The Wrong Reality. PartI Evolution. Chapter2 Advance of Intelligence - continued

As well as relative size, the comparative construction of cortexes suggests the level of intelligence. However, to judge whether any other animal has also reached the human level of potential intellect, we need only to judge its circumstantial behaviour. It seems to me that all creatures but one require and use their every brain cell because their brains are geared to natural instinctive reality. The exception is the human species with a brain, as we shall see, of large capacity whose potential we have not yet realised. I judge dolphins to have risen no higher than the conscious level (to use my own system of comparison) on the grounds that if they possessed the faculty of intellect would not they, if only indirectly, by their observed behaviour, have demonstrated it to us by now? Had they been as intelligent, or more so than we, whales at any rate, because of the way we have treated them, would surely have attempted to communicate with us. By communicate I mean more than benign fellow-feeling (of which dogs and horses are also capable); I refer to intellectual exchange. The power of intellect allows a choice to be made from all possible modes of behaviour, as we know well. Whale and dolphin behaviour indicates to me that they have little choice and cannot themselves conceive of any fundamentally different way to behave.

Whales and dolphins are animals which once lived on land but returned to the sea about sixty million years ago. They had to overcome the tremendous problems this entailed, but since becoming biologically adapted to their aquatic environment they have had a long time to perfect this way of life. They have had the relative ease of almost weightless movement, with wide-ranging freedom to explore the open seas, little or nothing to fear from predators, and unaffected by catastrophes which caused regular mass extinctions on land. Knowing where to find food at different times and over large distances requires intelligence and skill but, when the food is plentiful and there is no fierce competition, does not require the aggressive drives of instinct. It seems to me that these animals were so easily successful that they were able to concentrate on developing the benign instincts - the rewards and satisfactions of care and compassion - and to allow the aggressive drives to fade away. Dolphins are in some danger from predators, but I imagine that in their element, like us in ours, they are so skilled and superior in intelligence as to be at minimum risk and not to feel threatened. The human threat, to whales in particular, is so comparatively recent that perhaps they have not had time consciously to adjust to it in order to make any kind of response.

Almost certainly dolphins have the largest conscious capacity of any species of animal, including the human. When these animals returned to the sea they already had a fairly well developed (if relatively primitive) brain which had evolved to suit their life on land. They not only had to adapt its existing systems to changed functions but also to create new systems to serve entirely new functions appropriate to the aquatic environment, so their brains developed in a different way from the brains of land animals (see Fig.5). They had to perfect capacities for pulmonary breathing, thermal insulation, procreation and birth in water, and techniques of swimming, communication, hunting and deep diving, with all the intricate biological complications which these things involve. All this could only have been accomplished by an almost entirely unsuitable land instinct giving up its responsibility for survival to a rapidly-grown, very large conscious faculty, which established its own alternative to the old preconscious instinct, i.e. a new conscious relationship with an equally new subconsciously automatic pattern of behaviour. It seems to me that all these must have been voluntary mutations brought about by conscious intention of the conscious will.

The dolphin brain appears to have taken 40 million years to perfect, but since the species has succeeded, its original transformation to a reasonably viable aquatic animal must have been abnormally rapid in terms of evolution. It was faced with the sudden need to adapt or replace a pattern of instinct and nervous system which, together with their associated bodily functions, were largely redundant. This must have been done almost immediately as to fundamentals, then perfected without basic change. It is presumed that, as land animals, the dolphin's ancestors were already high in the competitive life-hierarchy and, psychologically, did not have to rise in the hierarchy to gain their new position. This voluntary mutation could be accomplished only by a massive increase in the number of cells in the conscious faculty and by co-operative behaviour of that mass of cells within this, the only faculty capable of working for the species' survival. This oneness of dolphin brain development, where there was co-operation within the whole conscious faculty instead of interplay between different levels (as in the human case,) seems to be confirmed by the monotonous, almost undifferentiated structure of the dolphin neocortex. That the species has continued successfully, when this lack of interplay seems to make further changes practically impossible, must be because life in the sea is stable compared with life on land and does not require continual significant change. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that the dolphin brain, whose neocortex is as convoluted as that of the human brain, but half its thickness, has not changed for twenty million years. In my view this means not only that dolphins have not achieved intellectual capacity but they are not advancing towards it either, nor likely to do so.

Our feeling that dolphin intelligence is on a par with our own seems due to their long history of friendliness towards, and interests in, man. This feeling has recently come to include whales as we have learned more about them. We know that these two kinds of creature demonstrate good humour and tenderness in their relationships, and we have heard the haunting underwater song by which they communicate over great distances. Protest against the killing of whales is widespread and our feeling for them is enhanced by the mystery of life under the oceans. It is well to realise that dolphins and small whales are themselves practised predators. I think we should also admit that if they were as intelligent as we the fact would be much more evident. The intellectual faculty cannot be contained by, so as to be solely devoted to, practical and emotional matters of survival. It must spill out into extraordinary expression which there is no mistaking - in art, music, or the expounding of ideas. Otherwise the faculty will be utilised by instinct, as is the case with ourselves, to further competitive drives, fulfil ambition, express aggression. None of these things is clearly evident in the behaviour of dolphins and whales.

