to introduce demonstrations of experiments on animals into the teaching of physiology. At his lectures, he demonstrated dogs with an operation of an artificial fistula, imposed by his contemporary, professor-surgeon V.A. Basov (1812-1879), who at that time occupied the department of surgery at Moscow University.

In Moscow in the 40s of the 19th century. A number of valuable books on physiology and pharmacology are being published. Two books by the outstanding French scientist F. Magendie were translated into Russian - “A Brief Foundation of Physiology” and “Pharmacography”. In St. Petersburg, a manual on physiology by Eble, “The Manual Book of Human Physiology,” was published, translated from German.

In 1851, I.M. became a student at the Faculty of Medicine of Moscow University. Sechenov. (By this time, 22-year-old Sechenov had completed a course at the Mikhailovsky Engineering School and, with the rank of ensign, was in military service in a sapper unit in Kiev. Before entering the university, he retired.) At the university, teacher I.M. Sechenov in physiology was Professor I.T. Glebov (1806-1884). Glebov worked a lot in the best laboratories in Europe and was an ardent admirer of the French physiologists C. Bernard and J. Flourens. He was also one of the translators of F. Magendie's books into Russian. Along with Glebov, professor N.A. gave lectures on physiology at Moscow University at that time. Warnek (1823-1876). The lectures of these physiologists managed to interest the young Sechenov: “That same year I became convinced that I was not called to be a doctor, and began to dream about physiology...”.

Lectures on pharmacology at the Faculty of Medicine were given by the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine N.B. Anke (1803-1873), whom Sechenov recalls in his “Autobiographical Notes” as a professor who heads the German party. In this regard, contrary to the opinion of a group of professors, headed by Professor A.I. Inozemtsev, after the end of his foreign business trip, it was not Sechenov who was elected to the department of physiology of the university, but his classmate, the German F. Einbrodt. This period in Russia is characterized by the activities of outstanding democratic writers - N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubova and others. The novel by I.S. is published. Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" (1858), in which for the first time in world literature the main character is the revolutionary naturalist Bazarov. Bazarov, as well as Kirsanov from Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?” - these are physiologists, new people of Russian public life.

Russian physiologists of the second half of the 19th century. adopted the best traditions of physiologists of the European experimental school - J. Purkinje, G. Helmholtz, C. Bernard, L. Ludwig. Thus, in Helmholtz’s laboratory, Sechenov made observations of the fluorescence of the eye lens. Arriving at this laboratory as a student, he proposed his design of an absorptiometer. We learn about the assessment of Sechenov’s successes from Ludwig’s letters to him. In a letter dated August 29, 1859, he writes: “If you allow me, I would like to mention the observation you made in the textbook.” Helmholtz wrote to Brücke: “...You have discovered clearly expressed fluorescence of the lens...”. In a letter dated January 2, 1860, Ludwig writes to Sechenov: “I read with pleasure your article on the fluorescence of the lens; it is not inferior to the work of your Parisian competitor. I am very grateful for your concerns about the gas apparatus. When Dr. Schaeffer finally gets to work, we will take your advice... Between you and me, although he is a good and dexterous person and has erudition, he lacks your mobility and energy in his work. If you were, we would have done a lot."

Contemporaries I.M. Sechenov in Russia there were outstanding physiologists who subsequently founded their own scientific directions - A.I. Babukhin, F.V. Ovsyannikov and N.M. Yakubovich.

A.I. Babukhin (1835-1891) - a major histologist and founder of the Moscow histological school. He studied at Moscow University with Sechenov and at the same time began scientific activity with him. After graduating from the university, he was enrolled as a dissector in the department of physiology (1859). In 1860, Babukhin published his first scientific work, “Tetanic contraction of the heart,” and in 1862, his dissertation “On the relationship of the vagus nerve to the heart.” He became best known for his work on the study of the electrical organs of fish and the bilateral spread of excitation in the nerves. These works had a significant impact on the development of neuromuscular physiology and electrophysiology.

N.M. Yakubovich (1817-1879) from 1857 was a professor of histology and physiology at the Military Medical Academy. He performed fundamental work on the histology of the central nervous system, which was awarded the Montion Prize of the Paris Academy of Sciences. Together with Ovsyannikov, Yakubovich published the work “Microscopic study of nerve origins in the cerebrum.” This work marked the beginning correct understanding origin of the sympathetic nervous system. One of the nuclei of the third pair of cranial nerves (oculomotor nerve) is named after Yakubovich.

F.V. Ovsyannikov (1827-1906), one of the founders of independent schools of Russian physiologists at Kazan and St. Petersburg universities, occupied the Department of Physiology of the Academy of Sciences for many years. In 1860, Ovsyannikov worked in the laboratory of C. Bernard. At St. Petersburg University he occupied the department of physiology from 1864 to 1875. Among his students was I.P. Pavlov. F.V. Ovsyannikov published a number of studies on the reflex regulation of respiratory movements and vascular centers. He was a versatile biologist and carried out a number of studies in the field of histology and embryology.

Although the works of Babukhin, Yakubovich and Ovsyannikov were dominated by research on histology, they also carried out the most valuable research in the field of physiology.

In the 60s of the XIX century. Such outstanding physiologists as I.F. began their scientific activities. Zion, I.P. Shchelkov, N.N. Bakst, V.Ya. Danilevsky and others.

By the end of 1858 I.M. Sechenov is actually finishing his scientific research abroad. In 1860 (February 1) he came to St. Petersburg and was approved as an adjunct of the Academy. Professors Yakubovich and Sechenov divided teaching between themselves. Sechenov's first lectures on animal electricity were accompanied by beautifully arranged, demonstrative and spectacular electrophysiological experiments. They made a huge impression on the students. Their description was soon published as a separate publication. For his work “On Animal Electricity” Sechenov received the Demidov Prize. Professor F.V. gave a review of it. Ovsyannikov.

Subsequently, Ovsyannikov, already an academician, was invited to St. Petersburg University as the organizer and head of the physiological cabinet. He invited (1866-1868) physiologists I.F. as teachers. Tsion and N.N. Baksta. Zion was then known for his discovery of the depressor nerve and the description of a new reflex form of regulation of the cardiovascular system, and Bakst established himself with extremely subtle work in the field of nervous physiology, carried out in Helmholtz's laboratory.

Ovsyannikov, Tsion and Bakst not only raised the teaching of physiology to a high level, but also organized research work in the physiological laboratory, where the most talented students began to flock from the beginning of the 70s. Student Ivan Pavlov came here in 1870.

Scientific authority I.M. Sechenov especially increased after his discovery of central inhibition in 1862. With this discovery, his name entered the world of physiology. Working in 1862 in Paris in the laboratory of C. Bernard, Sechenov showed that by layer-by-layer separation of the brain from the spinal cord, it is possible to identify a certain part of the frog’s brain, irritation of which by applying a salt crystal to the cross section causes inhibition of spinal reflexes. Sechenov's work was published in the proceedings of the Paris Academy of Sciences at the suggestion of C. Bernard. In 1863 Sechenov published it in Russia.

