Unconscious Memory(Fiscle Part-3) by Samuel Butler (classic books to read .TXT) 📕

Making Mistakes."  Passing Over The Fact That Instinct Is Again

Personified,  The Statement Is Still Incorrect.  Instinctive Actions

Are Certainly,  As A General Rule,  Performed With Less Uncertainty

Than Deliberative Ones; This Is Explicable By The Fact That They Have

Been More Often Practised,  And Thus Reduced More Completely To A

Matter Of Routine; But Nothing Is More Certain Than That Animals

Acting Under The Guidance Of Inherited Experience Or Instinct

Frequently Make Mistakes Which With Further Practice They Correct.

Von Hartmann Has Abundantly Admitted That The Manner Of An

Instinctive Action Is Often Varied In Correspondence With Variation

In External Circumstances.  It Is Impossible To See How This Does Not

Involve Both Possibility Of Error And The Connection Of Instinct With

Deliberation At One And The Same Time.  The Fact Is Simply This--When

An Animal Finds Itself In A Like Position With That In Which It Has

Already Often Done A Certain Thing In The Persons Of Its Forefathers,

It Will Do This Thing Well And Easily:  When It Finds The Position

Somewhat,  But Not Unrecognisably,  Altered Through Change Either In

Its Own Person Or In The Circumstances Exterior To It,  It Will Vary

Its Action With Greater Or Less Ease According To The Nature Of The

Change In The Position:  When The Position Is Gravely Altered The

Animal Either Bungles Or Is Completely Thwarted.

Not Only Does Von Hartmann Suppose That Instinct May,  And Does,

Involve Knowledge Antecedent To,  And Independent Of,  Experience--An

Idea As Contrary To The Tendency Of Modern Thought As That Of

Spontaneous Generation,  With Which Indeed It Is Identical Though

Presented In Another Shape--But He Implies By His Frequent Use Of The

Word "Unmittelbar" That A Result Can Come About Without Any Cause

Whatever.  So He Says,  "Um Fur Die Unbewusster Erkenntniss,  Welche

Nicht Durch Sinnliche Wahrnehmung Erworben,  Sondern Als Unmittelbar

Besitz," &C. {144a}  Because He Does Not See Where The Experience Can

Have Been Gained,  He Cuts The Knot,  And Denies That There Has Been

Experience.  We Say,  Look More Attentively And You Will Discover The

Time And Manner In Which The Experience Was Gained.

Again,  He Continually Assumes That Animals Low Down In The Scale Of

Life Cannot Know Their Own Business Because They Show No Sign Of

Knowing Ours.  See His Remarks On Saturnia Pavonia Minor (Page 107),

And Elsewhere On Cattle And Gadflies.  The Question Is Not What Can

They Know,  But What Does Their Action Prove To Us That They Do Know.

With Each Species Of Animal Or Plant There Is One Profession Only,

And It Is Hereditary.  With Us There Are Many Professions,  And They

Are Not Hereditary; So That They Cannot Become Instinctive,  As They

Would Otherwise Tend To Do.

He Attempts {144b} To Draw A Distinction Between The Causes That Have

Produced The Weapons And Working Instruments Of Animals,  On The One

Hand,  And Those That Lead To The Formation Of Hexagonal Cells By

Bees,  &C.,  On The Other.  No Such Distinction Can Be Justly Drawn.

The Ghost-Stories Which Von Hartmann Accepts Will Hardly Be Accepted

By People Of Sound Judgment.  There Is One Well-Marked Distinctive

Feature Between The Knowledge Manifested By Animals When Acting

Instinctively And The Supposed Knowledge Of Seers And Clairvoyants.

In The First Case,  The Animal Never Exhibits Knowledge Except Upon

Matters Concerning Which Its Race Has Been Conversant For

Generations; In The Second,  The Seer Is Supposed To Do So.  In The

First Case,  A New Feature Is Invariably Attended With Disturbance Of

The Performance And The Awakening Of Consciousness And Deliberation,

Unless The New Matter Is Too Small In Proportion To The Remaining

Features Of The Case To Attract Attention,  Or Unless,  Though Really

New,  It Appears So Similar To An Old Feature As To Be At First

Mistaken For It; With The Second,  It Is Not Even Professed That The

Seer's Ancestors Have Had Long Experience Upon The Matter Concerning

Which The Seer Is Supposed To Have Special Insight,  And I Can Imagine

No More Powerful A Priori Argument Against A Belief In Such Stories.

Close Upon The End Of His Chapter Von Hartmann Touches Upon The One

Matter Which Requires Consideration.  He Refers The Similarity Of

Instinct That Is Observable Among All Species To The Fact That Like

Causes Produce Like Effects; And I Gather,  Though He Does Not

Expressly Say So,  That He Considers Similarity Of Instinct In

Successive Generations To Be Referable To The Same Cause As

Similarity Of Instinct Between All The Contemporary Members Of A

Species.  He Thus Raises The One Objection Against Referring The

Phenomena Of Heredity To Memory Which I Think Need Be Gone Into With

Any Fulness.  I Will,  However,  Reserve This Matter For My Concluding

Chapters.

