The French philosopher, Henri Bergson, who is mentioned in Poul Anderson's The Peregrine (see here) (scroll down), is discussed on pp. 189-190:
"Evolution in Bergson's opinion was fundamentally creative in the sense that it always engendered something wholly new, something whose nature and whose coming-into-being could not have been foreseen by knowledge of what had gone before. Only if evolution worked in this way could Becoming and not Being be regarded as metaphysically primary." (p. 190)
The Peregrine cites Bergson as a philosopher of endless change but not of creative evolution. I think that the single novelty in evolution was consciousness. Naturally selected organismic sensitivity to environmental alterations quantitatively increased until it was qualitatively transformed into conscious sensation. The emergence of consciousness was a qualitative change, unpredictable for two reasons. First, we can imagine sensitivity increasing indefinitely without becoming conscious. Maybe this has happened elsewhere in complex organisms that move, construct elaborate structures and exchange complicated signals while remaining unconscious. Secondly, preconscious beings cannot predict.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And your last paragraph here reminded me of Anderson's "The High Ones." The "fauna" of Zolotoy de-evolved from being conscious persons into creatures which remained "...complex organisms that move, construct elaborate structures and exchange complicated signals while remaining unconscious." A better way of expressing that last concept might be "unaware of themselves."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
An organism might have bodily sensations or respond to sights and sounds without being able to reflect on itself. I would call such an organism conscious but not self-conscious. I am trying to imagine a complex organism that responds only automatically without any sensations.
Paul.
A walking, manipulating vegetable.
Kaor, Paul!
And that is what Anderson did in "The High Ones" and "The Serpent in Eden," with the former being esp. appalling, due to the "fauna" of Zolotoy being descended from persons which had once been intelligent, self aware beings. The "fabers" of "Serpent" were not so troubling because they were always simply animals, even if complex ones.
Ad astra! Sean
I didn't find the evolutionary pathway in THE HIGH ONES particularly credible, because full human intelligence didn't evolve to deal with the physical environment.
It evolved to deal with the -social- environment -- with 'office politics', so to speak.
No matter how thoroughly totalitarian a government was, it could not eliminate that if the creatures in it were anything like human beings.
In fact, autocratic governments tend to have -more- of it, if anything.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Then I will have to reread "The High Ones" plus Anderson's comments about that story. In fact, one of my letters to him discussed that story. And I recall him doubting, in his reply, that even the most ruthlessly totalitarian regime would end in the human race becoming as mindless as ants.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: it could be done with deliberate genetic engineering, but not, I think, as an unintended by-product of a social setup. For one thing, governments and social arrangements don't last forever.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I certainly hope that will be the case! It would be appalling if regimes as monstrous as the USSR or Nazi Germany could last for tens of thousands of years.
I did reread "The High Ones" and I still think Anderson made the appalling fate of the Zolotoyans at least science fictionally plausible. The collectivist regime which unified Zolotoy lasted for tens of thousands of years, and mention was made of genetic engineering being used to breed the different castes of ant-like Zolotoyans we see. And so on.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah, I just don't see any regime lasting that long.
-Elements- might -- the Indian caste system persisted for a very long time, and Indian -jati- (sub-castes) have been shown by DNA research to be closed breeding entities for a very long time.
But kingdoms and so forth came and went overhead in India too.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! It's not LIKELY any regime would last long enough to turn an entire intelligent species into the mindless hive creatures we see in "The High Ones." Anderson was running with the premise that DID happen on Zolotoy.
Unfortunately, the Hindu caste system, with all its cruelties, still exists. And I don't see it disappearing unless most Hindus became Christians.
Ad astra! Sean
I have heard of A Buddhist who has converted lower-caste Hindus.
Which fits with what I have heard about how over the centuries, conversion from Hinduism to Islam or Christianity has tended to come from the lowest castes.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: While Buddhism is better than Hinduism, I don't think it will ever be TRANSFORMATIVE in India--because it has some ideas in common with Hinduism, such as belief in reincarnation.
Jim: I think you are correct. But not enough have converted to break the grip of Hinduism in India.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment