7.1. The evolution of the human psyche in phylogenesis. Origin of employment, public relations and articulate speech

At the earliest stages of evolution, man, paying attention to the differences and similarities in the behavior of animals, tried to realize his attitude towards the animal world. This fact is supported by the special role that man assigned to the behavior of animals, reflecting it in various rites, tales, legends. Legends and ceremonies of this type were created independently of each other on different continents and were of great importance in the formation of the consciousness of primitive man.

Much later, with the emergence of scientific thinking, the problem of the behavior of the animal, its psyche, the search for "soul" became an integral part of many philosophical concepts. Some ancient thinkers recognized the close relationship between man and animals, putting them on the same step of mental development, while others categorically denied the slightest connection between human mental activity and similar animal activities. It is precisely the ideological views of ancient scientists that for many centuries determined the interpretation of the behavioral and mental activity of animals.

The subsequent surge of interest in human mental activity in comparison with the mental activity of animals was associated with the development of evolutionary teachings. Charles Darwin and his followers unilaterally emphasized the similarity and kinship of all mental phenomena, ranging from lower organisms to human. Darwin categorically denied the fact that there are any differences between the human psyche and the animal psyche. In his works he very often attributed human thoughts and feelings to animals. Such a one-sided understanding of the genetic kinship of the psyche of the animal and man was criticized by V.A. Wagner

Wagner insisted that it was not the psyche of man and animals that should be compared, but the psyche of the forms inherent in the previous and subsequent group of animals. He pointed to the existence of general laws of evolution of the psyche, without the knowledge of which the understanding of human consciousness is impossible. Only such an approach, in the opinion of this scientist, could reliably reveal the prehistory of anthropogenesis and properly understand the biological prerequisites for the emergence of the human psyche.

At present, the process of anthropogenesis, as well as the origin of human consciousness, can only be judged indirectly, by analogy with living animals. But it should not be forgotten that all these animals have gone a long way of adaptive evolution and left a profound imprint on their behavior on the conditions of existence. Thus, in higher vertebrates, in the evolution of the psyche, a number of side branches is observed, not related to the line leading to anthropogenesis, but reflecting only the specific biological specialization of individual groups of animals. For example, in no case can you compare the behavior of human ancestors and the behavior of birds or the behavior of many highly developed mammals. Even now living primates most likely followed the regressive path of evolution, and all of them are currently at a lower level of development than the human ancestor. Any, even the most complex, psychic abilities of monkeys, on the one hand, are entirely determined by their living conditions in their natural environment, their biology, and on the other hand, they only serve to adapt to these conditions.

All these facts should be remembered when searching for the biological roots of anthropogenesis and the biological prerequisites for the emergence of human consciousness. By the behavior of the now existing monkeys, as well as other animals, we can only judge the direction of mental development and the general patterns of this process in the long path of anthropogenesis.

Origin of employment. It is well known that the main factors for the development of human consciousness are labor activity, articulate speech and social life created on the basis of them. At the present stage, for zoopsychologists, the most important task is the study of the ways of the development of human labor activity on the example of the use of instrument activity by higher animals. Labor since its inception was manual. The human hand is first of all an organ of labor, but it has also developed thanks to labor. The development and qualitative transformations of the human hand are central to anthropogenesis, both physically and psychologically. The most important role is played by her prehensile abilities - a phenomenon that is quite rare in the animal world.

All the biological prerequisites of labor activity should be sought in the peculiarities of the grasping functions of the fore limbs of mammals. In this connection, a reasonable question arises: why did monkeys, and not other animals with prehensile forelimbs, become the ancestors of man? This problem has been studied for a long time by K.E. Fabry, studying in a comparative aspect the relationship between the main (locomotor) and additional (manipulative) functions of the forelimbs in the monkey and other mammals. As a result of numerous experiments, he concluded that for the process of anthropogenesis an important role is played by the antagonistic relations between the main and additional functions of the forelimbs. The ability to manipulate arose to the detriment of basic functions, in particular, fast running. In the majority of animals with prehensile forelimbs (bears, raccoons), manipulative actions fade into the background, are, as it were, not a particularly important appendage, without which the animal, in principle, can live. Most of these animals are terrestrial, and the main function of their forelimbs is motor.

