Chapter 2 Chapter 1 The Nature of Intelligence

Although innate information processing, instinctive behavior, intrinsically coordinated motivation and drive, and inherently oriented learning are all fundamental elements of animal cognition, they do not seem to be associated with thinking, judgment, decision-making, etc. part of the more esoteric realm of spiritual activity.So what exactly is thinking?And how do we know how it works in the most secret organ of other living beings—the brain?On the one hand, we are conditioned to believe that real thinking runs through aesthetics, morality, and decision-making behavior, and on the other hand, at least in some animals, sophisticated programming can create the illusion that it seems to be thinking.What code of conduct would enable us to distinguish the two?Is all thinking, including human thinking, just the result of clever programming, as advocates of artificial intelligence assume?

People have always framed intelligence in very narrow terms, as if it were some kind of number that could be assigned to people.The higher the number, the better, just like "batting average" in baseball.Intelligence is always measured by various indicators, such as spatial ability, verbal comprehension, fluency of word expression, numerical ability, inductive reasoning, perceptual speed, deductive reasoning, mechanical memory and so on.There has been a tendency in recent decades to refer to these various test subtypes as "multiple intelligences."Indeed, why lump these abilities together in an attempt to boil intelligence down to a single number?

The short answer is: a single number seems to tell us something new - while overgeneralization can be harmful, it provides some interesting information.Why do you say that?Just because a person does well on one subcategory of intelligence testing by no means predicts that he will necessarily do poorly on another subcategory; performance is often better than average. It's as if there is some kind of common factor in the ability to do the test.The so-called "general factor "g" represents this interesting correlation between the different test subcategories. The psychologist Arthur Jensen noted that the two strongest influences on g are speed (such as when you How many questions can be answered in a fixed time) and the number of things you can deal with in your mind at the same time. Analogy question A is to B as C is to (D, E, F), usually at least keep multiple concepts in mind at the same time , and compare.

All of this makes IQ a lot like a job description for a mass-produced fast food chef who juggles six different servings of fast food at once, hour after hour, without a break.Therefore, a high IQ is meaningless for most people's ordinary life, but only important in situations where quickness and versatility are required.A high IQ is usually necessary to do well in a complex or varied occupation (such as being a doctor); it is also a merit in a career of moderate complexity (such as being a secretary or In occupations that simply require routine and less rushed decisions or simple problem solving, a high IQ offers very limited advantages.For a clerk or teller, for example, reliability and people skills may be far more important than intelligence.

IQ is certainly a fascinating aspect of intelligence, but it doesn't include everything else.We shouldn't make the mistake of reducing intelligence to a simple number on a scoring scale, which is like characterizing a football game by a statistic such as pass completion percentage.Yes, winning is significantly associated with this statistic for football federations as a whole, but it is far from a successful pass for football.Some teams win the ball because they have other strengths, and they may not even make a successful pass.IQ does correlate with "winning" in many contexts, but it's not all about intelligence any more than successful passing is all about football.

I see intelligence as the ivory spire of neurophysiology, the sum of the many facets of an individual's brain organization that enable people to do things they haven't done before.We can't yet explain it in all its splendor, but we do understand some aspects of it—behavioral, neurophysiological, and evolution-like processes that operate on a second-by-second basis.We even have an understanding of the principles of self-organization that lead to qualitative mutations and the formation of new levels in evolution, as happens in competition between categories and metaphors. The main question about intelligence is not "who" is more intelligent, but "what" is intelligence? "When" is intelligence needed?And "how" does intelligence work?Connotations of intelligence include cleverness, foresight, speed, creativity, the ability to juggle multiple events simultaneously, and others.

Does human intelligence arise because we have more than other animals?Measuring the brain in terms of size, like a melon, can be misleading.Only the outer layer of the brain—the cerebral cortex—is apparently involved in forming new associations, and the bulk of the brain entity is insulating.They wrap the "wires" that connect the various parts of the brain: the better the insulation, the faster the signal travels.As animals got bigger, the "wires" got longer, which required better insulation to speed up the transmission of signals and keep reaction times short.This insulation increased the size of the white matter even though the number of neurons in the cortex remained the same.