In 1871 Sechenov left the Medical-Surgical Academy. The official reason was that his friend, Professor I.I., was voted out of office as a professor at the Academy. Mechnikov. In the same year, Sechenov moved to work at Novorossiysk University. He stayed in Odessa as a professor for about 6 years and during this period he completed his outstanding work on the gas composition of blood. Instead of Sechenov, I.F. was appointed professor of physiology at the Medical-Surgical Academy. Zion. In 1875, Zion left for France, and the young physiologist I.R. was elected to the department of physiology at the academy. Tarkhanov (Mouravi Tarkhnishvili, 1846-1908). I. R. Tarkhanov headed the department for almost 20 years. After retiring in 1894/95, he continued lecturing on general physiology at St. Petersburg University.

Man showed interest in animal behavior from the earliest stages of his history. Already the first hunters, no doubt, carefully studied the behavior of their prey, as evidenced by numerous drawings on the walls of caves.

Study of animal behavior before Darwin

In the pre-Darwinian period, attention was focused on philosophical and natural historical problems.

The main philosophical problem was to clarify the relationship between humans, other species and the rest of the Universe.

1) If we assume that human beings have nothing in common with all other species, then comparative psychology loses all meaning. The study of animal behavior could be interesting and important in itself, but the results obtained could not be used to understand human behavior.

2) If we consider humans as part of nature, then data about animals can significantly help in understanding our own characteristics.

The differences in these two approaches are clearly revealed in the following two quotes.

“Animals, unlike humans, have only instincts. The instincts of animals seem to operate on the same principle that physical forces are always defeated by a stronger instinct, for animals are completely deprived of the free will that is inherent in humans.”

“If man is deprived of the central position in the comparative study of behavior, this may ultimately be the best way to a more complete understanding of his place in nature and those behavioral traits that he shares with other animals, as well as those characteristics that have reached an exceptionally high development only with him."

Note that the second case does not assume that there are no differences between humans and animals, nor that the results obtained from studying animals can be directly transferred to humans. Rather, it is assumed that humans and animals have at least some common features and that the best way to understand the differences and the similarity between all species consists in an equally objective study of them all.

The idea of ​​the sharp separation of man from animals can be found among the philosophers of Ancient Greece, according to whom there were two acts of creation, as a result of one of which intelligent beings were created - man and the gods, and as a result of the other - irrational creatures, forming a different category of living beings .

The two categories were believed to differ in the number and type of souls they had (back in Egypt). Similar views, which arose among the philosophers of the Stoic school, were supported by Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and Descartes and have survived to this day.

Aristotle, agreeing that man differs from other living beings in the nature of his souls, tried to arrange all species in a continuous ascending series - scala naturae; at the top of this row was a man.

In addition to philosophy, natural history made a major contribution to the study of animal behavior in the pre-Darwinian era. Many problems studied by naturalists are still of scientific interest.

For example, Gilbert White (1720 - 1793) was able to distinguish three species of birds, very similar morphologically, by their songs.

Ferdinand Pernauer (1660 – 1731) studied territoriality, migration, sexual behavior and the ontogeny of song in birds.

Mountjoy et al (1969) note the role of falconry in the history of animal behavior studies.

Darwin

Darwin's contribution to the study of animal behavior cannot be overestimated.

Perhaps most important were the formulation of evolutionary theory and its application to man in On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871). These works convincingly demonstrated the kinship between species (including humans), which is a decisive prerequisite for the creation of a true comparative psychology.

Darwin's contribution, however, is not limited to this. Darwin himself undertook a systematic comparative study of animal behavior.

His most famous work in this field is The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1873). In this book, Darwin made numerous observations to support the general idea that

the expression of emotions in humans and animals fits into one continuous series.

He even viewed some forms of emotional expression in humans as inherited behavior that was useful to our ancestors, but has now lost its functional significance.

Study of animal behavior after Darwin

J. Romanes

In 1882, Romanes, a friend and student of Darwin, wrote his classic work on animal psychology, The Mind of Animals. He tried to continue the application of Darwin's principles in the comparative study of behavior.

Romane is known mainly for two negative features of his work - his commitment to description individual cases and a tendency towards anthropomorphism. Although the results of episodic or unsystematic observations of behavior (often isolated events described by untrained observers) may be of great interest, they should be interpreted more carefully than is done in the work of Romanes.

The second weak point of his works is anthropomorphism, that is, an excessive tendency to endow animals with human qualities.

K. L. Morgan

Another major researcher of animal behavior was Morgan; his outstanding contribution to this science was “An Introduction to Comparative Psychology,” published in 1900. Morgan is best known for his struggle against rampant anthropomorphism.

As the oft-cited “law of parsimony” or “canon of Lloyd Morgan” states, “an action can never be interpreted as the result of the manifestation of any higher mental faculty if it can be explained on the basis of a faculty occupying a lower level on the psychological scale."

The advice to choose the simpler of two equivalent explanations is undoubtedly very useful in many cases. It shouldn't, however. strive to avoid complex explanations in cases where. they seem justified.

Jacques Loeb

He was one of the extreme supporters of the “law of economy”; he tried to explain almost all behavior on the basis of tropisms, which he defined as “forced movements.” According to Loeb, animal behavior can be interpreted as the result of the direct physical and chemical effects of various stimuli on protoplasm. Thus, stimuli, according to Loeb, act on animals basically in the same fairly simple way as they do on plants.

G. S. Jennings

Jennings is one of the first scientists to emphasize the need for descriptive studies of the entire behavioral repertoire of the species being studied. In his book “The Behavior of Lower Organisms” (1904), he considered mainly protozoa. Jennings disagreed with Loeb. and believed that the diversity and variability of behavior of even the simplest organisms is incompatible with an explanation based on tropisms.

Spalding

He is one of the first animal behavior researchers, best known for his empirical work on the development of behavior in chicks. Trying to understand what factors regulate the development of behavior in ontogenesis, he conducted deprivation experiments in which animals were raised in the absence of certain elements of their normal environment. Spalding also wrote the first works on the study of imprinting.

Pavlov

Although Pavlov had relatively little interaction with many of his contemporary animal behaviorists, his classic work on conditioning was destined to have a significant influence on the development of the science of animal behavior in the twentieth century.

James

James's book "Principles of Psychology" (James, 1890) became the main textbook of psychology for many years; this book contained much information about animal behavior, including a chapter on instinct and a discussion of imprinting. James greatly facilitated the development of comparative psychology.

McDougall

The works of this psychologist had a very significant influence on the development of modern theories of behavior.

McDougall created the theory of “mental purposefulness,” which is based on the idea that the body is constantly striving for some goal. The book “Social Psychology” (1908) brought him the greatest fame. In this book, McDougall tried to show that all human behavior can be explained by the action of instincts and their modification as a result of experience. His list of instincts included the instincts of flight, pugnacity, self-abasement, reproduction, acquisitiveness, etc., etc.

