Creation by Evolution/Mind in Evolution
MIND IN EVOLUTION
By C. Lloyd Morgan
Professor Emeritus, Bristol University
Opinions differ as to what the word evolution means or should mean. Some writers speak, for example, of the evolution of atoms, molecules, crystals; of the solar system, the Alps, the Mediterranean Sea; of plants and animals; of social institutions; of scientific thought or artistic expression. For these writers the word evolution is unrestricted in its application. But other writers are of opinion that it is better to restrict the meaning of the word to what is spoken of as the doctrine of descent in living creatures, in other words, to that which, broadly speaking, falls under the head of the origin of species.
This question has been much discussed and a good deal has been said on both sides. But one must choose one or the other. I use the word in its unrestricted sense. Under this usage one can add appropriate adjectives to qualify the noun, such as cosmic, physical, chemical, organic, mental, and social evolution. That enables one to make clear what one means.
But if we adopt the unrestricted use of the noun to express a broad, comprehensive idea we must expressly state the particular phenomena that exemplify the idea we have in mind. We seek, then, to ascertain what holds good for all natural events in so far as the concept of evolution is exemplified in them. It is not easy for me to put it clearly or for my reader to understand. But let us both do our best.
What seems to be common to all events, no matter what may be their specific character, is that which may be called passage. They pass from one phase or stage to the next. And the passage is accordant with some general method or plan which we can more or less definitely formulate. We should realize that even what we commonly call “things” are relatively persistent clusters of events in passage. They have been likened to eddies in the stream of events, or to a waterfall, where the water flows on but the cascade is permanent. What persists is some state of flowing events.
Suppose, then, that we are dealing with atoms, molecules, organisms, minds, social institutions. In all of them there is passage of events. In each there are relatively persistent states, which characterise the several members of the group—characterise each atom, or crystal, or organism, or mind. But in any given group the individual members are not all alike. Molecules are not all alike; nor are organisms or minds all alike. And we commonly say that some of them stand at a higher level, some of them stand at a lower level than others. Thus man is at a higher level and a monkey at a lower level than an ape. If we speak of the level at which any member of a group stands as its status then a man has a higher status than an ape, an ape has a higher status than a monkey, and a monkey a far higher status than an amoeba.
Of course, we have in some way to define what we mean by “higher” and “lower.” We may say—to select one character—that what is more complex is higher and what is less complex is lower. Then in this respect within each group the members may be arranged in order from the lowest to the highest. And the groups also—the atoms, molecules, crystals, organisms—stand in an ascending order of status from lower to higher. Molecules have a higher status than atoms; crystals have a higher status than molecules; organisms have a higher status than anything inorganic.
Suppose, next, that we are dealing with a group of organisms, let us say plants. As we have seen, they may be arranged in an ascending order according to status. But in the course of individual development from the seed onward there is, for instance in the oak, a passage of state from the less complex acorn to the much more complex oak tree. And in the course of racial development, according to the doctrine of descent, there has been, in times long past, a passage of status from less complex species of plants to more complex species.
Now this kind of development in the individual and evolution in the race is not found in atoms, or molecules, or crystals. It is not found till the level of living creatures has been reached in the progressive advance of nature. It introduces something quite new and distinctive—what we call life—which, in technical phrase, “differentiates” organic from inorganic evolution. This makes a difference in the course of events. To indicate other differences the adjectives atomic, molecular, chemical, mental, and so on are used. But the noun “evolution” is here invariably used to mark something which is common to all of them.
After what has thus been said—and necessarily said very briefly—we are now, I think, in a position to state what is common to all of them. Laying stress on passage of states and of status, we can give a pretty clear meaning to unrestricted evolution. It means upward passage from lower to higher, no matter what particular form this passage may assume in this or that kind of progress. The emphasis on evolution as thus defined is therefore on its upward passage.
