The Wrong Reality. Part I Evolution. Chapter2 Advance of Intelligence - continued

Multi-cellular organisms had abilities and characteristics arrived at by natural selection. Preconsciousness allowed them to speed up the acquisition of new habits which had survival value. For example, in a creature whose instinct was always to move forwards, the preconscious might sense the possibility of going backwards also and, one day, might cause this to happen. Such a break in habit would be painful at first, but it would be incorporated with instinct when found to be advantageous. Chance or random experiment could have produced the same result, but that is uncertain and could have taken very much longer. Such changes in the habits of organisms which were to become advanced life-forms, as they diversified, sometimes required complex physiological changes. It seems to me inconceivable that such changes could have occurred without the aid of the preconscious faculty, which implies that this faculty must have developed very early in the evolution of such organisms.

It took very roughly 1300 million years (the figures here quoted are approximate - when dealing with such huge time spans accuracy is hardly significant) for the first form of life created, the simple cell, to develop into the complicated single cell with nucleus; about 500 million further years for simple multicellular organisms to develop; and another 400 million years or so for complex multicellular organisms such as molluscs to emerge. This was progress by means of mutations due to chance, error, will, then preconsciousness. This progress required the development of the nervous system, and its gradual acceleration was facilitated by the advancing efficacy of that system. Viewed differently, Earth history could be said to be that of the development of intelligence, of which physical life is but the incidental vehicle. The potential perfection of intelligence was achieved when humanity appeared. From then on perhaps there was no need for life to progress further. Maybe if that potential were released all life would settle down to a state of stable continuation. In the present interim, with our intelligence far from being perfected, it is certain that, on the contrary, advanced life-forms on Earth are gradually declining and under threat of extinction.

It appears that after about 2950 million years of life on Earth, and another 150 million years in which plants colonised dry land - that is to say about 400 million years ago - the approximate situation of our ancestral complex multi-cellular organisms, as they began developing into animals (prior to colonising dry land over the next 50 million years), was this. They had some form of nervous system and a rudimentary brain. Overall they were impelled by life-force, represented by will, and subject to competitive conflict, which combined to cause progress. Physiologically they had come to be represented by instinct which contained and guarded all the characteristic habits randomly acquired and naturally selected. Now they also had a preconscious faculty which enabled them to bring about beneficial changes of instinctive habit by a rudimentary kind of self-determination which could be described as intention.

Physiologically, complex multicellular organisms were represented by their bodily form, similarly evolved by mutations and natural selection, capitalised on by will. The pattern of a creature's physical organs and functions was recorded, guarded and passed on by genes. There was competitive pressure on these patterns to change also, for a dramatic change of habit often required a new or re-shaped organ. The genes had always been vehicles of mutation, by way of chance or error altering or omitting instructions or re-arranging their sequence at the time of regeneration. Until now mutations had been subject to simple natural selection. If a certain mutation was of immediate benefit to the creature inheriting it, in that it survived better than its fellows, that creature would be preferred and its descendants would come to predominate the species. Mutations of no immediate benefit would not be preferred, and those which were a hindrance would quickly die out. This meant that no dramatic changes which were vital to survival were likely to occur, for if such a change required to be built in stages, some stages, being of no apparent benefit, would not be preferred, and even if none of the stages actually died out, no single creature would inherit them all in sequence in order to develop the mutation in full. To expect a complex mutation to occur in one regeneration, complete in every respect and therefore immediately effective, is like expecting not only that the concept of time and all the separate parts of a watch should come into existence at once but also that those parts, thrown together at random (after any number of millions of attempts), would fall into place as a complete working watch, which its owner straight away used to tell the time.

The fact is that extremely complex organs were developed and perfected. It is obvious that this took some time, although it has now been discovered that evolution occurred in jerks; quite big changes have been accomplished in as little as a thousand years. I have already suggested that a major essential element of mutation is the intervention of will, the impulsion to live felt by every cell in an organism combined into the whole will of the organism progressively to improve its method of living. There seems to be another possible explanation of evolution which combines strength of will and subconscious intention in another way. Take the example of the stick insect. It is extremely unlikely that it emerged from one single complete mutation. It is equally unlikely that each separate feature was formed by chance at different times. But suppose that the original creature, at the pre-stick-insect stage, was so desirous of becoming identified with the safe and secure twigs it lived on, so escaping the notice of predators, that the cell-aligning, twig-forming influence was somehow passed from the tree to the insect genes, the latter possibly having already ingested materials suitable for its reconstruction in twig-form by eating parts of the tree.