Von Hartmann Concludes His Chapter With A Quotation From Schelling,

To The Effect That The Phenomena Of Animal Instinct Are The True

Touchstone Of A Durable Philosophy; By Which I Suppose It Is Intended

To Say That If A System Or Theory Deals Satisfactorily With Animal

Instinct,  It Will Stand,  But Not Otherwise.  I Can Wish Nothing

Better Than That The Philosophy Of The Unconscious Advanced By Von

Hartmann Be Tested By This Standard.

Recapitulation And Statement Of An Objection.

The True Theory Of Unconscious Action,  Then,  Is That Of Professor

Hering,  From Whose Lecture It Is No Strained Conclusion To Gather

That He Holds The Action Of All Living Beings,  From The Moment Of

Their Conception To That Of Their Fullest Development,  To Be Founded

In Volition And Design,  Though These Have Been So Long Lost Sight Of

That The Work Is Now Carried On,  As It Were,  Departmentally And In

Due Course According To An Official Routine Which Can Hardly Now Be

Departed From.

This Involves The Older "Darwinism" And The Theory Of Lamarck,

According To Which The Modification Of Living Forms Has Been Effected

Mainly Through The Needs Of The Living Forms Themselves,  Which Vary

With Varying Conditions,  The Survival Of The Fittest (Which,  As I See

Mr. H. B. Baildon Has Just Said,  "Sometimes Comes To Mean Merely The

Survival Of The Survivors" {146}) Being Taken Almost As A Matter Of

Course.  According To This View Of Evolution,  There Is A Remarkable

Analogy Between The Development Of Living Organs Or Tools And That Of

Those Organs Or Tools External To The Body Which Has Been So Rapid

During The Last Few Thousand Years.

Animals And Plants,  According To Professor Hering,  Are Guided

Throughout Their Development,  And Preserve The Due Order In Each Step

Which They Take,  Through Memory Of The Course They Took On Past

Occasions When In The Persons Of Their Ancestors.  I Am Afraid I Have

Already Too Often Said That If This Memory Remains For Long Periods

Together Latent And Without Effect,  It Is Because The Undulations Of

The Molecular Substance Of The Body Which Are Its Supposed

Explanation Are During These Periods Too Feeble To Generate Action,

Until They Are Augmented In Force Through An Accession Of Suitable

Undulations Issuing From Exterior Objects; Or,  In Other Words,  Until

Recollection Is Stimulated By A Return Of The Associated Ideas.  On

This The Eternal Agitation Becomes So Much Enhanced,  That Equilibrium

Is Visibly Disturbed,  And The Action Ensues Which Is Proper To The

Vibration Of The Particular Substance Under The Particular

Conditions.  This,  At Least,  Is What I Suppose Professor Hering To

Intend.

Leaving The Explanation Of Memory On One Side,  And Confining

Ourselves To The Fact Of Memory Only,  A Caterpillar On Being Just

Hatched Is Supposed,  According To This Theory,  To Lose Its Memory Of

The Time It Was In The Egg,  And To Be Stimulated By An Intense But

Unconscious Recollection Of The Action Taken By Its Ancestors When

They Were First Hatched.  It Is Guided In The Course It Takes By The

Experience It Can Thus Command.  Each Step It Takes Recalls A New

Recollection,  And Thus It Goes Through Its Development As A Performer

Performs A Piece Of Music,  Each Bar Leading His Recollection To The

Bar That Should Next Follow.

In "Life And Habit" Will Be Found Examples Of The Manner In Which

This View Solves A Number Of Difficulties For The Explanation Of

Which The Leading Men Of Science Express Themselves At A Loss.  The

Following From Professor Huxley's Recent Work Upon The Crayfish May

Serve For An Example.  Professor Huxley Writes:-

"It Is A Widely Received Notion That The Energies Of Living Matter

Have A Tendency To Decline And Finally Disappear,  And That The Death

Of The Body As A Whole Is A Necessary Correlate Of Its Life.  That

All Living Beings Sooner Or Later Perish Needs No Demonstration,  But

It Would Be Difficult To Find Satisfactory Grounds For The Belief

That They Needs Must Do So.  The Analogy Of A Machine,  That Sooner Or

Later Must Be Brought To A Standstill By The Wear And Tear Of Its

Parts,  Does Not Hold,  Inasmuch As The Animal Mechanism Is Continually

Renewed And Repaired; And Though It Is True That Individual

Components Of The Body Are Constantly Dying,  Yet Their Places Are

Taken By Vigorous Successors.  A City Remains Notwithstanding The

Constant Death-Rate Of Its Inhabitants; And Such An Organism As A

Crayfish Is Only A Corporate Unity,  Made Up Of Innumerable Partially

Independent Individualities."--The Crayfish,  P. 127.

Surely The Theory Which I Have Indicated Above Makes The Reason Plain

Why No Organism Can Permanently Outlive Its Experience Of Past Lives.

The Death Of Such A Body Corporate As The Crayfish Is Due To The

Social Condition Becoming More Complex Than There Is Memory Of Past

Experience To Deal With.  Hence Social Disruption,  Insubordination,

And Decay.  The Crayfish Dies As A State Dies,  And All States That We

Have Heard Of Die Sooner Or Later.  There Are Some Savages Who Have

Not Yet Arrived