Thus what from our point of view is essential to the idea of evolution is upward passage by progressive steps (sometimes very little steps, sometimes big jumps) along definite, recognisable lines of advance, with continuity of progress from lower to higher. And of evolution in this sense there is evidence in molecules, in organisms, in minds, and in social institutions.
No doubt, when we come down to adjectival details, we shall find special features that are distinctive of each group, and some difficulty may still be felt in defining advance. I have spoken of advance to what is higher; and to illustrate what may be taken as a criterion of higher, I selected complexity. But this is not the only criterion, perhaps not the most important criterion. For, in the upper reaches of evolution, what is higher may be higher in quality. Thus one man’s treatment of a subject may be higher than that of another man not in complexity but in what we commonly speak of as “quality.” A little dinner may be higher in quality than an elaborate banquet. This distinction may be hard to define, but most people will understand what is meant.
If, with a little attentive thought, one has grasped this idea or concept of evolution as upward and progressive advance, the next thing to realise is that, throughout nature, including human nature, there is by no means always progressive advance. In every field of inquiry we find abundant evidence of that which is the very opposite of evolution and is sometimes called “degeneration” or “devolution.” I shall speak of it as dissolution. Evolution is progress, dissolution is regress. What we have now to grasp is that we find throughout nature not only upward passage from lower to higher but downward passage from higher to lower—sometimes one, sometimes the other; sometimes both side by side. Where we find both we usually find a balance in favour of one or the other. We have often to deal with an intricate profit and loss account.
In our own bodies, for example, the tissues are not only in process of up-building but also in process of down-breaking. During adult life some sort of balance is maintained on the credit and the debit side of the account. In the healthy child there is a balance of profit through evolutionary upbuilding. In old age there is more loss than gain. In what we speak of as “senile decay” dissolution, through degeneration of the bodily tissues, entails an increasingly adverse balance.
This distinction between building upward under evolution, and breaking down under dissolution is of very great importance. Surely, wherever we look we find not only progress but regress; we find not only building up but breaking down. That which is progressively built up under evolution has that mark of the higher which stamps it as a fuller and richer whole with substantial unity. That which ultimately results from dissolution is the scattering of the components which went together to constitute that whole. Much modern work on the atom illustrates dissolution; of atoms in process of evolution there is now little evidence. But many of us believe that it has taken place in the past and may still occur. And what about social life? Here we find abundant evidence of evolution in progress. But is there no evidence of dissolution in regress? Must we not recognise fall to lower levels as well as rise to higher levels?
The question is one of fact. My belief is that this reversal of order, this downward passage in state or in status is a feature of the world in which we live, seen alike in disintegrating molecules and atoms, in degenerate organisms, in degraded minds, in debased institutions. It seems to be no less given in the evidence, as matter of fact, than is evolution. And if it be matter of fact we must realise that such it is.
Before passing on let us briefly review the position. The word “evolution” is used in two senses. To many, perhaps to most people, the more familiar sense is that in which it is said that evolution is the way in which existing animals and plants have arisen by natural descent through heredity from more primitive ancestors. If, however, we speak, as many do speak, of the evolution of molecules or crystals, there is no suggestion that they too have arisen by natural descent through heredity. Here, therefore, the word evolution is used in a less restricted sense. In that sense evolution is the building up of new wholes which are progressively higher, more complex, and richer in qualities, but which are no less new. Thus evolution is the keynote of all upward and onward advance throughout nature. For some of us it is, from first to last, subject to the directive presence of God.
I believe that this is so. But whether it is so or not, what do we find? Let me put it, somewhat picturesquely, thus: Evolution is the progressive coming into existence or being of higher and richer modes of fellowship, in which the constituent members play their parts. Of modes of fellowship there is an ascending series. In the atom, protons and electrons play their parts in one mode of fellowship. In the molecule, atoms play their parts in a new and higher mode of fellowship. In the living cell, atoms, molecules, and “colloidal units” play their parts in a far higher mode of fellowship. In our own bodies, myriads of living cells play their parts in tissues and organs which play their parts in the fellowship of the body as a whole. We thus reach the “kingdom of life.” And here the reproductive cells play their parts in continuing an unbroken line of life-fellowship. Here, therefore, the doctrine of descent through hereditary transmission comes into the picture.