The exception is the primates. The primary form of their movement is climbing by grabbing the branches, and this form is the main function of their limbs. With such a method of movement increases the muscles of the fingers, increases their mobility, and most importantly, the thumb is opposed to the rest. This structure of the brush determines the ability of monkeys to manipulate. Only in primates, according to Fabry, the main and additional functions of the forelimbs are not in antagonistic relations, but harmoniously combined with each other. As a result of the harmonious combination of locomotion and manipulative actions, it became possible to develop motor activity, which elevated monkeys over other mammals and later laid the foundation for the formation of specific motor capabilities of the human hand.

The evolution of the primate hand went simultaneously in two directions: 1) an increase in the flexibility and variability of grasping movements; 2) an increase in the total grasp of objects. As a result of this bilateral development of the brush, the use of tools became possible, which can be considered the first step in anthropogenesis.

Along with progressive changes in the structure of the forelimbs, deep correlative changes in the behavior of human ancestors also occurred. They develop skin and muscular sensitivity of the hand, which after some time will acquire leading value. Tactile sensitivity interacts with vision, and the interdependence of these systems arises. As the vision begins to partially transfer its functions of skin sensitivity, hand movements with its help are monitored and corrected, becoming more accurate. In the animal world, only monkeys have a relationship between vision and hand movements, which are one of the most important prerequisites for anthropogenesis. Indeed, without such interaction, without visual control over the actions of the hands, it is impossible to imagine the emergence of even the simplest labor operations.

The interaction of vision and tactile-kinesthetic sensitivity of the hands finds a concrete embodiment in the extremely intensive and diverse manipulative activity of monkeys. Many Soviet zoopsychologists (NN Ladygina-Kots, N.Yu. Voitonis, KE Fabry, and others) were engaged in studying the work of monkeys. As a result of numerous experiments, it was revealed that both lower and higher monkeys carry out a practical analysis of the object during the manipulation. For example, they are trying to break an object that has fallen into their hands, investigating its various details. But in higher monkeys, in particular in chimpanzees, there are also actions on the synthesis of objects. They can try to twist the individual parts, unscrew them, twist. Similar actions are observed in apes and in the wild, with the construction of nests.

In addition to constructive activities, in some monkeys, in particular chimpanzees, there are some other types of activities that manifest themselves in the manipulation of objects - these are approximately exploring, processing, motor-playing, and instrument-making activities, as well as the preservation or rejection of the object. The objects of the approximately-exploring, processing and constructive activities are most often objects that cannot be used as food. Chimpanzee cannon’s activity is rather weak. This division of forms of various activities can be explained by analyzing the peculiarities of the life of these monkeys in natural conditions. The approximate survey and processing activities occupy a large place in the behavior of chimpanzees, which is explained by the diversity of vegetable feed and the difficult conditions in which it is necessary to distinguish between edible and inedible. In addition, the food objects of monkeys can have a complex structure, and in order to reach edible parts (extract the insect larvae from the stumps, remove the shell from the fruit of the trees), it will take some effort.

Constructive activity of chimpanzees, in addition to nest building, is very poorly developed. Under the conditions of bondage, these monkeys can twist twigs and ropes, roll balls of clay, but this behavior is not aimed at obtaining the final result, but rather, it most often turns into destructive, in an effort to break something, unravel it. This type of behavior is explained by the fact that in natural conditions, the chimpanzee's tool activity is extremely weak, since the monkey does not need this type of behavior to achieve its goals. Under natural conditions, tools are used extremely rarely. There have been cases of the extraction of termites from their buildings with the help of twigs or straws or the collection of moisture from holes in the trunk of a tree with the help of a chewed clump of leaves. In actions with sprigs, the greatest interest is the fact that, before using them as tools, chimpanzees (as in Ladygina-Cotes described earlier in the experiments) break off the leaves and side shoots that disturb them.

In laboratory conditions, quite complex gun actions can be formed in chimpanzees. This is evidence that the data obtained under experimental conditions only indicate the potential psychic abilities of monkeys, but not the nature of their natural behavior. The use of tools can be considered an individual, rather than a specific feature of the behavior of monkeys. Only under special conditions can such individual behavior become the property of the whole group or pack. One should constantly keep in mind the biological limitations of the anthropoids' instrumental actions and the fact that here we are dealing explicitly with the rudiments of previous abilities, with an extinct relict phenomenon that can fully develop only in the artificial conditions of a zoopsychological experiment.

