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

All Living Beings,  And Who Consider Even The Gentlest Death From Old

Age As Violent And Abnormal; So Professor Huxley Seems To Find A

Difficulty In Seeing That Though A City Commonly Outlives Many

Generations Of Its Citizens,  Yet Cities And States Are In The End No

Less Mortal Than Individuals.  "The City," He Says,  "Remains."  Yes,

But Not For Ever.  When Professor Huxley Can Find A City That Will

Last For Ever,  He May Wonder That A Crayfish Does Not Last For Ever.

I Have Already Here And Elsewhere Said All That I Can Yet Bring

Forward In Support Of Professor Hering's Theory; It Now Remains For

Me To Meet The Most Troublesome Objection To It That I Have Been Able

To Think Of--An Objection Which I Had Before Me When I Wrote "Life

And Habit," But Which Then As Now I Believe To Be Unsound.  Seeing,

However,  As I Have Pointed Out At The End Of The Preceding Chapter,

That Von Hartmann Has Touched Upon It,  And Being Aware That A

Plausible Case Can Be Made Out For It,  I Will State It And Refute It

Here.  When I Say Refute It,  I Do Not Mean That I Shall Have Done

With It--For It Is Plain That It Opens Up A Vaster Question In The

Relations Between The So-Called Organic And Inorganic Worlds--But

That I Will Refute The Supposition That It Any Way Militates Against

Professor Hering's Theory.

Why,  It May Be Asked,  Should We Go Out Of Our Way To Invent

Unconscious Memory--The Existence Of Which Must At The Best Remain An

Inference {149}--When The Observed Fact That Like Antecedents Are

Invariably Followed By Like Consequents Should Be Sufficient For Our

Purpose?  Why Should The Fact That A Given Kind Of Chrysalis In A

Given Condition Will Always Become A Butterfly Within A Certain Time

Be Connected With Memory,  When It Is Not Pretended That Memory Has

Anything To Do With The Invariableness With Which Oxygen And Hydrogen

When Mixed In Certain Proportions Make Water?

We Assume Confidently That If A Drop Of Water Were Decomposed Into

Its Component Parts,  And If These Were Brought Together Again,  And

Again Decomposed And Again Brought Together Any Number Of Times Over,

The Results Would Be Invariably The Same,  Whether Decomposition Or

Combination,  Yet No One Will Refer The Invariableness Of The Action

During Each Repetition,  To Recollection By The Gaseous Molecules Of

The Course Taken When The Process Was Last Repeated.  On The

Contrary,  We Are Assured That Molecules In Some Distant Part Of The

World,  Which Had Never Entered Into Such And Such A Known Combination

Themselves,  Nor Held Concert With Other Molecules That Had Been So

Combined,  And Which,  Therefore,  Could Have Had No Experience And No

Memory,  Would None The Less Act Upon One Another In That One Way In

Which Other Like Combinations Of Atoms Have Acted Under Like

Circumstances,  As Readily As Though They Had Been Combined And

Separated And Recombined Again A Hundred Or A Hundred Thousand Times.

It Is This Assumption,  Tacitly Made By Every Man,  Beast,  And Plant In

The Universe,  Throughout All Time And In Every Action Of Their Lives,

That Has Made Any Action Possible,  Lying,  As It Does,  At The Root Of

All Experience.

As We Admit Of No Doubt Concerning The Main Result,  So We Do Not

Suppose An Alternative To Lie Before Any Atom Of Any Molecule At Any

Moment During The Process Of Their Combination.  This Process Is,  In

All Probability,  An Exceedingly Complicated One,  Involving A

Multitude Of Actions And Subordinate Processes,  Which Follow One Upon

The Other,  And Each One Of Which Has A Beginning,  A Middle,  And An

End,  Though They All Come To Pass In What Appears To Be An Instant Of

Time.  Yet At No Point Do We Conceive Of Any Atom As Swerving Ever

Such A Little To Right Or Left Of A Determined Course,  But Invest

Each One Of Them With So Much Of The Divine Attributes As That With

It There Shall Be No Variableness,  Neither Shadow Of Turning.

We Attribute This Regularity Of Action To What We Call The Necessity

Of Things,  As Determined By The Nature Of The Atoms And The

Circumstances In Which They Are Placed.  We Say That Only One

Proximate Result Can Ever Arise From Any Given Combination.  If,

Then,  So Great Uniformity Of Action As Nothing Can Exceed Is

Manifested By Atoms To Which No One Will Impute Memory,  Why This

Desire For Memory,  As Though It Were The Only Way Of Accounting For

Regularity Of Action In Living Beings?  Sameness Of Action May Be

Seen Abundantly Where There Is No Room For Anything That We Can

Consistently Call Memory.  In These Cases We Say That It Is Due To

Sameness Of Substance In Same Circumstances.

The Most Cursory Reflection Upon Our Actions Will Show Us That It Is

No More Possible For Living Action To Have More Than One Set Of

Proximate Consequents At Any Given Time Than For Oxygen And Hydrogen

When Mixed In The Proportions Proper For The Formation Of Water.

Why,  Then,  Not Recognise This Fact,  And Ascribe Repeated Similarity

Of Living Action To The Reproduction Of The Necessary Antecedents,

With No More Sense Of Connection Between The Steps In The Action,  Or

Memory Of Similar Action Taken Before,  Than We Suppose On The Part Of

Oxygen And Hydrogen Molecules Between The Several Occasions On Which

They May Have Been Disunited And Reunited?