Sweet orange peel is only a small part of sweet orange, and the human cerebral cortex is even thinner than sweet orange peel, only about 2 mm, which is only equivalent to the thickness of two dime coins.The human cerebral cortex is full of creases, but if you peel it off and flatten it, it's roughly the size of four sheets of printer paper.The cerebral cortex of a chimpanzee is the size of a sheet of typed paper; that of a monkey is the size of a postcard; that of a mouse is the size of a postage stamp.If we spread a fine grid over the flattened cortex, we find that the number of neurons in each small square grid is roughly the same in all cortical areas (except primary visual cortex, which in all binocular animals , there are numerous other small neurons in this area).Therefore, if more neurons are needed for a particular function, the cortex needs more surface area.

We believe that because of the high visual demands of foraging, the visual cortex (rather than the auditory cortex) was enlarged during the monkey generation, that is, the evolution produced a bump here, and then, when a certain There is also a bulge there when evolutionary selection pressures for species come into play.But could natural selection requiring more brain space for any non-olfactory (eg, visual) function lead to the same requirement for all other functions?This is now highly skeptical because regional brain enlargement is often difficult from a developmental point of view.Therefore, it may be the general rule that growing one region also grows all regions, rather than the exception.

If one evolutionary pathway leading to a "free lunch" wasn't enough, there is another: New functions often emerge initially by using a preexisting part of the brain in spare time.In a way, brain regions are multifunctional, which prevents us from labeling regions.So, which pre-existing functions are most associated with the jumps in intelligence and foresight that occurred during the evolution from apes to humans?Most people speak the language.In my view, a common "fundamental ability" to coordinate language and hand movements (as seen in music and dance in our leisure time) is more telling than a special ability that is only a function of language.