This list was endless. It soon became clear, however, that such “explanations” did not actually explain anything, but only gave names to certain phenomena. When things are simply given names in the belief that this explains them, this is the so-called “nominalist fallacy.”

Nevertheless, McDougall contributed much value to psychology; in particular, he, perhaps more than anyone else, instilled in psychologists a very skeptical attitude towards the concept of instinct, which turned out to be very important when, about half a century later, psychologists and ethologists began to interact with each other. Thus, thanks to the activities of all these outstanding early researchers, the study of animal behavior at the end of the last and beginning of the present century was a very exciting activity.



Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

• 1. The evolution of human relations with animals
• 1.1 Animal cult in religions
• 1.2 Ideas about animal behavior in the Middle Ages
• 2. Ideas about animal behavior in the 18th century.
• 3. Study of animal behavior in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
• 3.1 Works by foreign authors
• 3.2 Research by Russian scientists
• Bibliography

1. The evolution of human relations with animals

Throughout its history, man has been closely associated with animals and even depended on them to one degree or another. They served as a source of food and clothing for him, predicted various changes in the world around him, and warned of dangers. By changing the behavior of wild animals, people learned about the approach of earthquakes, floods or volcanic eruptions. The caves occupied by primitive people were often inhabited by a variety of animals. Some of them turned out to be undesirable neighbors and were expelled, while others, on the contrary, could turn out to be useful. People could use food reserves made by rodents, game caught by predators, bird eggs, honey from wild bees, etc. The ancestors of domestic dogs warned people about the approach of a stranger, barking to signal a hunted animal, which was much easier to catch with a bow or spear. Understanding the patterns of animal behavior in a number of cases was essential, and often decisive, in man’s struggle for existence. By studying the buildings of ants, termites, bees and birds, he learned to build, and beaver dams made him think about the possibility of transforming the surrounding landscape.

Among the animals there were many that one should be wary of and know how to avoid collisions with. Using animals for food, plundering their storerooms, or driving them out of their habitats had to be done with great caution. In addition, man was well aware that in many cases animals have more advanced hearing, vision or sense of smell, and some of them have types of sensitivity inaccessible to humans, for example, the ability to perceive seismic signals, echolocation, etc.

1.1 Animal cult in religions

In fact, at the dawn of human existence, animals for him did not perform the functions of the notorious “our little brothers,” but, on the contrary, served as objects for imitation and veneration. In this regard, there were a lot of ceremonies and rituals that were carried out, for example, before going hunting or collecting honey from wild bees. The corresponding rituals were performed after cutting up the carcass of a killed animal and after burying its remains. An unusually respectful attitude towards animals was characteristic of the religions of the ancient world. Many ancient deities appeared to people in the form of animals or semi-animals, for example with the head, legs or tail of a lion, bull or eagle. Thus, the God Ptah appeared in the form of a bull, the god Osiris with the head of a hawk, the Phoenician goddess Ashtart in the form of a cow, etc. The veneration of animals, which left its traces in later developed religions, was once extremely widespread. The role of animals in the religious beliefs of the peoples of the Earth was surprisingly diverse. The deity himself often appeared in the guise of an animal. The animal was considered a companion or helper of God. Thus, in the religion of the ancient Greeks, the goddess of hunting Artemis was depicted with a doe, and the terrible dog Kerberus guarded the entrance to hell. Many peoples associated the origin of people with mammals, birds, fish and even insects. The California Coyote Indians believed that their ancestors were coyotes. Many groups of Siberian peoples - the Ob Khanty, the Narym Selkup, the Ural Mansi - traced their origins to the bear, hare, goose, nutcracker, crane, pike or frog. Animals acted as patrons of people and helped them in their crafts. Among the Eskimos of Canada and Baffin Island, the goddess Sedna in the form of a walrus was considered a benefactor; among the Eskimos of Labrador there was a male deity in the form of a polar bear. In the myths of many peoples, animals give people fire, serve as a source of various benefits, and teach customs and rituals. According to Buryat legends, the first shaman was an eagle. He entered into a relationship with a woman and passed on to her the art of shamanism. The divine raven among the Koryaks and Chukchi was revered as the creator of the Universe, the Earth, rivers, mountains, as well as the people whom he taught crafts and gave them deer.

IN different corners There was a widespread belief in the earth werewolf- transformation of sorcerers and witches into animals: crows, owls, wolves, black cats. The human soul was also represented in the form of an animal. When the famous philosopher Plotinus died (3rd century AD), his colleague allegedly saw a snake under the deceased’s bed, which immediately disappeared into a crack in the wall. The philosopher was sure that the snake was the soul of the deceased. Among the ancient Persians, dogs were surrounded with the greatest honor, because it was believed that human souls were placed in them after death, so a person’s corpse was given to stray dogs to be eaten. Among Siberian shamans, helping spirits “existed” in the form of various animals.

The facts of the veneration of sacred animals, which could not be destroyed or offended, are well known. Killing a sacred animal was punishable in ancient Egypt death penalty, and the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who lived in the middle of the 5th century. BC. testified that the death of a cat was mourned more bitterly among the Egyptians than the death of a son. The cats were mummified and then buried. During archaeological excavations in Egypt, entire cemeteries of mummies of sacred cats were discovered.

For many peoples, an animal was considered the best sacrifice to a deity, and in different regions of the globe different animals were preferred for sacrifice. Lopari they slaughtered deer, Turkmens and Kazakhs slaughtered rams, in a number of regions of Uzbekistan the hen or rooster came first, and in some places in the Caucasus - a goat or goat.

One way or another, traces of the veneration of animals in one form or another are found in religions of all times and peoples. The oldest form of animal veneration was universal - totemism, this is one of the reasons for the widespread cult of animals. The origin of totemism is obviously connected with the fact that in the early stages of development man had not yet distinguished himself from nature, from the animal world, for him animals and birds. the plants were creatures like himself. Indeed, in the early stages of the development of human civilization, man differed little from the living beings of other species around him and was largely dependent on them. Some ideas and rituals that originated in primitive societies passed into subsequent religions. The further development of the veneration of animals was influenced by the development of the trade cult, as well as the presence of such a factor as superstitious fear of dangerous animals. The killing of an animal, regardless of its purpose, be it for the purpose of sacrifice or simply for food, was accompanied by mandatory rituals. Remnants of a special attitude towards animals are preserved to one degree or another in almost all peoples, especially among peoples with developed hunting economies. A striking example of this is the peoples of Siberia and the ocean coasts, who still maintain the cult of the bear, deer, walrus or whale to this day.

If in the first stages of the development of human society the forces of nature dominated man and determined his worldview and religious ideas, then later religions began to reflect the relations between people in society to a much greater extent. For most peoples who switched to agriculture and cattle breeding, with the development of class society, the vestiges of totemism were erased or disappeared, and traces of the former veneration of animals were preserved only in mythology, art and some superstitions. The massive use of animals for purely utilitarian purposes no longer required any rituals, and, on the contrary, required placing them on a much lower level compared to humans.