It can be assumed that in fossil anthropoids - the ancestors of man - the use of tools was developed much better than in modern anthropoid apes. According to the current state of cannon activity in lower and higher monkeys, we can judge the main areas of work of our fossil ancestors, as well as the conditions in which the first labor actions originated. The prerequisites of labor activity were, apparently, the actions performed by modern anthropoids, namely, clearing branches from leaves and lateral knots, splitting spines. But among the first anthropoids, these tools did not yet act as tools, but rather were a means of biological adaptation to certain situations.

According to K.E. Fabry, objective activity in ordinary forms could not go beyond the biological laws and go into labor activity. Even the highest manifestations of manipulative (instrumental) activity in fossil apes would forever remain no more than forms of biological adaptation if radical changes in behavior did not occur in the immediate human ancestors, the analogs of which Fabry found in modern monkeys under certain extreme conditions. This phenomenon is called "compensatory manipulation." Its essence lies in the fact that in a laboratory cage with a minimum of research objects in monkeys, a noticeable restructuring of manipulative activity is observed, and the animal begins to "create" much more objects than in natural conditions, where there are plenty of items for normal destructive manipulation. In terms of cell content, when there are almost no items to manipulate, the normal manipulation activities of monkeys concentrate on the few items that they can have (or which the experimenter gives them). The natural need of monkeys for manipulating with numerous diverse objects is compensated for in a medium that is drastically depleted in objective components by a qualitatively new form of manipulation — compensatory manipulation.

Only as a result of fundamental changes in objective actions, in the process of evolution, could labor activity develop. If we turn to the natural conditions of the birth of humanity, it can be noted that they were actually characterized by a sharp depletion of the habitat of our animal ancestors. The areas of tropical forests were rapidly reduced, and many of their inhabitants, including monkeys, found themselves in sparse or completely open terrain, in an environment that was more uniform and poor in objects to be manipulated. Among these monkeys were forms close to the human ancestor (ramapic, parentrop, plesianthrop, australopithek), and also, obviously, our immediate upper Pliocene ancestor.

The transition of animals, the structure and behavior of which was formed in the conditions of forest life, into a qualitatively different habitat was fraught with great difficulties. Almost all anthropoids died out. In the new habitat conditions, those anthropoids, in which the upright posture developed on the basis of the original method of moving through the trees, have taken advantage. Animals whose forelimbs were freed were in a more biologically advantageous position, as they were able to use their free limbs to develop and improve their weapon activity.

Of all the anthropoids of open spaces, the only species that survived became the ancestor of man. According to most anthropologists, he was able to survive in the changing environmental conditions only thanks to the successful use of natural objects as tools, and then the use of artificial tools.

It should not, however, be forgotten that the cannon’s activity was able to fulfill its salutary role only after a profound qualitative reorganization. The need for such a restructuring was due to the fact that the manipulation activity (vital for the normal development and functioning of the locomotor system) in the conditions of sharply depleted environment of open spaces was to be compensated. The forms of “compensatory modeling” emerged, which over time led to a high concentration of psychomotor elements, which raised the weapon activity of our animal ancestor to a qualitatively new level.

Further development of labor activity can not be imagined without the use of a variety of tools, as well as the emergence of special tools. Any object used by an animal for solving a specific task can serve as an instrument directly, but an instrument of labor must necessarily be specially manufactured for certain labor operations and presupposes knowledge of its future application. This type of tool is made in advance, before its use becomes necessary. The manufacture of a tool of labor can be explained only by foreseeing the occurrence of situations in which it is indispensable.

In modern monkeys, its special significance is not assigned to any instrument. The object serves as a tool only in a specific situation, and, losing the need for application, it loses its meaning for the animal. Операция, произведенная обезьяной с помощью орудия, не фиксируется за этим орудием, вне его непосредственного применения она относится к нему безразлично, а потому и не хранит постоянно в качестве орудия. Изготовление же орудий труда, их хранение предполагает предвидение возможных причинно-следственных отношений в будущем. Современные обезьяны не способны постичь такие отношения даже при подготовке орудия к непосредственному применению в ходе решения задачи.