Intelligence is sometimes described as a mosaic of areas of the brain involved in knowledge-seeking, the sum of all perception mechanisms that are sensitive to expectations.That must be true.But if you define intelligence only so broadly that it encompasses most of the functions of the brain, then such an expression does not advance your understanding any more than you do by extending the meaning of consciousness to cover plant life. Same.A checklist is not an explanation, however interesting it may be, and however much the topic may need to be covered in an introductory course.It is not my aim to eliminate the mechanisms of perception from the connotations of intelligence, but to elucidate the basis of speculation and the layers of self-organization that produce hierarchical stability. The Spanish physician Juan Huarte defined intelligence in 1575 as the ability to learn, judge, and imagine.In modern literature, intelligence often refers to the ability to think abstractly, reason and organize large amounts of information into meaningful systems.Not only does this sound like a pedant trying to define himself, but it is too lofty a definition to easily extend to other animals.A better starting point for understanding what intelligence is is the literature on animal behavior, where there are good operational definitions of intelligence that take as a starting point a multifaceted talent for problem solving. Bertrand Russell once commented sarcastically that "the animals studied by the Americans run about with incredible haste and energy, and they finally get what they want by accident. The animals studied by the Germans sit still." Think, and finally get the answer from its inner consciousness." Russell's quip in 1927 is a British commentary on the way of scientific research, and this wise quip about problem solving also exemplifies us There is no divide between insight and random trial-and-error.Insight is an act of intellect, there is no arguing that. "Pure randomness" is off the table in the usual discussion of the problem, but we're misled by it.We will discuss this in detail later. I like Piaget's emphasis on intelligence being something you use when you don't know what to do, which captures the element of novelty.Intelligence is the ability to cope when there is nothing you can do and the usual methods don't work.Just think of improvisation in jazz music, it's not those elaborate compositions like Mozart's or Bach's concertos.Intelligence is the process of improvisation and perfection in the moment of gesture. The neurobiologist Horace Barlow put the problem even more succinctly, showing us those aspects of intelligence that can be tested experimentally.He said intelligence is about guessing—not old guessing, of course, but about discovering some new, inner order. "Brilliant Guessing" clearly includes many aspects: finding the answer to a question or the logical relationship in an argument; coming up with an appropriate metaphor by chance; establishing a pleasant rapport or making a witty reply, or Anticipate what is about to happen. Indeed, many times you habitually or even subconsciously guess what is going to happen next, such as when listening to a story or music.Having a crying child fill in the last word of each line to distract the child from crying is extremely effective and is used in many cultures.A subconscious prediction is often the reason why a good joke or a sudden variation of a famous Bach song can make you stunned - the discrepancy between your subconscious prediction and the reality surprises you.A little deviation is often humorous, but the disordered environment is unpleasant, just like if one day your career is unstable, full of noise, or drivers make mistakes in driving, or strangers flock to you, what you expected and What actually happened is always wrong, and you will be upset. How do I deal with this discordant environment?Let's bring predictions back to a more appropriate level, rather than fretting ourselves over by wallowing ourselves in predicting what's bound to happen.In doing so, you can convince yourself that you are still good at forecasting.Maybe that's why, after a day of turbulent circumstances, you find relief in a religious service, in music, or in a "sitcom"—then there's the joy of constantly guessing what's going to happen next. One of the common mistakes beginners make is to equate intelligence with purposeful and complex behavior.Elaborate and complex behavior might have been a reasonable place to look for signs of intelligence.After all, our acts of language and foresight are undoubtedly aspects of intellectual behavior, and they are complex enough. But many complex behaviors of animals are innate, innate, and do not need to be learned.These behaviors are not easily changed and are often difficult to demonstrate at will.These immutable patterns of movement, like computer programs, do not go deep into their purpose, they are just sequential. Behaviors, whether innate or learned, can be persistent and complex.Take, for example, the behavior of an idiot academic who can remember the details of many things but lacks the ability to break down information into meaningful parts, reassemble it, and use it in a new situation.The calls of whales and the nesting of insects are equally non-intellectual. Nor is the coherent song of whales and birds a sign of intelligence.Most unconscious behaviors tend to be coherent, with one completion leading to the next: courtship is followed by complex processes such as nesting, egg laying, incubation, and then various stereotyped offspring care behaviors.In fact, the more complex and "purposeful" a behavior is, the further it may be from intellectual behavior, because natural selection has secured the pathways for its completion, leaving little opportunity.For learning, usually only for some very simple things, not for complex, chained behaviors that are significant. We don't quite understand some of our behaviors, such as yawning, or the desire to hug and kiss (bonobos and chimpanzees also have these behaviors), and animals don't necessarily understand their behavior either.We like to get to the bottom of things, and in this regard, most animals are usually not so eager to "know" anything, and they have no attempt to innovate, at most some small changes and slow learning processes.Thought seems to be a reserve, too slow to