1.2 Ideas about animal behavior in the Middle Ages

In the Middle Ages, one of the main philosophical questions was the question of the soul. In ancient times, it was believed that the soul was present in nature wherever there was movement and warmth. First philosophical doctrine, based on the belief in the universal spirituality of the world, was called "animism". Animism was also historically the first doctrine of the soul. It was based on the belief that everything that exists in the world has elements of the soul. The soul was understood as an independent entity, separated from the body and capable of controlling all living and inanimate objects. Ancient idealist philosophers proceeded from the idea of ​​a certain primordial “world of ideas” - a “world mind”, similar to the concept of God in later church teachings. The product of this universal mind is the soul of man and animals, which, as Socrates argued, being united with the body, is influenced by sensitivity and guided in its actions by inclinations and passions.

The greatest thinker of antiquity, Aristotle, was the first true natural scientist among philosophers. He observed quite a lot of animals of different species and even conducted some experiments. Aristotle noted great differences in the behavior of different animals, as well as the fundamental difference between animals and humans. On this basis, he argued that humans and animals have souls of different types. Aristotle attributed to man an immortal “rational soul” - the embodiment of the divine spirit. The soul, according to Aristotle, animates corruptible matter, but only the body is capable of sensory impressions and attractions. Therefore, unlike humans, endowed with reason, the ability to know and free will, animals have only a mortal “sensual” soul. Accepted in the teachings of Aristotle animism under the influence of the general atmosphere characteristic of the Middle Ages, it gave rise to the idea that the soul is a divine supernatural principle, therefore it cannot be studied using scientific methods. Attempts of this kind began to be punished by the church, which arrogated to itself the undivided and exclusively monopoly right to deal with problems related to the soul.

In the Middle Ages, the study of anatomy and medicine developed quite intensively, as a result of which it became obvious that humans and animals are anatomically very similar. The main difference between them, according to philosophers of that time, was the presence of a soul in a person.

In the Middle Ages, a direction in the natural sciences called creationism(from Latin creator - creator), which was an integral part of the theological worldview. This worldview was based on the general idealistic idea that everything in nature is the result of the conscious action of the “Higher Mind” and is accomplished according to predetermined plans. According to this idea, the entire existence and development of nature depends on God, and behavior is controlled by the presence or absence of a soul.

This point of view was adhered to by the greatest thinker of Europe in the 17th century. R. Descartes (1596-1650). The psychological doctrine he created was called Cartesianism. The basis of his theory was the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul. This idea dominated in his time among the enlightened part of Europe. R. Descartes allowed the existence of the soul outside the body, and attributed thinking to the properties of the soul. The soul, from his point of view, is characterized by the presence of special mental abilities, which R. Descartes called “thinking substance.” He allowed the possibility of the existence of a soul outside the body only for people. The soul of animals, in his opinion, was radically different from the human soul and could not live forever.

R. Descartes believed that animals are automata without feelings, reason and knowledge. He explained the presence of qualities in animals that are superior to humans by “the development or reduction of certain organs.” In one of his works, he wrote: “It is also very remarkable that, although many animals show more skill than we do in some of their actions, these same animals do not show it at all in other actions; so that everything that they do better than us, is not proof of their intelligence, because in this case they should have more intelligence than us and would do everything better, but rather they do not have it at all; nature acts in them according to the structure of their organs: so a clock is made up only of wheels and springs, and yet they can count minutes and measure time more accurately than we can with all our reason.” In this regard, Descartes believed that it was necessary to study organs, and not the behavior of animals, which is completely subordinate to the anatomical structure of the body. The screams that an animal makes during the process of vivisection, in his opinion, are nothing more than the creaking of a poorly oiled mechanism, but in no way a manifestation of feelings.

Thus, man finally and irrevocably became the “crown of creation,” and rituals and ceremonies associated with the veneration of animals remained a thing of the past among most peoples.

2. Ideas about animal behavior in the 18th century.

During the Renaissance, science and art freed themselves from dogmas and restrictions imposed on them by religious ideas. Natural, biological and medical sciences, many types of art were revived and transformed. The systematic study of animal behavior as an integral part of scientific knowledge of nature begins in the mid-18th century.

It is interesting to note that almost from the very beginning, scientists have identified two forms of behavior. One of them was called “instinct” (from the Latin instinctus - urge). This concept appeared in the works of philosophers back in the 3rd century. BC. and meant the ability of humans and animals to perform certain stereotypical actions due to internal motivation. The second category of phenomena was called "mind". However, this concept meant not only the mind as such, but actually any forms of individual plasticity of behavior, including those provided by training.

The approach to animal behavior characteristic of that period of scientific development is demonstrated in his works by the French naturalist J. Buffon (1707-1788). Buffon was one of the first naturalists who, when creating his system of the development of nature, was guided not only by the morphological differences of animals of different species, but also by their behavior. In his works, he describes in sufficient detail the morals, habits, characteristics of perception, emotions and training of animals. Buffon argued that many animals are often endowed with more perfect perception than humans, but at the same time their actions are purely reflex character.

Buffon criticized anthropomorphic approach to the interpretation of animal behavior. Analyzing the behavior of insects, which is striking in its high adaptability, he emphasized that their actions are purely mechanical. For example, he argued that the supplies created by bees and ants do not correspond to their needs and are collected without any intention, although many of his contemporaries tended to consider these and similar phenomena as manifestations of “reason” and “foresight.” Polemicizing with them, Buffon emphasized that such phenomena, no matter how complex and confusing they may seem, can be explained without attributing such abilities to animals. At the same time, when describing " natural history" of certain species, he pointed out that some animals are “smarter” than others, thereby stating differences in the level of their development mental abilities.

Buffon believed that such a concept as “mind” cannot be used to describe the elementary forms of animal behavior. At the same time, although Buffon did not use the term “instinct,” when analyzing the behavior of insects, he was close to isolating this concept. Thus, he contributed to the creation of prerequisites for the classification of forms of behavior. Trying to draw a line between the psyche of humans and animals, Buffon pointed out that the main differences between them are that animals have no idea of ​​either their past or their future. In addition, they are not able to compare their perceptions, which, in his opinion, lies at the basis of the formation of concepts.

One of the first definitions of instinct belongs to the German scientist, professor of mathematics and linguistics at the Hamburg Academy, Reimarus (1694-1768). According to his opinion, all the actions of animals of a given species, which appear without individual experience and are carried out according to the same pattern, should be considered “as the pure consequence of natural and innate instinct, independent of intention, reflection and ingenuity.” According to Reimarus's ideas, instinctive actions are combined into a fairly specific group of behavioral acts that are different from other forms of animal behavior. In addition to instincts, this scientist assumed that animals also have actions that can be compared with rational human behavior. In this category he included, first of all, the ability to imitate and learn.

