LB 023-025 勝芬 T

LB p.023-025

Chapter 1- V. Relationship between Form and Behavior

When the term learning theory is used, it is ordinarily applied to universal aspects of learning. Psychologists who concern themselves with such theories point out sometimes that there are some aspects of behavior to which the theories do not apply, as, for instance, the swallowing mechanisms in pigeons, the peculiarities of a buzzard’s flight, or the phonetic differences between meowing and barking. These phenomena are considered to be appropriate subjects for the biologist but not for the behaviorist. The distinction between biological and psychological aspects of behavior may be possible in certain instances, particularly in behavioral phenomena observed in laboratory experiments, but in many more instances there is no way of telling whether a given phenomenon ought to be explained (or investigated) in terms of psychological or biological mechanisms. We have criticized this distinction throughout this chapter, but we must add one more reason for abolishing the distinction.

當我們提及「學習理論」(Learning theory) ，通常講得是學習的世界觀。心理學家涉及這些理論時，有時候會指出這些理論不適用於一些動物行為當中，例如：鴿子吞嚥的機制；鷲鳥飛行的獨特性；或是貓叫和狗吠聲韻上的不同。這些現象恰如其分的被視為生物學家研究的課題，而非行為學家。動物行為在生理層面和心理層面的差別，或許在某些情況中能有所區別，但在大部分的狀況裡，我們無法單用生理結構或心理結構來解釋(或研究)某種現象。我們已經在整個章節中批評此種區別，但我們能必須再加上一項屏除此種區別的理由。


It is often thought that behavior which is executed by or is dependent upon a peculiar structure typical of a certain type of animal must therefore be biologically based. The grasping movements of an elephant are of no particular relevance to learning theory; they are said to be species-specific and biological! A corollary to this kind of reasoning is that the absence of a special structure or organ should be a criterion for the psychological nature of the behavior. Thus it has been pointed out time and again that man has evolved no special organ for speech, the implication being that we are simply making use of the organs for eating and breathing in our efforts to communicate. This is seriously offered as evidence for the arbitrary, learned, artifactual nature of language.

我們通常會認為某種特定的行為，是依賴某種特定生物的獨特構造所操控，因此和生物學脫不了干係。大象抓握的動作和學習理論沒有特別的關係，他們說這就是物種特性和生物本能。這種推論的必然結果，就是特殊構造或器官應該當作行為的自然心理標準。因此，人類物種屢次被指出，並沒有發展出特殊的器官來說話，這些器官只簡單被用來進食和呼吸進而努力嘗試來溝通。這種說法的證明了語言的任意性、可學性、人造性。


The reasoning here is poor, however. The relationship between the outer form of an animal to its species-specific behavior repertoire is not always clear. So many factors influence this relationship that no canonical truths about innateness may be inferred from it.

但是理由還是不夠充足，動物的外在形體和種族特有的行為表現之間的關聯總是不夠明確，有太多的因素會影響這層關係，因此所謂標準真正的天性無法從而推測得來。


Certainly, there are some instances of amazing degrees of adaptation streamlining of fishes, the physical characteristics of feathers ideally suited to conditions of flight, or the specialized mechanisms of claws in cats. The first of these is particularly interesting because it developed once more and independently in dolphins and whales. Convergences of this type occur with many different variations and certainly tell us that there must be mechanisms operating in evolution which optimize the functional relationship between form and behavior. The most flawless discussions of this topic are found in D’Arcy Thompson’s essay on Form and Mechanical Efficiency (1942). Here he applies the principles of engineering to skeletal structures and generally shows how mechanical principles and phenomena and their mathematical description give some objective insight into over-all morphology. It is D’ Arcy Thompson holds the belief that form is always the expression of greatest adaptation to the environment and therefore is of greatest “utility” to the organism, and consequently form and behavior should be demonstrably adapted one to the other. Actually, Thompson did not draw this latter inference. He was one of the greatest critics of Darwinian thought: he was not convinced that form is explained by utility to the animal. He believed that mathematics and the laws of natural science are applied to biology as descriptive tools but that they do no explain ontological problems of life. In his own unexcelled language:

動物外在形體適應自然環境的部分例子仍然存在，像是魚類的流線體型；覆有羽毛的軀體完美的適合飛行；貓爪的特殊功能等。這些例子第一次變得這麼有趣，因為動物特性再次且獨立發展於海豚與鯨類之中，這些特性以許多不同的變化形式出現，明確的告訴我們一定有某種用以進化的操作機制，將動物的形體和行為之間達到最好的效能關係。關於這個議題提出最完善討論的是D’Arcy Thompson在《Form and Mechanical Efficiency》(1942)一書中的論文，他提出如何以骨骼結構的工程學原則、機械原則和現象，以及數學的描述去客觀的觀察形態學的整體。D’Arcy Thompson也相信動物的形體所代表的就是適應環境的最大表現，也是生物體效能的極致，因此動物形體與行為表現應當相互適應。實際上，Thompson而後並沒有做出這種推斷，他是批判達爾文主義一位最重要的論者，他不認同能用效能來解釋動物形體構造，他相信的是數學和自然科學法則對生物學來說只是敘述的工具，但並不能用來闡釋生命本體論的問題，Thompson無懈可擊的論述如下：

