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

Instances Of Men's Minds Having Gone Round And Round So Nearly In A

Perfect Cycle That Many Revolutions Have Occurred Before The

Cessation Of A Tendency To Recur.  Lastly,  In The Generation Of

Plants And Animals We Have,  Perhaps,  The Most Striking And Common

Example Of The Inevitable Tendency Of All Action To Repeat Itself

When It Has Once Proximately Done So.  Let Only One Living Being Have

Once Succeeded In Producing A Being Like Itself,  And Thus Have

Returned,  So To Speak,  Upon Itself,  And A Series Of Generations Must

Follow Of Necessity,  Unless Some Matter Interfere Which Had No Part

In The Original Combination,  And,  As It May Happen,  Kill The First

Reproductive Creature Or All Its Descendants Within A Few

Generations.  If No Such Mishap Occurs As This,  And If The Recurrence

Of The Conditions Is Sufficiently Perfect,  A Series Of Generations

Follows With As Much Certainty As A Series Of Seasons Follows Upon

The Cycle Of The Relations Between The Earth And Sun.  Let The First

Periodically Recurring Substance--We Will Say A--Be Able To Recur Or

Reproduce Itself,  Not Once Only,  But Many Times Over,  As A1,  A2,  &C.;

Let A Also Have Consciousness And A Sense Of Self-Interest,  Which

Qualities Must,  Ex Hypothesi,  Be Reproduced In Each One Of Its

Offspring; Let These Get Placed In Circumstances Which Differ

Sufficiently To Destroy The Cycle In Theory Without Doing So

Practically--That Is To Say,  To Reduce The Rotation To A Spiral,  But

To A Spiral With So Little Deviation From Perfect Cycularity As For

Each Revolution To Appear Practically A Cycle,  Though After Many

Revolutions The Deviation Becomes Perceptible; Then Some Such

Differentiations Of Animal And Vegetable Life As We Actually See

Follow As Matters Of Course.  A1 And A2 Have A Sense Of Self-Interest

As A Had,  But They Are Not Precisely In Circumstances Similar To A's,

Nor,  It May Be,  To Each Other's; They Will Therefore Act Somewhat

Differently,  And Every Living Being Is Modified By A Change Of

Action.  Having Become Modified,  They Follow The Spirit Of A's Action

More Essentially In Begetting A Creature Like Themselves Than In

Begetting One Like A; For The Essence Of A's Act Was Not The

Reproduction Of A,  But The Reproduction Of A Creature Like The One

From Which It Sprung--That Is To Say,  A Creature Bearing Traces In

Its Body Of The Main Influences That Have Worked Upon Its Parent.

Within The Cycle Of Reproduction There Are Cycles Upon Cycles In The

Life Of Each Individual,  Whether Animal Or Plant.  Observe The Action

Of Our Lungs And Heart,  How Regular It Is,  And How A Cycle Having

Been Once Established,  It Is Repeated Many Millions Of Times In An

Individual Of Average Health And Longevity.  Remember Also That It Is

This Periodicity--This Inevitable Tendency Of All Atoms In

Combination To Repeat Any Combination Which They Have Once Repeated,

Unless Forcibly Prevented From Doing So--Which Alone Renders Nine-

Tenths Of Our Mechanical Inventions Of Practical Use To Us.  There Is

No Internal Periodicity About A Hammer Or A Saw,  But There Is In The

Steam-Engine Or Watermill When Once Set In Motion.  The Actions Of

These Machines Recur In A Regular Series,  At Regular Intervals,  With

The Unerringness Of Circulating Decimals.

When We Bear In Mind,  Then,  The Omnipresence Of This Tendency In The

World Around Us,  The Absolute Freedom From Exception Which Attends

Its Action,  The Manner In Which It Holds Equally Good Upon The

Vastest And The Smallest Scale,  And The Completeness Of Its Accord

With Our Ideas Of What Must Inevitably Happen When A Like Combination

Is Placed In Circumstances Like Those In Which It Was Placed Before--

When We Bear In Mind All This,  Is It Possible Not To Connect The

Facts Together,  And To Refer Cycles Of Living Generations To The Same

Unalterableness In The Action Of Like Matter Under Like Circumstances

Which Makes Jupiter And Saturn Revolve Round The Sun,  Or The Piston

Of A Steam-Engine Move Up And Down As Long As The Steam Acts Upon It?