Already at the end of the 18th century. existed different views on the origin of instinct. Thus, completely different points of view on this were expressed by Condillac (1755) and Leroy (1781). Condillac formulated a hypothesis about the “genesis of instincts”, in which instinct is considered as a result of the reduction of rational abilities. According to his opinion, individual experience arising as a result of a successful solution to an urgent problem can be transformed into automatic forms of behavior that are preserved and passed on by inheritance.

Leroy, on the contrary, believed that instinct is an elementary ability that turns into a higher mental property as a result of long-term complications. He wrote: “Animals represent (although to a lower degree than we) all the signs of the mind; they feel, show obvious signs of pain and pleasure; they remember, avoid what would harm them and seek what they liked; they compare and judge, hesitate and choose; reflect on their actions because experience teaches them, and repeated experience changes their original judgment." Thus, Leroy was one of the first researchers of the development of mental abilities in animals.

3. Study of animal behavior in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

3.1 Works by foreign authors

From the beginning of the 19th century. The science of animal behavior firmly moved into the rank of natural sciences and began to move further and further away from philosophy. The main credit for this belonged to the French naturalist J.-B. Lamarck (1744-1829). In 1809, he published his famous “Philosophy of Zoology,” in which animal psychology was considered as an independent scientific discipline. He created a complete theory of evolution, which was based on the psychological reaction of the body to the influence of the external environment. Lamarck believed that all changes in organisms occur under the influence of the external environment. He considered the main factor of variability to be the body’s ability to respond to external influences, and then, through exercise, to develop what was achieved by this reaction, and then to pass on what was acquired by inheritance. Lamarck wrote: “Organisms change not due to the direct influence of the environment on them, but due to the fact that the environment changes the psyche of the animal...”. Moreover, he believed that the basis of the variability of species was the “intensification of the internal sense of animals,” which could lead to the formation of new parts or organs. In fact, Lamarck was the first to discover the connection between the body's mental reactions to the external environment and the evolution of the animal world. He recognized the dependence of the psyche on the nervous system and created the first classification of mental acts. The simplest mental act, according to Lamarck's ideas, is irritability, the more complex is sensitivity, and the most perfect is consciousness. In accordance with these mental properties, he divided all representatives of the animal world into three groups. At the same time, Lamarck did not single out man into any special category. He believed that man is part of the animal world and differs from other animals only in the degree of consciousness or intelligence. In every group of animals, Lamarck assumed the presence of instincts. In his opinion, instinct is a stimulus for activity without the participation of mental acts and “cannot have degrees or lead to errors, since it does not choose or judge.” In addition, Lamarck assumed the possibility of the existence of a certain “collective mind” capable of evolutionary development. From the middle of the 19th century. systematic experimental study of animal behavior begins. The author of one of the first experimental studies was the director of the Paris Zoo F. Cuvier (1773-1837), brother of the famous paleontologist G. Cuvier. In his work, he sought to compare systematic observations of animals in their usual habitat with their behavior in the zoo. Particularly famous were his experiments with beavers, artificially fed and raised in captivity in isolation from their relatives. Cuvier discovered that an orphan beaver successfully built a hut despite being kept in unsuitable conditions and without the opportunity to learn such actions from adult beavers. These experiments played a significant role in understanding the nature of instinct. At the same time, F. Cuvier managed to record many other, no less important, but not as widely known facts. Based on observations of animals at the Paris Zoo, he conducted a comparative study of the behavior of mammals of several orders (rodents, ruminants, horses, elephants, primates, carnivores), and many of them became the object of scientific research for the first time. F. Cuvier collected numerous facts that testified to the “mind " animals. At the same time, he was especially interested in the differences between “mind” and instinct, as well as between the human mind and the “mind” of animals. Cuvier noted the presence of varying degrees of “intelligence” in animals of different species. For example, Cuvier ranked rodents lower than ruminants only on the basis that they do not distinguish the person who cares for them from the rest. Unlike rodents, ruminants recognize their owner well, although they may get confused when the owner changes clothes. According to Cuvier, carnivores and primates have the highest degree of intelligence that is possible in animals. He noted the most pronounced "intelligence" in orangutan. Cuvier's major achievement was the first in history detailed and fairly accurate description of the habits of the orangutan and some other monkeys.

Assessing the amazing “expediency” and “reasonableness” of animal actions, for example, the construction of huts by beavers, he pointed out that such actions are not performed purposefully, but as a manifestation of a complex instinct, “in which everything is blind, necessary and immutable; whereas in the mind everything is subject to choice, condition and changeability."

Thus, F. Cuvier was the first to show the possibility of manifestation of instinct in conditions of isolation from environmental conditions typical for the species; tried to draw the line between “mind” and “instinct”, gave a comparative description of the “mind” of representatives of different taxonomic groups.

The works of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) were of decisive importance for the emergence and development of comparative and experimental studies of the behavior and psyche of animals.

In his works “On the Expression of Sensations in Animals and Man” (1872), as well as “Instinct” and “Biographical Sketch of a Child” (1877), Darwin was the first to use an objective method of studying the psyche.

On the big factual material Darwin carefully analyzed the repertoire of expressive movements in humans and animals, mainly primates. Summarizing the results of this comparison, he came to the conclusion that the manifestations of sensations in animals and humans have many similarities. In his book On the Expression of Sensation in Animals and Man, Darwin noted that some forms of expression of human emotion, such as the raising of the hair under the influence of extreme fright or the baring of the teeth during a fit of rage, can only be understood by supposing that man once existed in a more primitive and bestial state. The similarity of certain modes of expression of emotion in different but related species, such as the similar movements of the same muscles during laughter in humans and various apes, is much easier to understand if we assume that they are descended from the same ancestor. On this basis, he came to the conclusion about the common origin of monkeys and humans. Darwin's great merit is that he was the first to apply the principle of objective analysis to such a mental phenomenon as the expression of emotions, which until that moment was considered one of the most subjective.

Numerous observations of animal behavior carried out by Darwin in natural conditions and in captivity allowed him to clearly identify three main categories of behavior - instinct, the ability to learn and the elementary "ability to reason." Currently, most researchers adhere to this classification of behavioral acts. Darwin defined instincts as “acts which can be performed, after some experience, in the same way by many individuals of the same species, without understanding the purpose for which they are performed.” Darwin believed that behavioral traits, like morphological traits, are characterized by hereditary variability. Using the example of several instincts, he showed possible ways of forming behavioral traits “through the slow accumulation of numerous weak but useful deviations,” which “owe their occurrence to the same reasons that cause changes in the structure of the body.”

Darwin expressed these provisions in his book “The Origin of Species” (1896) and in a number of articles, considering possible ways of developing such forms of behavior as the reproductive instinct of the cuckoo, the building instinct of bees and the “slave-owning” instinct of ants.

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution anatomically brought humans and animals closer together, showing the commonality of their bodily structure. In biological terms, man has ceased to be a being of a special kind; His behavior revealed many similarities with animals.

