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

Regulation Elsewhere."  ("Method Of Regulation," P. 492.)

Jennings Makes No Mention Of Questions Of The Theory Of Heredity.  He

Has Made Some Experiments On The Transmission Of An Acquired

Character In Protozoa; But It Was A Mutilation-Character,  Which Is,

As Has Been Often Shown,  {0j} Not To The Point.

One Of The Most Obvious Criticisms Of Hering's Exposition Is Based

Upon The Extended Use He Makes Of The Word "Memory":  This He Had

Foreseen And Deprecated.

"We Have A Perfect Right," He Says,  "To Extend Our Conception Of

Memory So As To Make It Embrace Involuntary [And Also Unconscious]

Reproductions Of Sensations,  Ideas,  Perceptions,  And Efforts; But We

Find,  On Having Done So,  That We Have So Far Enlarged Her Boundaries

That She Proves To Be An Ultimate And Original Power,  The Source And,

At The Same Time,  The Unifying Bond,  Of Our Whole Conscious Life."

("Unconscious Memory," P. 68.)

This Sentence,  Coupled With Hering's Omission To Give To The Concept

Of Memory So Enlarged A New Name,  Clear Alike Of The Limitations And

Of The Stains Of Habitual Use,  May Well Have Been The Inspiration Of

The Next Work On Our List.  Richard Semon Is A Professional Zoologist

And Anthropologist Of Such High Status For His Original Observations

And Researches In The Mere Technical Sense,  That In These Countries

He Would Assuredly Have Been Acclaimed As One Of The Fellows Of The

Royal Society Who Were Samuel Butler's Special Aversion.  The Full

Title Of His Book Is "Die Mneme Als Erhaltende Prinzip Im Wechsel Des

Organischen Geschehens" (Munich,  Ed.  1,  1904; Ed. 2,  1908).  We May

Translate It "Mneme,  A Principle Of Conservation In The

Transformations Of Organic Existence."

From This I Quote In Free Translation The Opening Passage Of Chapter

Ii:-

"We Have Shown That In Very Many Cases,  Whether In Protist,  Plant,  Or

Animal,  When An Organism Has Passed Into An Indifferent State After

The Reaction To A Stimulus Has Ceased,  Its Irritable Substance Has

Suffered A Lasting Change:  I Call This After-Action Of The Stimulus

Its 'Imprint' Or 'Engraphic' Action,  Since It Penetrates And Imprints

Itself In The Organic Substance; And I Term The Change So Effected An

'Imprint' Or 'Engram' Of The Stimulus; And The Sum Of All The

Imprints Possessed By The Organism May Be Called Its 'Store Of

Imprints,' Wherein We Must Distinguish Between Those Which It Has

Inherited From Its Forbears And Those Which It Has Acquired Itself.

Any Phenomenon Displayed By An Organism As The Result Either Of A

Single Imprint Or Of A Sum Of Them,  I Term A 'Mnemic Phenomenon'; And

The Mnemic Possibilities Of An Organism May Be Termed,  Collectively,

Its 'Mneme.'

"I Have Selected My Own Terms For The Concepts That I Have Just

Defined.  On Many Grounds I Refrain From Making Any Use Of The Good

German Terms 'Gedachtniss,  Erinnerungsbild.'  The First And Chiefest

Ground Is That For My Purpose I Should Have To Employ The German

Words In A Much Wider Sense Than What They Usually Convey,  And Thus

Leave The Door Open To Countless Misunderstandings And Idle

Controversies.  It Would,  Indeed,  Even Amount To An Error Of Fact To

Give To The Wider Concept The Name Already Current In The Narrower

Sense--Nay,  Actually Limited,  Like 'Erinnerungsbild,' To Phenomena Of

Consciousness. . . .  In Animals,  During The Course Of History,  One

Set Of Organs Has,  So To Speak,  Specialised Itself For The Reception

And Transmission Of Stimuli--The Nervous System.  But From This

Specialisation We Are Not Justified In Ascribing To The Nervous

System Any Monopoly Of The Function,  Even When It Is As Highly

Developed As In Man. . . .  Just As The Direct Excitability Of The

Nervous System Has Progressed In The History Of The Race,  So Has Its

Capacity For Receiving Imprints; But Neither Susceptibility Nor

Retentiveness Is Its Monopoly; And,  Indeed,  Retentiveness Seems

Inseparable From Susceptibility In Living Matter."

Semen Here Takes The Instance Of Stimulus And Imprint Actions

Affecting The Nervous System Of A Dog

"Who Has Up Till Now Never Experienced Aught But Kindness From The

Lord Of Creation,  And Then One Day That He Is Out Alone Is Pelted

With Stones By A Boy. . . .  Here He Is Affected At Once By Two Sets

Of Stimuli:  (1) The Optic Stimulus Of Seeing The Boy Stoop For

Stones And Throw Them,  And (2) The Skin Stimulus Of The Pain Felt

When They Hit Him.  Here Both Stimuli Leave Their Imprints; And The

Organism Is Permanently Changed In Relation To The Recurrence Of The

Stimuli.  Hitherto The Sight Of A Human Figure Quickly Stooping Had

Produced No Constant Special Reaction.  Now The Reaction Is Constant,

And May Remain So Till Death. . . .  The Dog Tucks In Its Tail

Between Its Legs And Takes Flight,  Often With A Howl [As Of] Pain."