A Boy Catches The Measles Not Because He Remembers Having Caught Them

In The Persons Of His Father And Mother,  But Because He Is A Fit Soil

For A Certain Kind Of Seed To Grow Upon.  In Like Manner He Should Be

Said To Grow His Nose Because He Is A Fit Combination For A Nose To

Spring From.  Dr. X---'S Father Died Of Angina Pectoris At The Age Of

Forty-Nine; So Did Dr. X---.  Can It Be Pretended That Dr. X---

Remembered Having Died Of Angina Pectoris At The Age Of Forty-Nine

When In The Person Of His Father,  And Accordingly,  When He Came To Be

Forty-Nine Years Old Himself,  Died Also?  For This To Hold,  Dr. X---

'S Father Must Have Begotten Him After He Was Dead; For The Son Could

Not Remember The Father's Death Before It Happened.

As For The Diseases Of Old Age,  So Very Commonly Inherited,  They Are

Developed For The Most Part Not Only Long After The Average Age Of

Reproduction,  But At A Time When No Appreciable Amount Of Memory Of

Any Previous Existence Can Remain; For A Man Will Not Have Many Male

Ancestors Who Become Parents At Over Sixty Years Old,  Nor Female

Ancestors Who Did So At Over Forty.  By Our Own Showing,  Therefore,

Recollection Can Have Nothing To Do With The Matter.  Yet Who Can

Doubt That Gout Is Due To Inheritance As Much As Eyes And Noses?  In

What Respects Do The Two Things Differ So That We Should Refer The

Inheritance Of Eyes And Noses To Memory,  While Denying Any Connection

Between Memory And Gout?  We May Have A Ghost Of A Pretence For

Saying That A Man Grew A Nose By Rote,  Or Even That He Catches The

Measles Or Whooping-Cough By Rote During His Boyhood; But Do We Mean

To Say That He Develops The Gout By Rote In His Old Age If He Comes

Of A Gouty Family?  If,  Then,  Rote And Red-Tape Have Nothing To Do

With The One,  Why Should They With The Other?

Remember Also The Cases In Which Aged Females Develop Male

Characteristics.  Here Are Growths,  Often Of Not Inconsiderable

Extent,  Which Make Their Appearance During The Decay Of The Body,  And

Grow With Greater And Greater Vigour In The Extreme Of Old Age,  And

Even For Days After Death Itself.  It Can Hardly Be Doubted That An

Especial Tendency To Develop These Characteristics Runs As An

Inheritance In Certain Families; Here Then Is Perhaps The Best Case

That Can Be Found Of A Development Strictly Inherited,  But Having

Clearly Nothing Whatever To Do With Memory.  Why Should Not All

Development Stand Upon The Same Footing?

A Friend Who Had Been Arguing With Me For Some Time As Above,

Concluded With The Following Words:-

"If You Cannot Be Content With The Similar Action Of Similar

Substances (Living Or Non-Living) Under Similar Circumstances--If You

Cannot Accept This As An Ultimate Fact,  But Consider It Necessary To

Connect Repetition Of Similar Action With Memory Before You Can Rest

In It And Be Thankful--Be Consistent,  And Introduce This Memory Which

You Find So Necessary Into The Inorganic World Also.  Either Say That

A Chrysalis Becomes A Butterfly Because It Is The Thing That It Is,

And,  Being That Kind Of Thing,  Must Act In Such And Such A Manner And

In Such A Manner Only,  So That The Act Of One Generation Has No More

To Do With The Act Of The Next Than The Fact Of Cream Being Churned

Into Butter In A Dairy One Day Has To Do With Other Cream Being

Churnable Into Butter In The Following Week--Either Say This,  Or Else

Develop Some Mental Condition--Which I Have No Doubt You Will Be Very

Well Able To Do If You Feel The Want Of It--In Which You Can Make Out

A Case For Saying That Oxygen And Hydrogen On Being Brought Together,

And Cream On Being Churned,  Are In Some Way Acquainted With,  And

Mindful Of,  Action Taken By Other Cream And Other Oxygen And Hydrogen

On Past Occasions."

I Felt Inclined To Reply That My Friend Need Not Twit Me With Being

Able To Develop A Mental Organism If I Felt The Need Of It,  For His

Own Ingenious Attack On My Position,  And Indeed Every Action Of His

Life Was But An Example Of This Omnipresent Principle.

When He Was Gone,  However,  I Thought Over What He Had Been Saying.  I

Endeavoured To See How Far I Could Get On Without Volition And

Memory,  And Reasoned As Follows:- A Repetition Of Like Antecedents

Will Be Certainly Followed By A Repetition Of Like Consequents,

Whether The Agents Be Men And Women Or Chemical Substances.  "If

There Be Two Cowards Perfectly Similar In Every Respect,  And If They

Be Subjected In A Perfectly Similar Way To Two Terrifying Agents,

Which Are Themselves Perfectly Similar,  There Are Few Who Will Not

Expect A Perfect Similarity In The Running Away,  Even Though Ten

Thousand Years Intervene Between The Original Combination And Its

Repetition."