But there is not only progressive evolution of modes of fellowship higher and higher and yet higher. There is also dissolution of fellowship. The wholes that have been built up in evolution break down in dissolution. Some day our bodies, with their organs and tissues and cells, will break down into widely distributed molecules and atoms in sundry chemical fellowships. The life-fellowship in our bodies will no longer be the fellowship of life. This is an example of dissolution. But in our children the life-fellowship of tissues and organs continues unbroken to bear onward the torch of progress in evolution.
I have sought to show that there is abundant evidence, in the world as we know it, of dissolution—may I now say dissolution of fellowship? Without it perhaps the evolution of new and higher modes of fellowship would not be such as we find it to be. But as a matter of fact, in what we may speak of as the age-long process of the building up and breaking down of modes of fellowship, evolution has prevailed over dissolution. Were this not so the higher modes of fellowship would have passed away and would no longer exist. Were this not so we should not be here to discuss this difficult problem, or, through mental and spiritual fellowship, to contribute in some measure to progress in evolution. The world as it now is affords irrefutable evidence that evolution has prevailed over dissolution.
None the less we should realise that there is in our world, at all levels of natural events, evidence of dissolution of fellowship. Falls to lower status there are; but rise to higher status has won through. Our theme is the prevalence of evolution. And here the passage is upward to something higher. And within this progressive advance we ourselves have been caught up as active and open-eyed participators. That is where mind in evolution comes at last into the picture. Others will deal with the evolution of material things and of those no less material structures we call living bodies. The physiologist deals with the evolution of the brain. I am called on to deal with mind in evolution.
We must all admit that the body and the mind are, in millions of living beings here on earth, in some way very closely connected. We may tell a story of the body. Can one state in a few words what is distinctive of the mental story as contrasted with the bodily story? Let me try to do so. In the mental story there is enjoyment. You and I know what this feels like; and that is the only way we can know it. It is in common parlance pleasurable; but since discomfort and pain, though opposites, are the same kind of feeling, let us include these as "negative enjoyment."
In the mental story there is also that which may be called reference. When I see in the sky a halo round the moon and I think this portends bad weather there is in my mind reference to the rain I am led to expect. If I have to go out to a long meeting I shall take my umbrella. In that case there is guidance of action with reference to a possible wet night in order that I may prevent, so far as I can, the discomfort of a drenching.
Now other words than those employed here may be used. But on these terms whenever there is pleasurable enjoyment or its negative discomfort; whenever there is objective reference, as it is called; wherever there is guidance of behaviour or of conduct to the end of gaining pleasurable enjoyment or of avoiding discomfort we have characters distinctive of mind. Consider whether this brief statement, so far as it goes, is accordant with the facts of experience, and if so whether anything but a mind has these distinctive characters.
Of course all three may go together. When one is angry there is reference to some one with whom he is angry and to something he has done; one’s action toward him is appropriately guided, and there is emotional feeling—pleasure or pain—which tingles in one’s mind and is part of the mental story.
But though all three may go together we may distinguish them, just as we may distinguish (under reference) the colour, the scent, and the shape of a rose, though they too go together. Under this distinction mental evolution is threefold. In the ascending order of organisms (each with body-mind) from some lowly animal to man, there is, as we infer, evolution of enjoyment from lower to higher forms—from the pleasures of sense to aesthetic, intellectual, and moral joy; there is evolution of objective reference which leads up from bare sensory “acquaintance” to all that falls under “knowledge”; there is, in due course, evolution of guidance, which, by progressive steps, enables us to thread our way sure-footedly in a difficult world. All three conspire, in accordance with their level of evolution, to give the status of this or that mind in any given organism, from the lowest to the highest—conspire, too, to give the status of the mind of the individual at successive stages of its life history, say in early and later infancy, early and later childhood, adolescence, and maturity.