rely on in the normal course of things, and often prone to error. The best signs of intelligence are found in situations where animals are faced with simpler but less predictable problems.For these rare and novel situations, evolution does not provide a standard answer, and the animal must use its intelligence immediately.While we often use "intelligence" to refer to a wide range of abilities and the efficiency with which they are achieved, flexibility and creativity are also implied.In the words of behaviorists James and Carol Gould, "the ability to break free from intuition and create new ways of solving problems." This greatly limits the scope of the discussion. In tests of convergent thinking, there is almost always only one conclusion or answer, which is considered unique, and along which the thinking must converge or be controlled... In divergent thinking, on the other hand, the thinking explore in different directions.When there is no single answer to a question, this one.Fire appears the most obvious.The characteristic of divergent thinking is that it is not restrained.It allows the mind to move freely in all directions... negating old answers, exploring in other directions is necessary, and resourceful people are more likely to succeed. When the topic turns to intelligence, many people think of stories about intelligent animals.Dogs, they insisted, must be intelligent.Most of these stories tend to describe how well dogs understand language, or how they know their owners' intentions. Behaviorists and animal psychologists will patiently answer that dogs are very social animals.They always obey their master, just like wild dogs obey the king of dogs, they will ask: "Master, what do you want?"Talking to domesticated dogs also induces these innate tendencies, although your words themselves carry no information.People don't realize how much information is conveyed by the voice tone and body language of the proxy dog ​​(that's you).If you read today's newspaper headline to your dog with the same tone, look, and gesture as you used to ask your dog to fetch your slippers, he might be able to fetch your slippers too. In many cases, things are not too easily confused; the environment itself (person, place, situation, surrounding objects) provides almost all the information for the dog to respond appropriately to commands.Most dogs are limited in what they can do, and it's not difficult for them to guess what to do.Training a dog to fetch 10 different things on command is a more difficult request for a dog, purely because it's hard for a dog to guess your intentions.If you believe your dog can understand human language, then please have someone else say the same to it from another room via some communication device, which eliminates most environmental cues.Many intelligent animals fail this rigorous test of comprehension in conversation, not even chimpanzees who have been intensively trained to respond to graphic symbols.But in familiar surroundings, when situational choices are obvious, dogs do tend to pass easier tests and demonstrate some of the prescribed actions.How many kinds of actions you can do is an important factor in measuring intelligence.Dogs have many instinctive behaviors, such as flocking, barking, etc.; they can learn many other things.As the psychologist Stanley Coren has observed, after intensive training they can even pick up a considerable number of communicable signals. "My pet dogs have a total acceptable vocabulary of 90, of which about 65 are words or phrases, and about 25 are signals or gestures. At the same time, their expressive vocabulary is about 60, of which about 25 They express by voice, and about 35 express by body. But they don’t know anything about syntax or grammar. If you compare them with children, they are equivalent to 18-20 months old children in terms of language habits. The Japanese who have learned some sign language Orangutans scored about the same as a 30-month-old toddler." Speed ​​of learning is also related to intelligence.The reason why dogs and dolphins can perform a complete set of movements after training is that they usually learn faster than cats.Therefore, "intelligence" is a composite of many things, and it is related to many mental abilities.Perhaps intelligence is precisely the effective combination of those abilities that function in intelligent behavior.An animal's choice of appropriate behavior may be the key to understanding animal intelligence.In many stories about "smart animals," animals do what they're told rather than think for themselves.Unless it's an antic, Piaget's creative element is often lost in the face of ambiguous tasks.The scientific literature on non-human intelligence attempts to address the problem of innovation, however, because the actions of most animals thought to be intelligent cannot be repeated, the literature is inevitably full of anecdotes ("Machiavelli's Intelligence" is A good book on apes).Emphasizing comparisons across species can go some way towards reducing the dangers that anecdotal evidence can do to science.For example, most dogs cannot untie the leash that holds them to a tree, but chimpanzees might not.A dog-leash-like release button on the cage door is enough to lock most young monkeys in, even if they can reach it to fiddle with the door button.But the apes will try to break it, so you have to use the lock, and you can't leave the key there!Orangutans engage in deception—guessing what another ape might be thinking and taking advantage of it—while most monkeys don't seem to have the mental machinery to do so. For many, the essence of intelligence is this creative dexterity.If an animal is exceptionally good at solving problems or acting creatively, we consider it particularly intelligent.But human intelligence is judged by other additional criteria. When I tried to correct a colleague of mine on the definition of intelligence as "creatively smart," he looked around at it and began citing some examples of being smart. When you say how smart someone is, you say, "Well, he's smart." By that, you mean well-spoken, responsive, and quick to adapt.But he can't carry out his plan very well, and he lacks the advantages of long-term consideration, such as strategy, perseverance and good judgment. Yes, I agree, true intelligence also involves foresight.But judging from the behavior of the orangutans, they don't