I am certain that no amount of time or blind strength of will could produce a pair of eyes, with all the systems to go with them. This required the preconscious faculty, once it had become fairly well developed (Stage C, Figure 3), to give the overall will some concept of sight and its value. This would be passed to cells at the front end of the creature, directing and urging their effort towards realising that concept, however vague it might be at first. The more progress was made the more clear the concept would become, so that directions could be made ever more precise and coordinated, and progress would accelerate.

Concerning the creation of eyesight, it can be appreciated that cells at the front end of a creature which let in light have a potential direction-finding value, so that if they occurred by chance mutation they would give an immediate advantage, but only if there were means of interpretation which enabled the creature to use this potential. Without these means the light-cells would have no advantage and would not be preferred, so the means of interpretation must come first. But such means, without anything to interpret, even if they could have been constructed by chance, would have no immediate value for survival.

Yet such embryo faculties could have a value which was evident to the preconscious. It is possible that creature Z might build up an internal means of picturing shapes and directions from knowledge of creature X, its preferred prey. This means would convey information about X's shape through sensors in Z's mouth and throat, and about X's orientation by feelings conveyed through Z's hairs, feelers and legs, spread out in every direction. It is possible to ascribe this development to the process of chance natural selection, but to co-ordinate it and hold it together required strength of purpose given by the developing preconscious.

I understand that the nuclei of the common cells of our bodies, such as those of the skin, contain all the genetic instructions required for the building of our whole organism. Also that the genes of many animals, including humans, contain a small separate element which is common to all. This suggests to me that they all derive from a remote common ancestor. If a nucleus derived from one animal is inserted into the ovum of a similar animal (in some cases a different animal), a complete reproduction of the former will grow from it. This is because the ovum contains all the chemical compounds needed to activate all parts of the genetic chain of the nucleus, in correct sequence, and because the ovum is situated in the appropriate place - the womb. This reproduction begins as a process of cell division, and presumably goes on to a procedure whereby the different chemical compounds are conducted to appropriate parts of the embryo, where they will begin activating specific instructions in common cells to begin construction of particular organs in their correct positions. As the embryo grows and matures many more evolved procedures are triggered which pull the whole together as a working creature.

By imagining evolution going into reverse we can see how this process was gradually built up, but also that each complex organ, like the eye, must have had a beginning. For instance, we have some primitive marine creature to thank for our eyes. They have been much modified by subsequent evolution, but the original eyes and their genetic pattern must have been devised by that primitive creature alone. Perhaps it happened in this way. Sensing the need of a means of seeing - a new faculty - it procured and deposited at its front end a new chemical compound, new in the sense that this creature had never used it before so that none of its existing cells could be activated by it or live in or on it. Maybe a series of cells were newly created in this chemical soup and, after many abortive experiments, like cancers, certain cell types would emerge which were in tune with the creature's sense of desire for sight, and which the creature's will would then protect, nourish, and its genes regenerate. And these new cells, in turn, would serve the will by activating new growth, always aimed in a purposeful direction whose ultimate achievement would be the construction of a pair of eyes.

When these subtle actions, reactions and interactions of energy, through genes, nuclei, cells and chemical compounds, are considered, together with the fact that the impelling life-force will and controlling instinct had extended and connected itself to all organs by way of the nervous system, it can be appreciated that there was relentless pressure and enormous potential for progressive change. We tend to be fascinated by all these processes. Yet when it becomes known, evolution appears as a series of mechanically logical steps. This is made clear by microscopic photography of muscular cells pulling the head-features of an embryo into position, and a computer simulation of the simple contraction and severance of cells producing the beginnings of the lens and retina of the eye. Again, the sorts of questions which ought to exercise our thought are 'why does all this happen?' - 'to what end?'

The answers to these questions are to be found in, and by, the end-product of all life's development on Earth - the human mind. Today we use, or misuse, our eyes though we might have no idea how or why they were developed. We can learn how our eyes developed by understanding that life's microparticles and microprocesses can be influenced by the will, producing macro-changes. We can also learn precisely how our eyesight now works by studying its entire mechanism in greatest detail. But this leaves unanswered the question why, and to what end, which is the ultimate aim of this book to answer. This aim includes a vital human objective; to show that just as some primitive subconscious creature sensed the needed value of sight, so do we sense the need to discover truth; and just as it was able actually to achieve its vague intention, so we, with our far superior faculties, are able to achieve our dream of a better world.