The threefold evolution, distinguishable under the headings of enjoyment, objective reference, and guidance of action, is threefold only in so far as we regard evolution in mind from these three standpoints. For your mind and my mind is “all three in one” and exemplifies one evolutionary advance. So, too, body and mind are distinguishable; but here and now they are nowise separable. What I have spoken of as two stories, a mental story and a bodily story, are therefore two stories, two versions of that which is given as the one and indivisible progress in the life and mind of this or that individual being.
Since, then, these two stories of one organism are closely connected, we must try to keep both in view; and since we want to get some clue to the “origin of mental species” we naturally ask whether we are justified in supposing that wherever there is life there also is mind, though perhaps in some very primitive form. Plants here present a difficulty; so let us restrict our attention to animals. Then we may say that, so far as we believe—and most of us do believe—even so simple an animal as an amoeba has something, however rudimentary, of the nature of enjoyment, and something, however incipient, of the nature of reference to its environment. Thus far we do suppose that where there is life there also is mind, though it may be a very simple form of mind. It is, then, for the physiologist to tell his story in terms of action and reaction under physical influence, and for the psychologist to tell his story in terms of enjoyment and reference.
It will, however, be noticed that what is thus attributed to the amoeba is enjoyment with reference to its environment. Nothing was said as to guidance of behaviour on the part of the amoeba. Why was this? Because opinions differ. There is divergence of view. Some of those who have studied with due care such lowly animals tell us they find quite convincing evidence that the behaviour of these organisms shows guidance of action on their part. Others say that, on the evidence as they read it, they are not prepared to attribute to a good many of the lower animals any guidance of action on their part. This raises a technical and difficult question. We cannot discuss it here; but it is pretty easy to see that if some of the lower animals give no evidence of guidance of action and a great many of the higher animals give abundant evidence of such guidance, there must be some stage of evolutionary advance at which an important feature of mind, hitherto absent, is no longer absent but very much in evidence.
What, then, is the kind of evidence? And what does guidance imply? It is guidance of behaviour and of conduct. And it seems that there are two evolutionary stages of guidance: (1) the higher, reflective or thoughtful guidance, which comes in us at the age of 2½ or 3 years and then progressively increases from about that age onward; and (2) the lower, unreflective guidance, of which we find evidence in the infant and in many of the lower animals. It is difficult to see how there could be guidance, even at the earlier stage, if there were no reference to an objective world, for it is with reference to that world that behaviour is subject to guidance. But it is, I think, easy to see that reference only to what is going on now would not afford what seems to be essential to guidance. It seems essential that there should be prospective guidance, anticipating, if only by a little, that which will come in the course of some established routine. How else can what may come be hastened or avoided by acting in this way or that? Does not all guidance imply some measure of reference to future events rendered present in expectancy, however shortsighted?
I take it that all may agree that under mental evolution we have to ascertain the manner in which conscious guidance advances from lower to higher stages, no less than the manner in which enjoyment, with reference to surrounding objects and eventually persons, likewise advances from lower to higher status. But just how guidance arises, and what is its psychological accompaniment, is perhaps the crucial question in the whole wide range of evolutionary advancement. Consider what it means. It means nothing less than the dawn of that freedom of choice which we cherish above all things. It is the very turning point in the evolutionary history of events. In that history it is of all events the greatest in promise. In human life it marks us as what we verily are—makers of a new, and, as we hope, a better world. For human guidance is always toward something more or less clearly envisaged as not yet in being, but still to be brought into being through striving and endeavour. It comes with that higher enjoyment we call joy; it comes with reflective reference. But it comes with that touch of genuine newness which characterizes every step in evolutionary advance.