worry too much about tomorrow, at most they occasionally make plans for half an hour. Therefore, the vision of the future may be a development of intelligence when apes evolved into humans. "Intelligence includes imagination," I added, remembering an after-dinner presentation I once gave to a group of highly intelligent people.Although every listener scored high on the IQ test, I was amazed at the difference in one of the audience's imaginations.Then it dawned on me that I had always thought IQ and imagination went hand in hand, but imagination only contributes to intelligence when it forms something of high quality. People with hallucinations are highly imaginative, but that doesn't make them smart. In fact, IQ can only measure those aspects of what is generally understood as intellectual behavior.IQ tests are not inherently tests of the ability to plan ahead. If I sometimes come up with original ideas, it's because I've always been extremely prone to mixing ideas up...by finding wild analogies and relationships that no one else would have thought of!These are rarely confused by outsiders, who move forward with careful analysis. It may be important to have sufficient amounts of the various building blocks.Enumerating sensory and motor repertoires (as Collen did with dogs) is useful, as long as the bifurcation of stimulus-response is not too literal.There are countless examples of responses that arise for no apparent trigger, as in the case of an orangutan aimlessly pulling a leaf off a branch.Stimulus-response relationships are often not apparent; the animal seeks out the stimulus itself as part of forming its response.With these factors in mind, let us consider some classic instances of stimulus-response. Many animals have sentient templates that they use to choose the size (and shape) of what they see, like a child trying different pastry cutters to try out various Christmas cakes to see if one matches a certain one. A specific pastry match.For example, birds fluff up their bodies when hawks fly by, as if they have an innate image of hawks in their minds.But in fact, it's not.At first they curled up when any bird flew by, and later they could recognize some common birds; when the image became familiar, they no longer avoided it.Because of this habit, they end up avoiding only unusual, odd-looking birds and predators (such as hawks) flying by—these birds are uncommon because there are not many animals at the top of the food chain. So, avoidance is a response to novelty, not to a fixed "warning" search image.It's as if a child would be upset if he found a piece of pastry that was oddly shaped and didn't fit any of the pastry cutters. Composers have noticed that pure overtones (such as those produced by a flute) are softer, while messy overtones (in heavy metal music or the harsh voice of certain singers, such as Michael Jackson) seem to be threatening or warning signals.I have been thinking that the dysregulated sensations produced by nerve damage are often perceived as painful for the same reasons, rather than simply meaningless. In addition to having sensory templates for familiar sights and sounds, animals also have many action patterns to choose from.A mandarin duck can decide whether to swim in the water to search for food, fly to another pond, spread its wings to dry (they are not as fatty as duck feathers), or just stand there - it depends. It depends on how heavy its wings are, how full its stomach is, whether it has a sexual drive, and so on.All animals make decisions; it is a trade-off of feelings and desires before choosing a standard behavior from a library of behaviors modified by the environment. Of course, the situation is similar when people choose a restaurant, considering its menu, parking lot, price, time spent commuting and waiting, and its atmosphere—all of which are compared with other restaurants.While such trade-offs seem to be made consciously, the choice itself does not involve much intelligence, unlike the intellectual activity that accompanies us to add new items to our list of "what to do next" ("Imagine, How about a Vietnamese restaurant in town?") Out of curiosity, I took a pencil out of my pocket and touched a strand of cobweb.The spider reacted immediately.The web, fiddled with by its provocateur, began to vibrate until it became blurred.Any animal with furry claws or wings that touches this magical net will be completely engulfed.When the trembling slowed down, I could see the owner of the net mending the marks of struggle on its web.The point of the pencil is a violation the world has never experienced.The spider is confined to the idea of ​​the spider; its world is only the world of the spider.All the external world is irrational, irrelevant to it, at best raw material for the spider.As I walked along the ravine like a huge, unreal shadow, I realized that I did not exist in the spider's world. Sometimes animals try a new combination of search images and actions during play, and later discover the usefulness of this combination.So perhaps we should include play as an attribute of intelligence. However, many animals are just playful like children—adults are less playful, and have a family to support and don't have the time or inclination to play around.A long childhood, as pigs and humans have, contributes to the development of talents due to the accumulation of useful combinations.Some evolutionary trends, including the domestication of animals, tend to carry infancy into adulthood, which may contribute to the development of talent. Not only do you learn from your own experience, you also imitate others, just as Japanese newspapers imitate creative women who wash the sand out of food.You may avoid things that scare others, even if you aren't scared yourself, but such "superstitious behavior" can be passed on. The original reason for "don't step on the cracks in the sidewalk" may have been forgotten, but the cultural transmission has been passed down from generation to generation, and that's enough. If you have a large set of "magic moves" for playing chess by heart, it will certainly make it much easier to foresee.Foresight appears simple at first glance, so simple that it hardly requires high intelligence, but that is because we confuse foresight with species-specific seasonal behavior. Squirrels stockpiling nuts for the winter seems to be a standard example of