“It is certain that the question of phylogeny, always difficult, becomes especially so in cases where a great change of physical or mechanical conditions has come about, and where accordingly the former physical and physiological constraints are altered or removed. The great depths of the sea differ from other habitations of the living, not least in their eternal quietude. The fishes which dwell therein are quaint and strange; their huge heads, prodigious jaws, and long tails and tentacles are, as it were, gross exaggerations of the common and conventional forms. We look in vain for any purposeful cause or physiological explanation of these enormities; and are left under a vague impression that life has been going on in the security of all but perfect equilibrium, and that the resulting forms, liberated from many ordinary constraints, have grown with unusual freedom.”

「種系發展史總是難懂的，尤其是生理和運作狀態的巨大改變，以及解除或改 變先前對身體與生理上的限制。深海與其他生物的棲息地有很大的不同，最 少不只是其永恆的寂靜。生活在深海的魚類長得很奇特有趣，牠們有巨大的頭，很大的嘴巴、很長的尾巴與觸角，長得就是一副標準的誇張模樣，我們無法給予這些奇特誇張任何果斷的原因或生理上的解釋，只能對於這些生命在幾近完美平衡的安全中持續，以及從一般限制中解放並獨特自由生長的形體，徒留一絲模糊的印象。」


Similar views are expressed by other biologists (Bertalanffy, 1952). Simpson (1949) gives a beautiful example paralleling the great variations of fishes living in the identical environment: the horns of antelopes living in the Belgian Congo. Discussing the variations in shape, he says:

其他的生物學家也有相似的看法(Bertalanffy, 1952)，Simpson (1949) 對應於在相同環境下魚類生長的差異，他給了我們這樣一個完美的例子：生長在比利時剛果的羚羊與其羊角，他討論了羊角形狀的變異：

「“… there must be some one type of horn that would be the most effective possible for antelopes, with some minor variations in proportions or shape in accordance with the sizes or detailed habits of the animals. Obviously, not all of these antelopes have the “best” type of horns, and probably none of them has.”

…一定有某種形式的羊角對羚羊來說最有效益，為了羚羊的體型大小或複雜的生活習性，其羊角可能某些部分或形狀會有輕微的變異。很明顯的，並不是全部的羚羊都長有最好的角，可能沒有任何一隻長有最好的角。」


Any serious search for correlation between outer form and animal behavior is limited not only by strictly logical considerations such as those of Thompson and Simpson but also by a heuristic problem. The human observer at times is forced to make predictions about what would be useful to a certain way of life, but the prediction may be purely the result of his anthropocentric outlook. For instance, utilitarian considerations would lead us to expect to find spiders with a given anatomy to build quite different webs from what is actually found. Duncan (1949) points out that ghost spiders weave webs out of very short strands, yet have tremendously long legs which, to the human observer, seem to get in the way both during weaving and moving around in the web. On the other hand, orb spiders have very short leg, but they spin very long cables and spokes which force them to make long journeys on which long legs would appear, from our point of view, to be an advantage.

任何關於外在形體與動物行為相互關係的嚴謹研究，不只被嚴格的邏輯思維所限制，就像是Thompson和Simpson提出的反駁，而且更受限於觀察上的難題。人類觀察者有時候不得不去揣測何種方式對某種生物是有益的，但這些揣測單純只是以人類為中心的觀點出發，舉例來說，功利主義者的想法會引導我們去預測因為蜘蛛的生理結構，會讓我們在真實世界找到牠們該結出的網。Duncan (1949)指出鬼蛛科的蜘蛛用很短的絲來結網，但牠們卻有很長的腳，這讓人類觀察者以為牠們結網與移動好像都被卡住了。另一方面，圓蛛科蜘蛛的腳很短，但牠們卻結出很長的網線和輪輻狀的網，這使得圓蛛科蜘蛛必須長距離移動來結網，在我們看來，結這種網對長腳的蜘蛛較占有優勢。


Behavioral traits that have been demonstrated experimentally to be based on genetic differences and that are inherited from generation to generation within a given strain are rarely correlated with morphological differences between such strains. Airedale terriers look different from German shepherds, but there is nothing in their structure that explains why the latter is more prone to assume a “passive defensive reaction” than the former. Nor could we have guessed that pointers can be trained much more easily to retrieve than spaniels from a mere study of their body-build (Krushinskii, 1962).

經過實驗驗證並奠基在基因不同的行為特徵，與世代遺傳而來的行為特徵，都和形態的不同沒有甚麼相互關係，愛爾得兒犬看起來和德國牧羊犬不一樣，但以牠們的生理結構並不能解釋為什麼後者更傾向於做出「被動防禦反應」；我們也無法從身體結構推測出指示獵犬比長毛垂耳獵犬更易於訓練找回獵物。