The centre of self gradually moved from instinct into the preconscious, but it was a slight shift because the preconscious faculty was still tied closely to instinct, the capacity of its cells and interconnections necessarily pitched at a certain low level, which disallowed any calculation not in the direct interest of instinct. This faculty grew larger the further creatures developed, and was progressively encapsulated by instinctive will. It took over many functions of the body, as an extension of instinct, functions whose actions, to our subsequent consciousness, mostly take place subconsciously. Perhaps the preconscious could be described as looking outwards from a platform of instinctive intelligence, but quite without ability to view the self from outside, or to look critically at instinct, or in any way to break instinctive bonds, only to extend them.

We are now concerned with the most advanced animal life-forms, those which had developed the senses of sight, smell, hearing and touch, and which had utilised these to secure successful survival by way of an efficient array of instincts. Where nothing seriously threatened this success it would appear that instinctive will completely encapsulated the preconscious (Stage C, Figure 3) as would seem to be the case with the crocodile for example, sealing it off from further mutation so that it continued unchanged, maybe for many millions of years. But where serious threats to survival did arise, such animals (dodo's for instance), unable to adapt by way of some appropriate mutation of form or habit, became extinct.

It seems to me that if any creature is to go beyond the Stage C preconscious state it must have developed all the vital senses. From the viewpoint of the influence to express energy, a fully developed preconsciously instinctive animal which survives without any further change, such as the crocodile might be, is a success whilst those who die out are failures. From the viewpoint of the influence to grasp all life's opportunities to advance, however, the crocodile too is a failure. From the latter point of view, fixed preconsciousness is stagnation, like instinct, a state which could have been achieved by single cells continuing unchanged, without need of life progressing further. The fact seems to be that most animals did progress to the next stage of brain development :

Consciousness

In the following I continue with my deductions from basic knowledge of the past and observation of the present with the object of showing that vital reform is our voluntary responsibility. The conscious faculty appears to have started in the same way as the preconscious - as a dramatic extension of the brain in response to some threat to survival. The animal concerned already possessed all the vital senses given by a brain and nervous system which, though they had served it well in the past, were encapsulated by instinctive will. A separate faculty was needed, with a will of its own, a faculty which did not contradict instinct and understood it, but was not rigidly bound by it.

The early conscious faculty independently observed the outside world, as far as its capacity allowed, and occasionally made decisions which overrode or redirected the animal's tried and proved instinctive inhibitions and drives yet were shown to be in its best interests. This animal, for example, might consciously realise that it need no longer run away from another species of animal which it had long instinctively feared and, by standing up to its enemy, defeat it. As another example, take a small bird with a 2cm long beak, trying to reach grubs which commonly live in 4cm deep cavities. The purely instinctive bird (if such were possible) would give up, but one day, perhaps after many thousands of years, a freak bird would be born with a 4cm long beak and, succeeding much better, would eventually represent the species. The preconscious bird would concentrate its will on beak growth and, perhaps after a thousand years or so, might also achieve a 4cm long beak. The conscious bird could achieve the objective within one generation, and without physiological change, by simple reasoning - by teaching itself to dig out the grubs with a thorn or splinter of wood which effectively extended its beak to the required length.

As the conscious faculty went on growing, the 'self' of the animal began to pass from the preconscious to the conscious and it might appear, for the first time, to have gained freedom from its instinctive bonds:

This was the only way forward for an animal otherwise rigidly restricted by instinct, yet it seems to present dangers by going contrary to the life-force purpose, represented by instinct. But whilst the conscious was relatively independent and self-willed, instinct, to the same degree, was independent of consciousness, and instinct unconsciously controlled most bodily functions; also, subconsciously, most physical activity. True, consciousness could override some instinct and itself cause physical activity, but instinct promoted its own interests by subjecting the conscious to emotions and fears which were hard or impossible to override. Furthermore the animal, though conscious, was as yet unaware of any but its own 'reasons' for existing. When early consciousness looked inward, as far as it was able, it did not see itself; it saw the animal's instinctive preconsciousness. When it looked outward it saw an interesting world, but the mainspring of its interest was the whole animal's instinct. Yet consciousness was the true beginning of thought, in that it had the potential for evaluating the animal's interests and giving preference to certain of them in order to perfect its way of life.

Consciousness, then, is the innate knowledge of instinct made available to the 'self' and an enlarged knowledge of the world made available to instinct - the opening of awareness to a share in the understanding and responsibility of instinct, previously locked away and imposed by remote control for the sake of security. The fundamental reason for consciousness being developed, whatever actually caused it, was the survival need of a creature to develop further. Thereafter, consciousness grew not only for practical purposes but for reasons of its own, and this seems to me to mark a partial and potential shift from the influence to express energy to that which persuades life to grasp all opportunities for progressive change - the influence for truth.