planning ahead in the animal kingdom.Now we know what's going on.The hormone melatonin, secreted by the pineal gland when it gets dark, heralds the onset of winter.Longer nights lead to increased melatonin secretion each week, which triggers food storage behavior and fur growth.It doesn't take a lot of brain power to do this kind of "planning". Of course there are other behaviors that are established by the innate wiring of the brain to prepare for something months in advance.The act of fertilization produces offspring after a certain delay.Seasonal migration may be instinctive, or it may be learned to become a natural program in late adulthood.Of course, that's hardly a plan—the seasons are clearly predictable, and plants and animals have evolved over thousands of years to develop some built-in mechanism for sensing the approach of winter: turning hard The husks may "feel good" in storage, much like the gradient of pheromones that permeates the air. Planning as a few minutes is also seen in different situations, but as you will see, they probably cannot be called planning.Remember a set of action programs, for example, when the monkey in the cage sees where the food is hidden, it can find the food after being released from the cage after 20 minutes.This is sometimes called "planning," but could it just be memory?Another piece of evidence that has been questioned concerns spatial behaviour.If bees are released in unfavorable containers thousands of miles away in unfamiliar places, they will quickly find the best way to go after a favorite food source they have never seen before.Is this a plan or a reference memory of the terrain?They first fly around a few times to find out the direction, and then fly in the right direction.They may have taken their clues from surveying the terrain. Perhaps we should say that planning involves something new in a similar way to the way we procrastinate: identifying what can be put off until tomorrow (or avoided altogether).I keep this term because certain behaviors are behaviors where multiple phases of action are pre-combined before the action, rather than those in which the later phases are organized after the initial action is initiated, and that is how goal ten feedback works. of. Evidence for such a multi-stage plan in great apes is scant, even in their frequent behaviors.As Jacob Bronowski once pointed out, no chimpanzee wanders around "all night" to make enough food for tomorrow.Although wild orangutans often believe in approaching distant fruit trees when their fruit is ripe, how much of this is due to migration programming, and how much is due to prior planning for path selection? For most of your movements, such as raising your coffee cup to your lips, there is time to improvise mid-way.If the cup is lighter than you remember, you can adjust its trajectory so it doesn't hit the tip of your nose.So there is actually no need for a complete plan in advance; the goal with a little revision is enough.You start with general directions and then make slight adjustments, like rockets to the moon.Most stories about animals planning are of this type. Multi-stage planning is best expressed in a high-level form of crowd intelligence: modeling and exploiting the mental models of others.An orangutan will yell "food" where there is no food, and then sneak back through the dense forest to where it actually saw the food.When other orangutans forage in the so-called bushes with food, it has all the food to itself and does not need to share it with other orangutans. What is really difficult is planning in detail up front for unique situations, like deciding what to do with leftovers in the refrigerator.Whether you're a hunter plotting ways to approach a deer, or a futurist juggling three different scenarios to map out what an industry might look like in 10 years, it takes a lot of thinking. kind of scheme.We do a lot more than apes: we can sometimes even heed Edmund Burke's 18th-century warning that "what the public interest now requires is that wise and good Something that people want to do in five to 10 years." Therefore, multi-stage planning for new situations is certainly an aspect of intelligence.Indeed, that appears to be one aspect of the transition from the ape cell to the human brain that was greatly enhanced.But I think learning is a common thing, not surprising. Of course, one foundation that versatility, foresight, and creativity require is existing knowledge.It is impossible to be a poet or a scientist without a sufficient vocabulary, but a definition of intelligence that emphasizes the synaptic mechanisms of knowledge or memory does miss that mark—it becomes false reductionism, the The emphasis on reducing things to their basic components goes a little too far as far as this goes.This mistake is common among physicists working on consciousness, and I explain it in the next chapter. For example, Shakespeare didn't invent all the words he used, he just rearranged them, especially using metaphors to transfer a relationship from one level to another.Likewise, intellectual behavior is often composed of new combinations of old things. Deductive logic is another aspect of what intelligence is, at least for humans.I think that philosophers and physicists overestimate the human capacity for logical reasoning.Logic, according to Barlow, consists of guessing about the inner order of things—but only when there is indeed an unmistakable inner order to guess at (mathematics being a good example).The guesswork required for multi-digit division is a method of gradual approximation, a type of method that can run unconsciously so fast that it appears to be a leap to a finished "logical" product.Is it possible that logic is a property of the topic rather than a property of the mental process, that guessing is the most essential thing both in mental arithmetic and in creative thinking? A list of whats can be further expanded on both what is and what is not, but I will mainly discuss Barlow's point that this aspect of guessing about order, more generally, will focus on Piaget's question: how to make a decision when there is no clear choice.我知道这将把智力一词的某些用法排除在外，就像当我们谈论智力设计或军事智力时那样，但是对次序作猜测的这个侧面使智力的含义涵盖这么广阔的范围，倘若我们能避免关于意识的混淆和不合适的解释层次的话，那么围绕于此进行分析是值得的。 由激素驱动的侵犯、性欲和权欲、欺骗和捣乱、友谊和怨恨、善意和恶意的玩笑等等的混合都在振动相似的弦。我们需要假设灵长类（特别是黑猩猩）对它们正在做的和企图做的懂得很多，就其对同伴的意图和态度而言，它们所作的推论几乎与人类相似。只有这样，才能为这些动物的许多行为作出合理的解释。