We might think that the behaviour of captive dolphins in marinas exhibits a human level of intelligence. They can be taught to carry out quite difficult tasks, or perform clever tricks which do undoubtedly require good intelligence. But remember that horses, monkeys, dogs, parrots and even fleas can be similarly taught. These performances depend upon a close human presence, like the strong-willed hypnotist taking the initiative with submissive subjects, and/or upon some kind of reward system. To test whether it is an accurate indication of intellect, put yourself in the dolphin's position. Surely the most gentle of humans would object strongly to being captured and denied freedom by aliens, however 'friendly', and put on display. Would any but the mentally deficient human then condescend to do tricks? And what would we think of our captors who, believing us to be as intelligent as they supposed themselves to be, nevertheless subjected us to these indignities?

It does not seem to strike us that the gentle and caring characteristics of dolphins and whales, which attract us to them, reflect our repressed inner selves. It is not such gentleness but the high-handed way we patronise dolphins, and the cruelly commercial way in which we still treat whales (in some areas), which represents the public human character. It could be said that dolphins and whales are sensibly in optimum harmony with their environment because they have not achieved our intellectual level, whilst we are destructively oppressive because we have. In this light it might then be claimed that it is we who are backward and they who have actually fulfilled the potential of our intellectual level. But again, if they had would they be willing to take part in circus trickery? In fact it is we humans who are of the highest order of intellectual and therefore moral potential and, erroneously thinking that they are too, we have even less justification for capturing, displaying and breeding dolphins. In truth we can only explain our attitude by admitting that we are yet far from fulfilling that potential.

I have brought this matter up because to question whether dolphins or whales possess high intelligence leads us to question the nature of high intelligence. In attempting to judge the intelligence-level of dolphins from evidence of their behaviour, we may be led to judge whether our own behaviour is a true reflection or a betrayal of our own intellectual capacity. By understanding the moral virtues which limited consciousness can aspire to, as exemplified by the dolphin, we shall come nearer to understanding the responsibilities of unlimited intellect.

There is no doubt in my mind that human intellect as a whole is yet in its infancy. Even so, an outside observer of this planet could be left in no doubt, from the evidence of our unreasonable, self-destructive and bizarre behaviour, that although we have not fulfilled intellect (this concept is explored fully in Part III) we clearly possess its powers. Dolphins are biologically highly complex but, I repeat, there is nothing in their behaviour to suggest mental achievement beyond advanced instinctive consciousness. The reason must be that they never had to face a challenge which their conscious faculty could not meet - they were never threatened with such catastrophe that if they did not acquire an additional mental level, with the ability to look critically at themselves and their ways in order to change them, they would die out.

Apefolk

To return to the land animals of about three million years ago: the self was situated in a relatively small conscious faculty - see Fig. 4C - and behaviour was almost entirely dictated by instinct, periodically enhanced by explorations of consciousness. These explorations were carried furthest by apes, such as chimpanzees, by way of curiosity aided by the beginnings of manual dexterity. One particular ape advanced in curiosity much the furthest, breaking instinctive bonds and enlarging its conscious faculty beyond the point of no return, a point where control of its being passed from an instinctive body, aided by the conscious self, to the conscious self leading the instinctive body. These advanced apes were our predecessors, whom I shall call the apefolk.

As the apefolk learned from new observations, and calculated certain alternative ways of achieving instinctive aims, occasionally taking the risk of breaking old taboos, they slowly progressed by trial and error. To begin with, their brains would be as shown in Figure 4C, but towards the end of their era, after about three million years, I imagine the picture to be more like Figure 6:

Life-forms had always advanced cautiously with one foot, leaving the other firmly planted in instinct. The apefolk seemed sometimes to jump recklessly forward with both feet. But they were not leaping into darkness because life-force impulsion was still the guiding force of their life, and although it was their consciousness that actually decided to make the jump, the source of that decision, and the experience on which it was calculated, was predominantly instinctive. Consciousness in some sense freed itself from instinct, yet it was still anchored to the same basic exclusive interest that was served by instinct - self-survival. The conscious will pursued this interest exclusively because it was not so equipped as to be aware of any other. Obeying evolved instinct to the letter had once been vital to securing survival. But instinct had imperfections, and consciousness was able to improve on it, purposely rather than by chance, the better to serve self-interest. Previously, subconscious instinct had curbed the new conscious faculty by subjecting it to emotions - attractions and fears too strong to be overcome. Now the fulfilment of advanced consciousness became an emotional necessity, as well as the fulfilment of instinct, making the overcoming of some fears and the breakdown of some inhibitions not only possible but essential to the satisfaction of the self, whose interest was now open to conscious as well as instinctive interpretation.