The difference between the human psyche and the higher animals, no matter how great it may be, was defined by Darwin as a difference “in degree, not in quality.” His idea that human mental activity is only one of the results of a single process of evolutionary development stimulated the use of the comparative method in psychology. This method may, in particular, involve collecting data on similarities between the psyches of animals and humans, for example, intellectual or speech abilities. It was implemented by research in the field zoopsychology, which began to be actively carried out in late XIX-beginning of the 20th century

Among the first scientists who addressed the problem of the similarity of the psyche of animals and humans was Darwin’s friend and like-minded person J. Romens (1848-1894). The most famous was his book “The Mind of Animals” (1888), where he acted as a naturalist who sought to prove the unity and continuity of the development of the psyche at all levels of the evolutionary process. The material for this was numerous observations of complex manifestations of behavior in animals of different phylogenetic levels, including invertebrates. Among the many manifestations of vertebrate behavior, Romens singled out “reasonable ones.” In his opinion, the distinctive feature of “reasonable” actions was their influence on the animal’s adaptation to new conditions of existence.

A major role in developing the criteria necessary for reliable separation different forms behavior, played by the work of the English psychologist C. Lloyd-Morgan (1852-1936). In particular, he was interested in the problem of the relationship between instincts and learning in animal behavior. In his book Habit and Instinct, Lloyd Morgan considered the possibility of changing instincts under the influence of individual experience. Carefully distinguishing between everything inherited, instinctive and individually acquired, Lloyd-Morgan at the same time drew attention to the constant interweaving of these components in the behavior of the animal. From his point of view, instinctive actions can be modified as a result of the accumulation of individual experience, forming complexes of behavioral reactions called instinctive habits. At the same time, Lloyd-Morgan drew attention to the fact that not only instincts are inherited, but also the ability to assimilate certain types of individual experience.

Lloyd-Morgan also took the initiative to study the learning process in animals, which was successfully implemented by his student E. Thorndike.

Lloyd-Morgan strongly opposed anthropomorphism in the interpretation of animal behavior phenomena. He formulated the “Rule of Economy,” which is extremely important for experimental work in animal psychology, known as the “Lloyd-Morgan Canon.” According to this rule, "an action can in no case be interpreted as the result of the manifestation of any higher mental function if it can be explained on the basis of the presence in the animal of an ability occupying a lower level on the psychological scale."

Experimenters must be guided by this principle when analyzing and interpreting complex forms of animal behavior that can be considered manifestations of intelligence.

D. Spalding, like F. Cuvier, studied the behavior of animals under experimental conditions. In 1872 he applied the method deprivation when studying ontogeny bird behavior. This scientist raised swallow chicks in cramped cages, where they were deprived of the opportunity not only to fly, but also to move their wings. Thus, the possibility of training influencing the formation of the birds' ability to fly was excluded. At the age when free-living swallows usually leave their nests, Spalding released his captives from their cages and saw that their flight was no different from the flight of normal swallows. Based on his experiments, the scientist suggested that, along with behavior that is formed through learning, there are also innate forms of it that manifest themselves during the corresponding period of development without special experience or training.

These little-known works of Spalding found their continuation and confirmation in the studies of C. Whitman and O. Heinroth.

Charles Whitman was engaged in the comparative study of animal behavior. He describes the behavior of many species of birds and some interspecific hybrids. He emphasized that animal behavior can be studied from an evolutionary perspective, just as the structure of the body is studied. While working on the taxonomy of birds, Whitman repeatedly noted that the most characteristic differences between some taxonomic groups of birds are not morphological, and behavioral signs. For example, when drinking, pigeons make sucking movements and swallow water without throwing back their heads. This distinguishes them from representatives of other orders of birds, the vast majority of which first take water into their mouths and then swallow it, throwing their heads back. It was this character that turned out to be the only one that unambiguously unites all birds of the order Pigeonidae, while in terms of morphological characters, individual groups of species differed quite strongly. Using the method of drinking as a criterion, it was possible to establish that pigeons and plovers belong to different systematic groups, and not to one, as previously assumed. In his research, Whitman was able to identify a number of behavioral signs that have taxonomic meaning. Subsequently, the problem of behavioral differences between species received wide coverage in the works ethologists and zoologists.

O. Heinroth studied the behavior of birds raised in a zoo. Like Whitman, he tried to discover species-specific behavioral traits that could be used in taxonomy. Heinroth focused on various species-specific stereotypic movements and vocal responses. He came to the conclusion that many of them have a hereditary basis and do not require special training for their manifestation. Comparing the forms of similar reactions in birds of related species, he traced the paths of their evolution and used this data to establish the phylogenetic relationship between species. Heinroth also studied the intraspecific communication of birds and drew attention to the parallelism of specific body movements and postures and the morphological characteristics associated with them, for example, the characteristics of the plumage of birds and those movements during which the plumage acquires signaling significance. He suggested that this is due to the parallel development of morphological and behavioral characteristics during the process of evolution. Heinroth's works had a direct influence on the formation of the scientific ideas of his student, the founder of ethology K. Lorenz.

Whitman's student and follower, W. Craig, in his work “Attractions and Antipathies as Components of Instinct” (1918), came to the conclusion that behavior depends not only on the stimuli acting on the animal, but also on its internal needs. In fact, he was the first to draw attention to three main components of instinctive behavior: attraction, or motivation (drive); search behavior (appetitive behavior); consummately act. Subsequently, these provisions of Craig were developed in the works of ethologists and formed the basis of the classical ethological concept of the formation of a behavioral act.

Along with Spaulding, Whitman, Heinroth and Craig, J. Uexküll is considered one of the founders of classical ethology. Particularly famous was his concept of the existence in each species of animals of a specific, characteristic only for it, perceptual the world of "environment". Of the huge variety of stimuli acting on an animal, only a small number of them cause a response. Uexküll gave the following, which has become a textbook example of the specificity of the action of stimuli. The fertilized female mite, located at the end of a plant branch, is in a state of readiness to lay eggs. However, the specific irritant that “allows” her to proceed to this process is the smell of butyric acid, a secretion product of the skin glands of mammals. This smell serves as a signal by which it ceases to stay on the plant and falls on a passing animal, into whose skin it lays eggs.

Uexküll's ideas about the specificity of the action of stimuli served as the basis for the concept of key stimuli, or releasers, in classical ethology.

In addition to zoologists and evolutionary scientists, psychologists also dealt with problems of animal behavior. Among them we can note, for example, such scientists as F.Ya.I. Beitendink, W. James, W. McDougall, et al.

Ukskyl's student - F.Ya.I. Beitendink gained fame in scientific world rather thanks to his works in the field of philosophy and anthropology than research in comparative psychology. However, in his early works, he tried, using objective methods, to study the “spatial and temporal structures of behavior” inherent in animal organisms, realized on the basis of a process of “sensorimotor selection” specific to each species. Some of his research was devoted to sensorimotor learning, the formation of conditioned reflexes with elements of anticipation, the description of aggressive contacts between species, the analysis of animal games and many other problems. Although Beitendink's work is now almost forgotten, many of his conclusions and theoretical positions lie in line with completely modern conceptual and methodological approaches to comparative studies. ethology.