But Who Will Attribute Memory To The Hands Of A Clock,  To A Piston-

Rod,  To Air Or Water In A Storm Or In Course Of Evaporation,  To The

Earth And Planets In Their Circuits Round The Sun,  Or To The Atoms Of

The Universe,  If They Too Be Moving In A Cycle Vaster Than We Can

Take Account Of? {160}  And If Not,  Why Introduce It Into The

Embryonic Development Of Living Beings,  When There Is Not A Particle

Of Evidence In Support Of Its Actual Presence,  When Regularity Of

Action Can Be Ensured Just As Well Without It As With It,  And When At

The Best It Is Considered As Existing Under Circumstances Which It

Baffles Us To Conceive,  Inasmuch As It Is Supposed To Be Exercised

Without Any Conscious Recollection?  Surely A Memory Which Is

Exercised Without Any Consciousness Of Recollecting Is Only A

Periphrasis For The Absence Of Any Memory At All.

Refutation--Memory At Once A Promoter And A Disturber Of Uniformity

Of Action And Structure.

To Meet The Objections In The Two Foregoing Chapters,  I Need Do

Little More Than Show That The Fact Of Certain Often Inherited

Diseases And Developments,  Whether Of Youth Or Old Age,  Being

Obviously Not Due To A Memory On The Part Of Offspring Of Like

Diseases And Developments In The Parents,  Does Not Militate Against

Supposing That Embryonic And Youthful Development Generally Is Due To

Memory.

This Is The Main Part Of The Objection; The Rest Resolves Itself Into

An Assertion That There Is No Evidence In Support Of Instinct And

Embryonic Development Being Due To Memory,  And A Contention That The

Necessity Of Each Particular Moment In Each Particular Case Is

Sufficient To Account For The Facts Without The Introduction Of

Memory.

I Will Deal With These Two Last Points Briefly First.  As Regards The

Evidence In Support Of The Theory That Instinct And Growth Are Due To

A Rapid Unconscious Memory Of Past Experiences And Developments In

The Persons Of The Ancestors Of The Living Form In Which They Appear,

I Must Refer My Readers To "Life And Habit," And To The Translation

Of Professor Hering's Lecture Given In This Volume.  I Will Only

Repeat Here That A Chrysalis,  We Will Say,  Is As Much One And The

Same Person With The Chrysalis Of Its Preceding Generation,  As This

Last Is One And The Same Person With The Egg Or Caterpillar From

Which It Sprang.  You Cannot Deny Personal Identity Between Two

Successive Generations Without Sooner Or Later Denying It During The

Successive Stages In The Single Life Of What We Call One Individual;

Nor Can You Admit Personal Identity Through The Stages Of A Long And

Varied Life (Embryonic And Postnatal) Without Admitting It To Endure

Through An Endless Series Of Generations.

The Personal Identity Of Successive Generations Being Admitted,  The

Possibility Of The Second Of Two Generations Remembering What

Happened To It In The First Is Obvious.  The A Priori Objection,

Therefore,  Is Removed,  And The Question Becomes One Of Fact--Does The

Offspring Act As If It Remembered?

The Answer To This Question Is Not Only That It Does So Act,  But That

It Is Not Possible To Account For Either Its Development Or Its Early

Instinctive Actions Upon Any Other Hypothesis Than That Of Its

Remembering,  And Remembering Exceedingly Well.

The Only Alternative Is To Declare With Von Hartmann That A Living

Being May Display A Vast And Varied Information Concerning All Manner

Of Details,  And Be Able To Perform Most Intricate Operations,

Independently Of Experience And Practice.  Once Admit Knowledge

Independent Of Experience,  And Farewell To Sober Sense And Reason

From That Moment.

Firstly,  Then,  We Show That Offspring Has Had Every Facility For

Remembering; Secondly,  That It Shows Every Appearance Of Having

Remembered; Thirdly,  That No Other Hypothesis Except Memory Can Be

Brought Forward,  So As To Account For The Phenomena Of Instinct And

Heredity Generally,  Which Is Not Easily Reducible To An Absurdity.

Beyond This We Do Not Care To Go,  And Must Allow Those To Differ From

Us Who Require Further Evidence.

As Regards The Argument That The Necessity Of Each Moment Will

Account For Likeness Of Result,  Without There Being Any Need For

Introducing Memory,  I Admit That Likeness Of Consequents Is Due To

Likeness Of Antecedents,  And I Grant This Will Hold As Good With

Embryos As With Oxygen And Hydrogen Gas; What Will Cover The One Will

Cover The Other,  For Time Writs Of The Laws Common To All Matter Run

Within The Womb As Freely As Elsewhere; But Admitting That There Are

Combinations Into Which Living Beings Enter With A Faculty Called

Memory Which Has Its Effect Upon Their Conduct,  And Admitting That

Such Combinations Are From Time To Time Repeated (As We Observe In

The Case Of A Practised Performer Playing A Piece Of Music Which He

Has Committed To Memory),  Then I Maintain That Though,  Indeed,  The

Likeness Of One