Apefolk began to eat the flesh of other animals to supplement their usual diet of fruit and nuts, and to raise themselves permanently on two legs the better carry things and constantly to observe their surroundings on the grassy plains. These are examples of changes in habit which were not attributable to chance but to the intention of will, and of changes of form which are the body's helpful response to such intention. These new patterns of behaviour were not necessarily better in terms of immediate survival, for the apefolk could have remained apes (species of which still continue to be successful), unless these changes were forced on them by increasing competition - perhaps from overcrowding due to constriction of their habitat during an ice-age. But to the apefolk they must have seemed changes for the better because they answered that newly felt need not only to break new ground but also to take some part in making decisions. Although they were still very much governed by instinct, consciousness gave them a new sense of freedom as they overcame some instinctive inhibitions. And, of course, such progress also appealed to them because it obeys the influence exerted on all life to pursue change to the optimum.

Apefolk must have had a range of inherent instincts similar to those of the dolphins, but were venturing into unknown territory where the struggle for survival was much more intense than in the sea. Now being faced with fierce competition from animals better equipped with the means of attack and defence, yet knowing themselves to be of superior intelligence, they adopted the offensive drives of instinct rather than its passive defences as the chief hallmarks of their character, using that intelligence as their main and very effective weapon. During most of their relatively short history the apefolk came to occupy a unique position amongst Earth's animals, being not the strongest or most fearsome of creatures yet successful competitors, resourceful and adaptable, and representing the penultimate stage in the struggle of blind evolution towards its goal of self-awareness.

It is difficult for us, with our higher level of intelligence, to imagine how the apefolk saw the world from the fastness of consciousness, and how far they managed to progress. They appear to have had no language as we know it, nor capacity for critical self-awareness such as stimulates language - the need to convey to the self and to others meanings different from those which are already instinctively understood. In a vague way they could survey their own instinctive subconsciousness but from the same side of the fence, so to speak, which enabled them to see some better ways of applying the interests of instinct, but not to envisage alternative interests. They had only instinctive morality, yet could impose on instinct new practices which served better than the old. When apefolk became habitually upright, it was not only to observe their surroundings better but also to free their hands and aid co-ordination by bringing their manual activity within range of their level gaze. Their skulls slowly grew in size and changed shape to accommodate the developing brain. My judgement of the apefolk is based on the assumption that they remained locked in consciousness and only recently became extinct; that though descended from them (or from one species of them), we humans are the result of a profound mutation which, whilst leaving us little changed on the outside, made us into another species of altogether different mind.

The apefolk were a developing species, striving to succeed in a highly competitive situation. Of necessity this would mean adopting the mainstays of raw instinctive success, the pecking order and survival of the fittest, as between individuals in a group and between groups. Normally, when animals reach the limit of their potential they modify their behaviour, co-operating in order to become more competitive as a competing group, more harmonious within the group. In the apefolks' case the combination of manual dexterity, great opportunity for development and a potentially much larger conscious capacity gave them very wide scope so that they never settled but kept pressing on aggressively. It is likely that they never learned to limit their killing so as to conserve the food supply, nor to limit their numbers by somehow restricting breeding. This would be because they were unwilling to have their conscious freedom restricted by seemingly unnecessary new inhibitions, and that, in turn, would be because their adaptable versatility enabled them to move on and spread out to pastures new and to thrive on a wide variety of diet.

It is probable that the apefolk learned to use simple weapons like sticks, which they would sharpen, and stones, which they would split to obtain sharp edges, but not to use tools otherwise. They eventually used fire for cooking meat and for comfort and safety at night; also for frightening predators such as lions away from a kill in order to take the meat for themselves. It is likely that they would get this fire from natural sources and keep it burning always, carrying it with them as they moved from place to place, being unable to make it themselves. It is doubtful whether they took to clothing themselves much, or built permanent shelters, but they did live in caves, where available. It is uncertain that they ever took to the water, although recently suggested that they must have done so. They would be able to dig for roots, insects and small animals with sticks, but not to make traps. Although having no language, they must have had a fairly comprehensive range of signs and signals to communicate with each other - facial expressions, hand signals, marks on the ground or on rocks and tree trunks.