Unlike monkeys, man keeps the tools he has made. Moreover, in the instruments themselves man-made methods of influencing the objects of nature are preserved. Even with the individual manufacture of the instrument is a public object. Its use is developed in the process of collective labor and fixed in a special way. According to K. Fabry, “every human instrument is the material embodiment of a certain socially developed labor operation.” ^[32]

The emergence of labor radically rebuilt all the behavior of anthropoids. From a general activity aimed at directly satisfying a need, a special action stands out that is not directed by a direct biological motive and gets its meaning only with the further use of its results. Such a change in behavior marked the beginning of the social history of mankind. In the future, social relations and forms of action that are not guided by biological motives become fundamental to human behavior.

Изготовление орудия труда (например, обтесывание одного камня с помощью другого) требует участия сразу двух объектов: первого, которым производятся изменения, и второго, на который эти изменения направлены и который в результате становится орудием труда. Воздействие одного предмета на другой, потенциально могущий стать орудием, наблюдается и у обезьян. Однако эти животные обращают внимание на изменения, происходящие с объектом непосредственного воздействия (орудием), а не на изменения, происходящие с обрабатываемым объектом, который служит не более чем субстратом. В этом отношении обезьяны ничем не отличаются от других животных. Их орудийные действия прямо противоположны орудийным действиям человека – для него наиболее важны изменения, происходящие со вторым объектом, из которого после ряда операций получается орудие труда.

От создания первых орудий труда наподобие ручного рубила синантропа до создания разнообразных совершенных орудий труда человека современного типа (неоантропа) прошли сотни тысяч лет. Но следует отметить, что уже на начальных стадиях развития материальной культуры можно видеть огромное разнообразие типов орудий, в том числе составных (наконечники дротиков, кремневые вкладыши, иглы, копьеметалки). Позже появились каменные орудия, например топор или мотыга.

Наряду с бурным развитием материальной культуры и психической деятельности с начала эпохи позднего палеолита резко затормозилось биологическое развитие человека. У древнейших и древних людей соотношение было обратным: при чрезвычайно интенсивной биологической эволюции, выражавшейся в большой изменчивости морфологических признаков, техника изготовления орудий труда развивалась чрезвычайно медленно. На этот счет существует известная теория Я.Я. Рогинского, которая получила название «единый скачок с двумя поворотами». По этой теории у древнейших людей одновременно с зарождением трудовой деятельности (первый поворот) появились новые социально-исторические закономерности. Но вместе с этим на предков современного человека в течение длительного времени действовали и биологические закономерности. Постепенное накопление нового качества привело на завершающем этапе этого развития к крутому (второму) повороту, который состоял в том, что эти новые социальные закономерности стали играть определяющую роль в жизни и дальнейшем развитии людей. В результате второго поворота в позднем палеолите и возник современный человек – неоантроп. После его появления биологические закономерности окончательно утратили ведущее значение и уступали место закономерностям общественным. Рогинский подчеркивает, что только с появлением неоантропа социальные закономерности становятся действительно господствующим фактором в жизни человеческих коллективов.

Если следовать этой концепции, первые трудовые действия человека выполнялись еще в форме сочетания компенсаторного манипулирования и обогащенной им орудийной деятельности, о чем упоминал в своих работах Фабри. По прошествии длительного времени новое содержание предметной деятельности приобрело новую форму в виде специфически человеческих трудовых движений, не свойственных животным. Таким образом, на первых порах большому влиянию биологических закономерностей, унаследованных от животных предков человека, соответствовала внешне несложная и однообразная предметная деятельность первых людей. В конечном счете как бы под прикрытием этих биологических закономерностей возникла трудовая деятельность, сформировавшая человека.

The problem of the origin of public relations and articulate speech. Already at the very beginning of work, the first social relations were born. Labor was initially collective, social. Since its appearance on earth, monkeys have lived in large herds or families. All the biological prerequisites of human social life should be sought in the subject activity of their ancestors, performed in a collective lifestyle. But it is necessary to remember and about one more feature of labor activity. Even the most difficult tool activity does not have the character of a social process and does not define relations among members of the community. Even in animals with the most developed psyche, the structure of the community is never formed on the basis of the instrumental activity, does not depend on it, and moreover is not mediated by it.

