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

於是你趕走小狗， 享受這舒適的夜晚。

After all, you're the human around here.

別忘了， 你才是主宰這裡的人類，

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

擁有智慧， 而不是單靠本能的動物。

You can plan and dream, and oh-

你能夠計劃未來，擁有夢想......

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

噢！小狗是否自認為比你聰明， 因為能搶到沙發而沾沾自喜？

Or was he just following his instincts?

又或者牠只是單憑本能行動呢？

Is there even a difference?

這兩者可有分別嗎？

What is he thinking?

牠正在想什麼？

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

這取決於我們對「思考」的定義

and the criteria we use to evaluate it.

以及用什麼標準去評估它。

Aristotle and Descartes both use the criteria of instinct and intelligence

亞里斯多德以及笛卡兒以「本能直覺」以及「理性思考」

to divide animals from humans.

來區別動物和人類。

Aristotle believed that humans possess reason,

亞里士多德相信人類是理性的，

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

而動物只是出自 生存和繁殖的本能。

Almost 2000 years later,

大約2000年後，

Descartes suggested a more extreme version of that idea,

笛卡兒對於這個理念 提出了更進一步的觀點：

arguing that animals following instincts were indistinguishable

他主張動物憑藉本能而行動，

from robots responding mechanically to stimuli in their environments.

就像機械人呆板地 依據外界刺激而作出反應。

But the consensus against animal intelligence began to unravel

但是這些認為 "動物不具有智慧" 的觀點，

with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

被達爾文的演化論推翻了。

Darwin hypothesized that intelligence could evolve from simpler instincts.

達爾文假設， 簡單的本能可演化成智慧。

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

他觀察到蚯蚓

into their boroughs,

為了將奇形怪狀的樹葉拉回巢穴， 會出現抉擇的行為；

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

這讓他突然想起， 人類也會用同樣的方法來解決問題。

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

所以他猜想， 如果人類是源自於原始動物，

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

或許人類的心智 經過長期演變之後，

differing from theirs in degree, but not in kind.

與動物仍然有相同的思考方式， 只是程度上有所不同。

Recent experiments showing that many species can solve complex problems

最新的研究證明， 很多動物能夠解決複雜問題，

confirm Darwin's initial hypothesis.

這證實了達爾文 最初的假設是對的。

Elephants use objects to reach inaccessible places.

大象懂得運用物體， 幫助牠搆到很高的地方，

Crows make their own tools,

鳥鴉會製造自己的工具，

and can use water displacement to get a reward.

並利用排水法來獲得獎賞。

Octopuses can open jars after watching others do so,

看過其他章魚的示範之後， 章魚能學會打開瓶蓋，

and can even remember the process months later.

甚至一個月後 仍舊記得開蓋的步驟。

Such tasks involve considering aspects of a problem

上述的動作， 需要在思考問題時

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

排除事件當時的情境， 並且把這種方法留待日後再用。

Still, while animals can solve complex problems,

然而，就算動物能夠 解決複雜的問題，

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

我們又如何知道動物在想什麼， 甚至是否正在思考呢？

Behaviorists, such as Pavlov and Thorndike, argue

行為學家，例如帕夫洛夫 和桑代克，

that animals that appear to think

主張動物會表現出思考的行為，

are usually only responding to reward or punishment.

其實只是對奬賞或懲罰的反應。

This was the case with Clever Hans,

舉個例子，有一匹馬叫聰明漢斯，

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

牠精通算術， 會用馬蹄踏地的方式來回答問題。

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

但是後來，人們發現 漢斯並不是數學奇才，

but at reading his unwitting trainer's subtle nonverbal cues

而是能察覺到訓練員 無意間表現出的非言語暗示，

for when to stop tapping.

因此知道何時該停止踏地。

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

漢斯不懂計算， 但是並不代表牠不會思考，

After all, he could interpret nuanced social messages,

別忘了，牠能理解 細微的社交訊息，

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

很多人類以外的動物 同樣具有這種特質。

Elephants recognize each other after years apart,

大象跟同類分散多年後， 仍然能認得對方，

and even seem to mourn their dead.

甚至還會為死去的大象哀痛。

Bees communicate using a special waggle dance

蜜蜂用一種特別的搖擺舞蹈來通訊，

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

告訴同類食物的位置和品質。

Chimpanzees engage in complex deception schemes,

黑猩猩能表現出 複雜的惡作劇行為，

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

這樣說明猩猩不僅會思考， 而且瞭解其他同伴的行為。

And then there is Alex the Grey Parrot,

此外，還有非洲灰鸚鵡艾力士，

who could use human language

牠能夠運用人類語言

to distinguish the colors and shapes of absent objects,

說出物體所隱含的顏色和形狀，

and even understand abstract concepts, like bigger and smaller.

甚至能瞭解抽象概念， 例如更大和更小。

That sounds a lot like intelligence,

從上面這些例子， 動物看來似乎都具有智慧，

and not just the work of mindless machines.

而不是不會思考的機器。

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

雖然非人類動物 可以解決問題甚至互相溝通，

for humans, thinking also involves consciousness,

但是人類在思考時， 還會同時具有 "意識"，

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

也就是在行動後進行反思， 而不是盲目地一試再試。

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

直到現在，仍然未有任何研究證明，

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

如果小狗知道自己比人類聰明， 牠們會因此而感到高興。

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

我們很渴望知道 狗的感覺是什麼？

or an octopus,

還有章魚？

or a crow?

或者烏鴉又怎樣呢？

Philosophers of mind call this The Hard Problem,

心智哲學家認為 這是個很大的難題。

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

因為大家都可以形容 身為人類具有什麼感覺，

nobody speaks horse.

卻沒有人能說出 馬的感覺是怎樣的，

Even a talking parrot, like Alex,

就算是一隻會說話的鸚鵡， 像艾力士，

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

也不能告訴我們牠對於 說出來的顏色有什麼感覺。

And what if consciousness comes in different forms?

如果意識用不同的形式表現出來，

Would we even recognize the consciousness of bees?

我們還能認出 那是蜜蜂的意識嗎？

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

其實我們如何確定 其他人同樣具有意識？

Perhaps they're just well-functioning zombies.

也許他們只是 功能卓越的殭屍而已。

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

畢竟我們對於 動物智慧的認識仍然有限。

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

我們替動物智慧 所下的定義，