By human standards the apefolk made slow and limited progress, yet they advanced much further than any other land animal. As I have said already, consciousness was a forward leap in evolution. Why was it so slow to develop, and why, no matter how large its capacity (e.g. in elephants, whales and dolphins), does it remain limited? I have already hinted at the answer when suggesting that although consciousness leaped forward, instinct was the source of the decision to leap. The conscious faculty is an extension of the preconscious, which is an extension of instinct which, in turn, grew out of life-force. These extensions raised the capacity of intelligence, each advancing to a new frontier, but they all shared the same system of comparative judgement - the same slowly-evolving nerve system in the brain. Thus they were subject to a fixed set of values and concepts, laid down long ago. It was the fundamental instinctive responsibility of intelligence to see that these were never contravened. It is obvious that instinct would take a lot of persuading that a new departure, suggested by the conscious, was an improvement on an old habit and did not contravene basic values and concepts, and this explains the apefolks' slow progress. No decision would have to be made about random mutations, of course, but these were unlikely to occur in a complex and already successful species, and if they did occur they would be adopted or rejected by natural selection. Instinctive caution prevailed because the conscious faculty failed to overtake instinct, for the reason that it lacked the facilities to conduct independent reasoning and record it in its own memory. This in turn explains why no animal but ourselves is capable of self-reflection, which would be utterly unacceptable to instinct in any case.

As regards their competitive struggle against the rest of nature the apefolk were successful enough. I don't think it was external opposition that initiated their destruction but that they were the cause of their own downfall. Because of their exceptional capabilities they were able to obey instinct by pursuing its drives, but to excess, compensated for by denying, to the same but opposite degree, instinctive inhibitions. This could not be forbidden by instinct because at first it seemed to be successful. But it was out of phase with the balance of nature, contrary to that evolved system which has its own laws, in which every creature normally has its dependent place guaranteed by obedience to its own instinct, and in which change, if it is to be feasible, is usually minor and gradual, or, in the case of dramatic change, is in response to a creature getting out of balance and is immediately beneficial. In the balance of nature every creature achieves optimum tolerance of its circumstances and maximum resistance to dangers. Reckless change may well bring benefits on one side, but leave the creature exposed and vulnerable on the other.

Indiscriminate hunting would not matter whilst there was plenty of free space, but these primitive apefolk could not venture too far north, and eventually there must have been overcrowding. This would mean shortage of food, fighting between groups over kills, for territory and for water, and domination by the fittest. This is not uncommon in nature, but a balance normally obtains whereby conflict has settled down within reasonable limits so that it serves rather than threatens survival. The apefolk, because of their large conscious capacity, would carry their conflicts to damaging extremes and would yet be a long way from finding a tolerable balance.

Another drive, as strong as that of the male to compete for advantage, is the sexual urge. When the living is easy, with no pressure to restrict mating in some way and so keep numbers in check, animals may become promiscuous, particularly in warm climates where there is little seasonal limitation on birth. The current behaviour of baboons in South Africa serves as an example, indicating that the transition from instinct to intellect necessarily proceeds by way of unpleasant behaviour. The state of heightened tension in which the apefolk now lived, due to squabbling and fighting within the group and the threat of attack from outside, might have the same effect. If the females would not or could not submit to them, the males may have resorted to rape, or homosexuality, or the females may have resorted to prostitution in return for male protection. The result may have been the spread of a terrible disease such as AIDS - a virus normally kept at bay but then moving in to take advantage of an unnatural situation, just as it is amongst humans today.Whatever may have been the case, I think it likely that the apefolk became neurotic and brutal, fearful and obnoxious to all other animals and candidates for self-destruction. But such behaviour goes against nature, and the consciousness of the apefolk themselves must have cried out for reimposition of the benign and inhibiting instincts which they were ignoring, and for the return of their species to a balanced state. This would be expressed as a strong conscious will for significant change, which eventually could have brought about an extremely dramatic mutation.

The physical evidence implies that, in terms of technology, pre-humans developed hardly at all between the making of the first flint cutting tools and the appearance of the true human species some two or three million years later. There may well have been significant development of a different kind, of which there would be no surviving physical evidence - the slow development of thought. As well as 'doers', the physical/instinctive majority who made the flint spear-heads and were content that the traditional and on the whole successful strategies should not change, there must have been individuals who were vaguely dissatisfied and 'dreamed dreams'. As far as the serioius business of survival was concerned, these 'thinkers' would be discounted or regarded as eccentric or mad, just as they are today, but their thoughts, however vague, would have a generally disturbing effect.

It seems likely that one apefolk mother, somewhere in Central Africa between forty and one hundred thousand years ago (estimates vary,) could have conceived the genetic pattern for a new extension of the brain. The urge for this mutation must have been gathering strength in pre-human consciousness for some time, and maybe it was another new and unexpected threat of catastrophe which triggered it off, or some challenge connected with the end of the last ice age. Whether or not this was so, the event set the seal on the apefolks' fate and marked the beginning of a new, human species.

Previous Chapter
1. Formation of Life

Current Chapter
2. Advance of Intelligence

Next Chapters
3. Birth of Intellect

Back to Home Page INDEX.htm