Человеческое общество не подчиняется законам группового поведения животных. Оно возникло на основе других мотиваций и имеет свои законы развития. К.Э. Фабри по этому поводу писал: «Человеческое общество не просто продолжение или усложнение сообщества наших животных предков, и социальные закономерности не сводимы к этологическим закономерностям жизни обезьяньего стада. Общественные отношения людей возникли, наоборот, в результате ломки этих закономерностей, в результате коренного изменения самой сущности стадной жизни зарождающейся трудовой деятельностью». ^[33]

Поисками биологических предпосылок общественной жизни долгое время занимался Н.И. Войтонис. Его многочисленные исследования были направлены на изучение особенностей структуры стада и стадного поведения различных обезьян. По мнению Н.И. Войтониса и НА Тих, потребность обезьян в стадном образе жизни зародилась еще на низшем уровне эволюции приматов и достигла расцвета у современных павианов, а также у живущих семьями человекообразных обезьян. У животных предков человека прогрессивное развитие стадности также проявилось в формировании прочных внутристадных отношений, которые оказались, в частности, особенно полезными при совместной охоте с помощью естественных орудий. У непосредственных предков человека подростки должны были, очевидно, усваивать традиции и умения, сформировавшиеся у предшествующих поколений, перенимать опыт старших членов сообщества, а последним, особенно самцам, следовало не только проявлять не только взаимную терпимость, но и уметь сотрудничать, согласовывать свои действия. Всего этого требовала сложность совместной охоты с применением различных предметов (камней, палок) в качестве орудий охоты. Одновременно на данном этапе впервые в эволюции приматов сложились условия, когда появилась необходимость в обозначении предметов: без этого нельзя было обеспечить согласованность действий членов стада при совместной охоте.

По мнению Фабри, большое значение на ранних стадиях формирования человеческого общества играло особое явление, названное им «демонстрационное манипулирование». У ряда млекопитающих описаны случаи, когда одни животные наблюдают за манипуляционными действиями других животных. Это явление наиболее типично для обезьян, которые в большинстве случаев оживленно реагируют на манипуляционные действия другой особи. Иногда животные дразнят друг дружку предметами манипуляции, нередко манипулирование переходит в игры, а в некоторых случаях и в ссоры. Демонстрационное манипулирование свойственно преимущественно взрослым обезьянам, но не детенышам. Оно способствует тому, что отдельные особи могут ознакомиться со свойствами и структурой предмета, которым манипулирует «актер», даже не прикасаясь к объекту. Такое ознакомление совершается опосредованно: чужой опыт усваивается на расстоянии путем наблюдения за действиями других.

Демонстрационное манипулирование имеет прямое отношение к формированию «традиций» у обезьян, обстоятельно описанное рядом японских исследователей. Подобные традиции образуются в пределах замкнутой популяции и охватывают всех ее членов. В популяции японских макак, живших на небольшом острове, было обнаружено постепенное всеобщее изменение пищевого поведения, что выражалось в освоении новых видов пищи и изобретении новых форм ее предварительной обработки. Основой этого явления служили игры детенышей, а также демонстрационное манипулирование и подражательные действия обезьян.

В демонстрационном манипулировании сочетаются коммуникативные и познавательные аспекты активности: наблюдающие животные получают информацию не только о манипулирующей особи, но и о свойствах и структуре объекта манипулирования. По мнению К.Э Фабри, «демонстрационное манипулирование служило в свое время, очевидно, источником становления чисто человеческих форм общения, так как последние зародились вместе с трудовой деятельностью, предшественником и биологической основой которой и являлось манипулирование предметами у обезьян. Вместе с тем именно демонстрационное манипулирование создает наилучшие условия для совместной коммуникативно-познавательной деятельности, при которой основное внимание членов сообщества обращено на предметные действия манипулирующей особи». ^[34]

Важной вехой антропогенеза, во многом изменившей дальнейший ход эволюции, стало развитие на определенном этапе общественных отношений членораздельной речи.