This next stage in the development of the conscious (Figure 4C) shows it to be much enlarged, and conscious will enveloping the whole animal, i.e. its brain. In this way the animal's progress into the future would be steered by its most advanced faculty, but the bulk of its activity would remain the established responsibility of instinct, encapsulated by its will. There would be exchanges of influence between preconscious instinct and consciousness, and mutations or changes of habit could still occur randomly, or by intention of the former, or by strongly willed intention of the latter. The animal's self was now firmly in its conscious, vaguely seeing as well as feeling itself to be its range of habits and emotions and the centre of its observed world but quite unable to see, or to be critically aware of, its true conscious self.

At this stage the conscious faculty was capable of deeper reason than that embraced by standard instinct, and it introduced subtle variations in behaviour patterns which seemed immediately to benefit the animal concerned, for instance the chimpanzee's ability to deceive. Happiness is a state of fulfilment of purpose and faculties and this now depends on consciousness, as well as preconscious instinct, being fulfilled. The wolf species is an example of consciousness disciplining some instincts and enhancing others for the sake of happy survival in the most adverse arctic conditions. The wolf pack is led by a female and breeding is strictly limited in order to match numbers to a usually scarce supply of food. This, together with almost self-sacrificing care, affection and disciplined comradeship, makes the wolf a most satisfactory animal in that it seems to have achieved a balance between harsh circumstances and self-generated compensations. Yet because it is a delicate balance, not to be disturbed without risk, the wolf resists change.

Wolves must have developed their consciousness out of dire necessity and, having succeeded, have taken it no further. The chimpanzees, having reached a similar stage of consciousness, are a very different case. Living in the lush jungles of Central Africa, they appear to have achieved survival success very easily, leaving time to spare. They developed curiosity, helped by the dexterity of their hands, which in turn encouraged mental adroitness and led to further curiosity. This combination is a fast and most effective means of mental enhancement, and it is judged to have been an ape of this kind which engendered the pre-human species. Curiosity is the turning of spare time and energy to observing and investigating without necessity, for its own sake. This led chimps and then pre-humans to changes of habit which then became instinctive or learned features of life and survival, changes which had not derived from strict necessity but from intelligence, becoming developed needs rather than original or basic needs.

The effect which the conscious had on different species of animal depended upon its capacity, and the extent to which its capacity grew depended upon the degree to which it was stimulated. In the building of instinct, in some animals the combative element had come to dominate character - the predators - and others took passive roles - the victims - but all the successful ones learned to moderate their characteristics and adapt for survival. Similar influences affected the nature of conscious growth, but consciousness continued growing in various directions which were not always helpful to survival but which did encourage further mental progress.

Some seventy million years ago it seems that Earth was well populated by advanced animals and mostly covered with vigorous plant life. As a logical outcome of the practice of animals eating each other, very large predators once existed which were capable of killing any other animal. Perhaps by this time such predators had made themselves extinct, because of over-killing or for other reasons, and a balance had been established between predators and prey. Another logical outcome of animals eating plants would be enormous creatures with huge appetites, not vulnerable to any predator. Such animals did exist - dinosaurs and the like - and might likewise have become extinct through over-eating, also from trampling the vegetation. In the event the dinosaurs fell victim to a major mass extinction, probably caused by a huge meteorite colliding with Earth, raising worldwide dust clouds that created a prolonged winter which they failed to survive. No doubt there is a link between this event and the presence in the sea, some ten million years later, of even larger animals, whales, which had returned to the sea from dry land.

The human is evidently the only species of life on Earth yet to achieve a brain capacity capable of independent optimum knowing and reasoning, or intellect. There is some dispute about this because certain small-toothed whales (odintocetes) - dolphins and porpoises - have brains as large or much larger than ours. However, as S.H. Ridgway points out in Research on Dolphins by H.M. Bryden and Richard Harrison (Clarendon Press Oxford 1986), the integrative and analytical capabilities of brains are a matter of quality rather than quantity; of level rather than volume. Yet when brain weight is compared with body weight or length, it appears that the greater the size of an animal the larger the quantity of brain cells required (although there are variations in brain size in whale species of similar weight). This would explain the large brain size of the non-intellectual elephant, compared with the human. The large brain is not necessarily an advanced brain, but may be required solely for the motor, auditory, visual and somatosensory functions of large animals. Of course, huge numbers of extra cells are required for the intellectual faculty of the relatively small human species, and when brain weights are compared with the weight of the spinal chord, fishes show less brain than chord, cats a ratio of 4 or 5 to 1, apes 8 to 1, Tursops (a genus of dolphin) 40 to 1, and mankind 50 to 1. Various other relationships such as brain size to maternal metabolic turnover (Martin 1981) appear to confirm these comparisons. To continue click here