One of the founders of modern psychophysiology, W. James, defined instinct as “the ability to act expediently, but without conscious anticipation of the goal, and without prior learning to perform this expedient action.” Speaking about the appropriateness of instinctive actions, James noted that the animal’s nervous system provides a “pre-organized complex” of reactions, which, however, is not caused by simple stimulation, but by “sensory impressions, perception or image.” He considered it necessary to assume that every creature is born adapted to the perception of certain objects in the environment, just as a key corresponds to a lock.

James's ideas about instincts included other concepts that anticipated the concepts of classical ethology. In particular, he postulated ideas about specific motivation, about critical periods in the formation of instinctive actions and about their interaction with skills during the acquisition of individual experience by an animal.

It is interesting to note that James did not agree with the view common in his time that, due to the high level of development intelligence a person has a small number instincts. He, on the contrary, argued that humans have more different instincts than animals. However, they turn out to be “masked” by his ability to learn and think. This idea was subsequently confirmed and developed in works on human ethology.

It is important that the concept of instinct was for James only part of his general ideas about behavior. To explain the phenomena of behavior, he drew on the idea of ​​the existence of three clear mechanisms, among which instinct was the third, and the first two, respectively, ideomotor a mechanism of voluntary actions and a skill that seemed to him as a kind of “short circuit” of conscious actions during repetitions of voluntary acts.

The famous Anglo-American psychologist W. McDougall, author of “Introduction to Social Psychology,” created the theory of “mental purposefulness.” According to it, instinct not only regulates behavior, but also provides the basis for subjective experience, desire and goal orientation. McDougall believed that all human desires basically come from instincts. Emotions, feelings, desires and aspirations constitute the subjective aspect of instinct, while the behavior that ultimately achieves the goal is the objective aspect of instinct, common to humans and animals. He believed that all human behavior is instinctive in origin and is only slightly modified under the influence of experience. In his opinion, to explain a person’s actions, it is not enough to assume that he has an idea of ​​action. It is more important and significant to explain why he wants to act as he does. McDougall cited such an extensive, almost endless list of human instincts that he clearly demonstrated the weaknesses of his own concept. The “misconceptions of nominalism”, revealed in his desire to “name”, and therefore, as he imagined, and explain this phenomenon, were also obvious. D. Dewsbury (1981) believes that McDougall's concept inspired psychologists with a very skeptical attitude towards the theory of instinct. It fully emerged only later, when the modern concept of behavior began to emerge in disputes between ethologists and psychologists.

The works of the English scientist E. Thorndike (1874-1949) played a huge role in the development of behavioral science. Along with I.P. Pavlov, he is considered the founder of the scientific method of studying the learning process in controlled laboratory conditions. Thorndike became widely famous for his experiments with so-called “problem boxes.” The idea for the experiment was suggested by K. Lloyd-Morgan, who repeatedly observed how his dog independently unlocked the garden gate. Recreating a similar situation in an experiment seemed at that time a convenient model for studying the minds of animals. In these experiments, the animal was placed in a locked box, and in order to get out of it, it had to press a pedal or lever that opened a latch, which the animal could only find by chance. In search of a way out of the box, the animal first makes many random movements - trials, which for the most part are erroneous, and finally makes required action, helping him free himself from captivity. In subsequent experiments, the number of trials and errors decreases over time. In his book Animal Intelligence, published back in 1898, Thorndike argued that solving a problem is an intellectual act, and that "correct" movement arises as a result active actions individual by sequentially trying various manipulations. Subsequently, this method of solving experimental problems was called the “trial and error method.” The “problem box” technique became widespread and began to be used by many experimenters as one of the laboratory tests. She is not forgotten even today.

According to Thorndike, the starting point of a behavioral act is the presence of a so-called problem situation, i.e. such external conditions for escape from which the animal does not have a ready-made motor response. The resolution of a problem situation is determined by the interaction of the organism and the environment as a whole. The animal makes an active choice of actions, and the formation of these actions occurs through exercise. Thorndike formulated his concept in a number of laws: exercise law- the strength of the connection between the reaction to a situation with the situation itself is proportional to the frequency of repetition of such coincidences; law of readiness- repetition of such coincidences changes the body’s readiness to conduct nerve impulses; law of associative shift- if, with the simultaneous action of stimuli, one of them causes a reaction, then the others acquire the ability to cause the same reaction (laws 1-3 were known in psychology earlier, but Thorndike shifted the semantic emphasis from postulating the formation of associations within the nervous system to establishing connections between movements and external events); law of effect- any act that leads to a positive effect in a given situation is further associated with it, so that if the situation is repeated again, then the implementation of this act becomes more likely than before; on the contrary, any act that has a negative impact on the animal in a given situation is less likely to appear when it is repeated. With his experiments, Thorndike significantly expanded the arsenal of methods for objectively studying behavior. Introduced by him into laboratory practice problem boxes", made it possible to quantitatively assess the progress of the learning process. Thorndike was the first to introduce a graphical representation of the progress of developing a skill, research methods, including the "learning curve" method. The transition to a strict quantitative assessment of the manifestations of animal behavior in experiments made Thorndike the founder comparative psychology. The emergence of this direction was the impetus for the creation of a number of laboratories in America. Thorndike's work made it possible for the first time to experimentally differentiate various shapes individual adaptive behavior, showing that the basis of animal actions, which are often perceived as a manifestation of intelligence, can be based on simpler processes, and above all, learning by trial and error.

The most important contributions to the study of animal behavior were made by the Austrian scientist Konrad Lorenz and the Dutch scientist Niko Tinbergen, who are considered the founders of modern ethology. Scientific approach These scientists were prepared by the studies of Whitman, Craig in America and Heinroth in Germany, but it was their work that provided the basis for the future development of ethology, and their approach turned out to be an alternative to the then dominant behaviorism in America.

Konrad Lorenz was born in Austria. He studied medicine in Vienna and at the same time studied comparative anatomy, philosophy and psychology. At first he worked as a demonstrator, and then taught courses on comparative anatomy and zoopsychology. At the same time, at his family home in Altenberg, he studied animal behavior. In 1940, he became a professor of philosophy at the University of Königsberg, but in 1943 he was drafted into the army for medical service. In 1944, Lorenz was captured Soviet troops. After his release in 1948, he worked at the University of Münster, and then in Seewiesen at the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology. He worked there until 1973, when he resigned.

Nicholas Tinbergen was born in The Hague (Netherlands) and studied biology at Leiden University. In 1930 he went on an expedition to Greenland, and in 1938 he visited Lorenz in Altenberg. During World War II he was interned in a hostage camp in the Netherlands. After his release, Tinbergen became a professor of zoology at Leiden University. In 1949 he was invited to teach a course in zoology at Oxford University, where he organized a group to study animal behavior. In 1974 he resigned.