У современных обезьян средства общения, коммуникации отличаются не только своим многообразием, но и выраженной адресованностью, побуждающей функцией, направленной на изменение поведения членов стада. Но в отличие от коммуникативных действий человека любые коммуникативные действия обезьян не служат орудием мышления.

Изучение коммуникативных способностей обезьян, особенно человекообразных, ведется уже давно и во многих странах. В США ученый Д. Премак длительное время пытался с помощью различных оптических сигналов обучить шимпанзе человеческому языку. У животных вырабатывались ассоциации между отдельными предметами, в качестве которых использовались куски пластика, и пищей. Для того чтобы получить лакомство, обезьяна должна была выбрать из различных предметов нужный и показать его экспериментатору. В основу экспериментов была заложена методика «выбора на образец», разработанная Ладыгиной-Котс. Спомощью этих методов вырабатывались реакции на категории объектов и формировались обобщенные зрительные образы. Это были представления типа «большее» и «меньшее», «одинаковое» и «различное» и сопоставления разного типа, на что животные, стоящие ниже антропоидов, скорее всего, неспособны.

Этот и подобные ему опыты наглядно продемонстрировали исключительные способности человекообразных обезьян к обобщениям и символическим действиям, а также их большие возможности общения с человеком, возникающие в условиях интенсивного обучения с его стороны. Тем не менее такие опыты не доказывают наличия у антропоидов языка с той же структурой, что и у человека. Шимпанзе в буквальном смысле «навязали» человеческий язык, вместо того чтобы попытаться установить контакт на языке, свойственном этому примату. В этом смысле эксперименты такого рода бесперспективны и не могут привести к пониманию сущности языка животного, так как дают лишь феноменологическую картину искусственного коммуникационного поведения, внешне напоминающего оперирование языковыми структурами у человека. У обезьян была выработана лишь система общения с человеком в дополнение к тому множеству систем общения человека с животным, которые он создал, начиная со времен одомашнивания диких животных.

According to K.E. Fabri, who had long been involved in the problem of the language of great apes, “despite the sometimes amazing ability of chimpanzees to use optical symbolic means when communicating with humans and, in particular, use them as signals of their needs, it would be a mistake to interpret the results of such experiments as evidence of an allegedly fundamental identity the language of monkeys and the language of man, or derive from them direct indications of the origin of human forms of communication. The illegitimacy of such conclusions follows from the inadequate interpretation of the results of these experiments, in which conclusions from the artificially formed by the experimenter monkeys conclusions about the laws of their natural communication behavior ". ^[35]

As Fabry noted, “the question of the semantic function of the language of animals is still largely unclear, but there is no doubt that not a single animal, including apes, has any conceptual thinking. As already emphasized, among the communicative means of animals there are many “symbolic” components (sounds, poses, gestures, etc.), but there are no abstract concepts, no words, no articulate speech, no codes denoting the objective components of the environment, their quality or the relationship between them outside specific situation. Such a fundamentally different method of communication from animals could emerge only when switching from the biological to the social plane of development. ” ^[36]

The language of animals in a general sense is a very conditional concept; in the early stages of development, it is characterized by a large generality of transmitted signals. In the future, during the transition to a social way of life, it was the conventionality of signals that served as the biological prerequisite for the emergence of articulate speech in the course of their joint work activity. At the same time, only emerging social and labor relations could fully develop this premise. According to most scientists, the first language signals carried information about subjects included in joint labor activities. This is their fundamental difference from the language of animals, which informs primarily about the internal state of the individual. The main function of the language of animals is to rally society, recognize individuals, signalization of location, alarm of danger, etc. None of these functions goes beyond the biological laws. In addition, animal language is always a genetically fixed system consisting of a limited number of signals specific to each species. In contrast, the language of man is constantly enriched with new elements. By creating new combinations, a person has to constantly improve the language, study its code values, learn to understand and pronounce them.

Human language has come a long way of development in parallel with the development of human labor activity and a change in the structure of society. The initial sounds accompanying the labor activity were not yet authentic words and could not denote individual objects, their qualities or actions produced by these objects. Often these sounds were accompanied by gestures and were woven into practical activity. It was possible to understand them only by observing a specific situation, during which these sounds were pronounced. Gradually, of the two types of information transfer - non-verbal (using gestures) and voice - the last one became priority. This marked the beginning of the development of an independent audio language.