"Here We Gain On One Side A Deeper Insight Into The Imprint Action Of

Stimuli.  It Reposes On The Lasting Change In The Conditions Of The

Living Matter,  So That The Repetition Of The Immediate Or Synchronous

Reaction To Its First Stimulus (In This Case The Stooping Of The Boy,

The Flying Stones,  And The Pain On The Ribs),  No Longer Demands,  As

In The Original State Of Indifference,  The Full Stimulus A,  But May

Be Called Forth By A Partial Or Different Stimulus,  B (In This Case

The Mere Stooping To The Ground).  I Term The Influences By Which

Such Changed Reaction Are Rendered Possible,  'Outcome-Reactions,' And

When Such Influences Assume The Form Of Stimuli,  'Outcome-Stimuli.'

They Are Termed "Outcome" ("Ecphoria") Stimuli,  Because The Author

Regards Them And Would Have Us Regard Them As The Outcome,

Manifestation,  Or Efference Of An Imprint Of A Previous Stimulus.  We

Have Noted That The Imprint Is Equivalent To The Changed

"Physiological State" Of Jennings.  Again,  The Capacity For Gaining

Imprints And Revealing Them By Outcomes Favourable To The Individual

Is The "Circular Reaction" Of Baldwin,  But Semon Gives No Reference

To Either Author. {0k}

In The Preface To His First Edition (Reprinted In The Second) Semon

Writes,  After Discussing The Work Of Hering And Haeckel:-

"The Problem Received A More Detailed Treatment In Samuel Butler's

Book,  'Life And Habit,' Published In 1878.  Though He Only Made

Acquaintance With Hering's Essay After This Publication,  Butler Gave

What Was In Many Respects A More Detailed View Of The Coincidences Of

These Different Phenomena Of Organic Reproduction Than Did Hering.

With Much That Is Untenable,  Butler's Writings Present Many A

Brilliant Idea; Yet,  On The Whole,  They Are Rather A Retrogression

Than An Advance Upon Hering.  Evidently They Failed To Exercise Any

Marked Influence Upon The Literature Of The Day."

This Judgment Needs A Little Examination.  Butler Claimed,  Justly,

That His "Life And Habit" Was An Advance On Hering In Its Dealing

With Questions Of Hybridity,  And Of Longevity Puberty And Sterility.

Since Semon's Extended Treatment Of The Phenomena Of Crosses Might

Almost Be Regarded As The Rewriting Of The Corresponding Section Of

"Life And Habit" In The "Mneme" Terminology,  We May Infer That This

View Of The Question Was One Of Butler's "Brilliant Ideas."  That

Butler Shrank From Accepting Such A Formal Explanation Of Memory As

Hering Did With His Hypothesis Should Certainly Be Counted As A

Distinct "Advance Upon Hering," For Semon Also Avoids Any Attempt At

An Explanation Of "Mneme."  I Think,  However,  We May Gather The Real

Meaning Of Semon's Strictures From The Following Passages:-

"I Refrain Here From A Discussion Of The Development Of This Theory

Of Lamarck's By Those Neo-Lamarckians Who Would Ascribe To The

Individual Elementary Organism An Equipment Of Complex Psychical

Powers--So To Say,  Anthropomorphic Perception And Volitions.  This

Treatment Is No Longer Directed By The Scientific Principle Of

Referring Complex Phenomena To Simpler Laws,  Of Deducing Even Human

Intellect And Will From Simpler Elements.  On The Contrary,  They

Follow That Most Abhorrent Method Of Taking The Most Complex And

Unresolved As A Datum,  And Employing It As An Explanation.  The

Adoption Of Such A Method,  As Formerly By Samuel Butler,  And Recently

By Pauly,  I Regard As A Big And Dangerous Step Backward" (Ed. 2,  Pp.

380-1,  Note).

Thus Butler's Alleged Retrogressions Belong To The Same Order Of

Thinking That We Have Seen Shared By Driesch,  Baldwin,  And Jennings,

And Most Explicitly Avowed,  As We Shall See,  By Francis Darwin.

Semon Makes One Rather Candid Admission,  "The Impossibility Of

Interpreting The Phenomena Of Physiological Stimulation By Those Of

Direct Reaction,  And The Undeception Of Those Who Had Put Faith In

This Being Possible,  Have Led Many On The Backward Path Of Vitalism."

Semon Assuredly Will Never Be Able To Complete His Theory Of "Mneme"

Until,  Guided By The Experience Of Jennings And Driesch,  He Forsakes

The Blind Alley Of Mechanisticism And Retraces His Steps To

Reasonable Vitalism.

But The Most Notable Publications Bearing On Our Matter Are

Incidental To The Darwin Celebrations Of 1908-9.  Dr. Francis Darwin,

Son,  Collaborator,  And Biographer Of Charles Darwin,  Was Selected To

Preside Over The Meeting Of The British Association Held In Dublin In

1908,  The Jubilee Of The First Publications On Natural Selection By

His Father And Alfred Russel Wallace.  In This Address We Find The

Theory Of Hering,  Butler,  Rignano,  And Semon Taking Its Proper Place

As A Vera Causa Of That Variation Which Natural Selection Must Find

Before It Can Act,  And Recognised As The Basis Of A Rational Theory

Of The Development Of The Individual And Of The Race.  The Organism

Is Essentially Purposive:  The Impossibility Of Devising