In 1973, Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen, together with Karl von Frisch, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine. Both Lorenz and Tinbergen emphasized the importance of directly studying the behavior of animals in their natural environment. Lorenz's scientific approach is more philosophical in orientation. His many theories had a great influence on the development of behavioral science. Tinbergen was a talented natural biologist who conducted many subtle experiments in natural conditions. The main thing that distinguishes the research of Lorenz and Tinbergen is the attempt to combine the evolutionary, or functional, understanding of the essence of behavior and the causal, or mechanistic one.

3.2 Research by Russian scientists

evolution animal animism phylogenetic

The science of animal behavior developed very fruitfully in Russia. In the middle of the 19th century, in contrast to the then widespread idealistic and metaphysical theories, the outstanding scientist, one of the first evolutionists, professor at Moscow University Karl Roulier (1814-1858) consistently defended the historical approach to the study of living nature. He resolutely opposed the ideas that existed in those years about the supernatural nature of instinct. He argued that along with anatomy, physiology and ecology, it is necessary to study the instincts of animals. Roulier considered the primary cause of the origin of psychic abilities to be the interaction of the organism with the environment in which the animal lives. He considered the origin and development of instincts as a special case of a general biological pattern - as a product of the influence of the external world on the body, and specific facts of the origin of instincts - as a result of the interaction of heredity, variability and a gradual increase in the level of organization of the animal during historical development. Carl Roulier substantiated his point of view on instinct on the basis of his field studies or experiments, with an emphasis on identifying the role and interaction of environmental factors and physiological processes. Such an integrated approach to animal behavior, the desire to identify as fully as possible the ecological and evolutionary factors that determine it, allows us to consider Karl Roulier one of the leading naturalists of the mid-19th century.

Many interesting observations of animal behavior were carried out at the end of the 19th century. zoological scientists M. Menzbier, D. Kaigorodov and others.

A great contribution to the comparative study of the nature of instincts and the development of the very methodology of “biopsychological”, in his terminology, research was made by the talented Russian biologist and zoopsychologist V. A. Wagner (1849-1934). He was engaged in the systematic study of animal behavior different levels development, and many of his studies were comparative psychological in nature. For example, by studying the features of the construction of nests by birds of different species and webs by different species of spiders, Wagner came to the conclusion that the degree of similarity in behavior reflects the degree of their taxonomic proximity. Based on the structure of the web in different systematic groups of spiders, he was able to trace the common features of “construction behavior” of taxonomic groups of animals that diverged millions of years ago. These studies brought Wagner great fame as a natural scientist. His works on the sexual behavior of animals are of great interest and are striking in their modernity.

In his doctoral dissertation “Biological Method in Animal Psychology” (1902), Wagner made the first summary of his work on animal psychology. He emphasized the enormous importance of animal psychology in the search for ways of evolution of psychic abilities in the animal world - an evolution that ultimately leads to an understanding of the genesis of our own “I”. "Objective biological method" Wagner rejected the study of the human psyche as a path to understanding the psyche of animals. The main ideas of the dissertation were further developed in the work “Biological foundations of the comparative method.” Wagner believed that when studying behavior it is necessary to use special methodological approaches, including, first of all, phylogenetic and ontogenetic.

Phylogenetic approach is that the characteristics of the instincts of an animal of a given species should be assessed in comparison with the behavior of species - its closest relatives. Based on such a comparison, one can trace the consistent evolution of instincts in different groups of animals.

Ontogenetic approach recommends analyzing all individual manifestations of instincts in an individual in the process of its development in ontogenesis. In this way one can largely understand the origin of this instinct.

According to the opinion of V.A. Wagner, the use of these approaches is one of the possible ways to understand evolutionary instinctive behavior.

V. A. Wagner paid much attention to the problem of individually acquired behavior, as well as its role in the life of animals. According to the traditions of his time, he called such behavior “mind,” including in this concept the results of learning, the accumulation of experience in the form of associations and imitation.

Wagner noted that since individually acquired behavior is always associated with biologically important situations, it is difficult to draw a line between it and innate behavior. To be able to differentiate between congenital and acquired behavior, he recommended using a number of criteria: anatomical-physiological, ontogenetic and biopsychological.

However, the use of anatomical and physiological criteria immediately led the author himself to an erroneous conclusion. He argued that only animals with a bark have “intelligent” abilities, although already at that time numerous facts of successful learning of various types of invertebrate animals were known. The learning ability of vertebrates with a poorly developed cortex also indicates the limitations of such a criterion. It is possible that this is where the origins of the idea that prevailed until recently lie: that in birds instinctive forms of behavior predominate, and the ability to learn is limited, since they have practically no neocortex.

Ontogenetic criterion assumes that the development of instincts as such does not occur. Instincts, according to Wagner, have successive age stages that replace each other, while “reasonable” abilities develop gradually.

Similar documents

Human evolution, its difference from the evolution of animals and driving forces. Hypotheses of the natural origin of man. Signs of man and his place in the system of the animal world. The main stages of anthropogenesis and characteristic features of the development of human ancestors.

test, added 09/03/2010


Definition of the concept of "game". Concept of animal behavior. Play behavior in animals. Congenital and acquired behavior during individual development. Game functions. Cognitive function of play activity in animals. Forms of gaming behavior.

abstract, added 02/29/2016


Variety of forms of animal behavior. Neuroendocrine mechanisms of organization of behavior and emotionality in animals. The influence of age on the organization of behavior and emotionality in rats. Differences in the behavior of males and females. Locomotor activity of animals.

thesis, added 02/01/2018


Study of the most significant features of the evolution of the animal and plant world. The influence of evolution on the characteristics of plants and animals, analysis of the method of nutrition as the main difference between them. Distinctive features of a biochemical reaction (photosynthesis).

test, added 09/25/2010


The main directions of the science of animal behavior; zoopsychology and comparative psychology, behaviorism, physiology of higher nervous activity and ethology. The problem of ontogenesis of behavior, innate and acquired behavior in individual development.

abstract, added 07/01/2010


Characteristics of dinosaurs as a superorder of terrestrial vertebrates that lived in prehistoric times. Paleontological studies of the remains of these animals. Scientific classification of them into carnivorous and herbivorous subspecies. History of the study of dinosaurs.

presentation, added 04/25/2016


Diversity of the animal kingdom. Zoology is the science of animals. Classification of animals based on kinship. Subkingdom of unicellular animals (protozoa). Origin and meaning of protozoa. Subkingdom of multicellular animals, type Coelenterates.

abstract, added 07/03/2010


Tracing the evolution from the simplest behavioral acts in animals to sexual relations person. Studies of sexual behavior in great apes. Monogamy and polygyny as a social project of man at a certain stage of evolution.

abstract, added 12/13/2010


Science in the Middle Ages. Slowing down of characteristic rhythms (calm before the storm). Increased noise fluctuations. Statistical physics, information about the “microscopic” structure of bodies. The theory of catastrophes, features of system behavior and the approach of a critical point.

test, added 06/14/2010


Overall plan structures of vertebrates. Comparison of individual organs in vertebrates belonging to different classes. Homologous and convergent organs. Rudiments and atavisms, transitional forms. Similarity and divergence of characteristics in embryos.