However, congenital sounds, gestures, facial expressions have retained their importance since primitive people and have survived to our days, but only as a supplement to acoustic means. Yet for a long time the connection of these components remained so close that the same sound complex could indicate, for example, the object to which the hand was pointing, and the hand itself, and the action performed with this object. A lot of time passed before the sounds of the language became quite distant from practical actions and the first authentic words appeared. Initially, obviously, these words designated objects, and only much later appeared words denoting actions and qualities.

In the future, the language began to gradually move away from practical activities. The meanings of words became more and more abstract, and the language more and more acted not only as a means of communication, but also as a means of human thinking. At its origin, speech and social and labor activity constituted a single complex, and its separation radically affected the development of human consciousness. K. Fabri wrote: “The fact that thinking, speech, and social and labor activities constitute a single complex in their origin and development, and that human thinking could only develop in unity with social consciousness, and constitutes the main qualitative difference between human thinking and thought. animals. The activity of animals and in its higher forms is entirely subordinated to the natural connections and relations between the objective components of the environment. The activity of man, which grew out of the activity of animals, has undergone fundamental qualitative changes and is no longer subject to natural, but to social relations and relations. This is a social-labor content and reflects words, concepts of human speech. ” ^[37]

Even in higher animals, the psyche is capable of reflecting only the space-time connections and relationships between the objective components of the environment, but not the deep causal relationships. A completely different level is the human psyche. It is able to directly or indirectly reflect social relations and relations, the activities of other people, its results - this is what allowed a person to comprehend even inaccessible observational cause-effect relationships. As a result, it became possible to reflect in the human brain the objective reality outside the subject’s direct relation to it, that is, in the human mind the image of reality no longer merges with the experience of the subject, but reflects the objective, stable properties of this reality.

Most major psychologists are inclined to believe that the development of human thinking to its current level would be impossible without language. Any abstract thinking is a linguistic, verbal thinking. Human cognition implies the continuity of acquired knowledge, methods of their fixation, carried out with the help of words. Animals are deprived of the possibility of both verbal communication and the verbal fixation of acquired knowledge and their transfer to the offspring using language. This, firstly, determines the limit of thinking and the communicative capabilities of animals, and secondly, characterizes the biological, purely adaptive role of their communication. Words are not needed for animal communication; they can do very well without them, living in a narrow circle limited by biological needs and motivations. The communication of a person without words, which are the highest ideal objects of thinking abstracted from things, is impossible.

Thus, between the animal’s intellect and human consciousness there is a clearly defined border, thus this border also lies between the animal and man in general. The transition through it became possible only as a result of an active, radically different impact on nature in the exercise of labor activity. This activity, carried out with the help of tools, mediated the relationship of its performer to nature, which was the most important prerequisite for the transformation of the preconscious psyche into consciousness.

The first elements of the mediated attitude to nature can be traced back in the manipulative actions of monkeys, especially in compensatory manipulation and in the instrumental actions, as well as in demonstrative manipulation. But, as discussed above, in modern monkeys, even higher manipulative actions serve other reasons and are not capable of further developing into complex labor activities. The authentic instrument actions that took place in the ancestors of modern man are situationally determined, therefore their cognitive value is extremely limited by the specific, purely adaptive meaning of these actions. These gun actions gained their development only after the merger of compensatory manipulation with gun actions, when attention is switched to the object being processed (future tool), which happens during labor activity. It is this mediated attitude to nature that allowed a person to reveal the essential internal interdependencies and laws of nature that are inaccessible to direct observation.

The next important stage in the development of human consciousness was the formation of social labor activity. In this case, the need to communicate with each other, which led to the consistency of joint labor operations. Thus, simultaneously with consciousness in the course of labor activity, articulate speech was formed.

Despite the fact that the historical development of mankind is fundamentally different from the general laws of biological evolution, which psychologists have repeatedly emphasized in their writings, it was the biological evolution of animals that created the biological basis and prerequisites for a transition to a completely new level of development unprecedented in the history of the organic world. This can be seen by carefully examining all the stages in the development of the mental activity of animals. Without the development of the simplest instincts, their long-term improvement as a result of evolution, without the lower stages of the development of the psyche, the emergence of human consciousness would be impossible.