In social and personal progress guidance becomes more and more and more the expression of human purpose. It is guidance in the light of deliberate and thoughtful reference, with widening range of outlook. It is guidance toward personal joy in right conduct. More than that; it is guidance toward the sympathetic rejoicing in the joy of others which characterizes love and good will. Above all it is guidance in so acting as to promote evolution and to combat dissolution. For regress there is. Our aim should be to fight it in all its forms. Here we have mind at its highest and best in social life.
In close connection with the discussion of evolution a question arises which many of us deem gravely important: What is the bearing of evolution on the religious convictions of the majority of people? Here evolution is generally taken in the unrestricted sense we have accepted. And here we find a noteworthy change of attitude. Three or four decades ago it was widely held that belief in evolution is incompatible with belief in God. One must choose, it was said, between one and the other. Much modern thought no longer regards this supposed alternative as logically sound. Some of us find no inconsistency in believing in both. Nay, more; many thinkers to-day are convinced that only in the light shed by the concept of evolution does the full richness of Divine Purpose, as thus manifested, appeal to some at least of those in whom a spiritual attitude toward God has itself been evolved.
Consider the matter a little more closely. Herbert Spencer, in 1858, contrasted “creation by evolution” with “creation by manufacture”; and even then he expressed the opinion that creation by manufacture is a much lower concept than creation by evolution. It may be said, however, that neither evolution nor manufacture express what we mean by creation. Creation, or as it used to be called, “special creation,” means, it will be said, sudden bringing into being by unconditional fiat. As a typical example of creative fiat take, “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” Extend this: Let there be things; let there be plants and animals after their kinds; let there be man. Such was an early expression of creative fiat. It was poetical in the fine sense that
Unto His measures moveth the whole.
Noteworthy is that wonderful touch of spiritual insight, fitly given first place in the Hebrew Scriptures: Many instances of creative fiat, but One God whose Purpose is thus manifested.
Turn now to modern thought. It is still open to us to couch ultimate explanation in like terms: Let there be electrons; let there be atoms; let there be molecules; let there be crystals; let there be life; let there be man with knowledge of good and evil. Each in turn is severally an expression of that which, for lack of a better phrase, we speak of as Divine Purpose, freed from the temporal limitations of human purpose; but each is an independent and unconditional expression thereof.
It may still be asked, however, whether it is not open to us to interpret also in the light of all that science has taught us—that is, in terms of interdependence and the linkage of the natural events themselves—to trace the steps through which and the conditions under which this or that item in the list from atom to man came gradually into being. Is it not open to us to accept evolution without rejecting Divine Purpose? The concept of fiat—if it is still to be retained as helpful—then takes the form: Let there be one natural plan of evolutionary progress exemplified throughout in many and diverse ways. It is because I have been led, through my survey of what seem to be the patent facts, to find one evolutionary plan as the manifestation of one Divine Purpose (difficult as this may be to define) that I prefer the unrestricted usage of the word “evolution.”
On grounds such as these it may be urged that acceptance of unrestricted evolution though many ascending grades, reaching its culmination in the highly-developed mind that plays so great and increasing a part in later evolutionary progress, is not incompatible with belief in God as manifested in all advance from lower to higher.
In any case many evolutionists hold this belief with sincere and enhanced conviction. What, for one of them, does this imply? It implies reference to God as object of spiritual contemplation; it implies guidance of conduct in the light of this reference; it implies joy in attaining such ends as are deemed to be consonant with Divine Purpose. But this joy, this guidance, this reference, are themselves here and now in process of evolution. In daily life they sustain worthy endeavour. They may rise from lower to higher.
We speak of this kind of advance in human life as illustrating nearer approach, with joy under guidance, to truth, beauty, goodness, and above all, to love and good will. Here mind in evolution reaches its highest expression. And even if it be part of our belief that we are thus in touch with the eternal verities, it may also be part of our belief that closer approach to their realisation in human affairs is seen in that progressive process in time which we call evolution.
REFERENCES
Those who are interested in the line of treatment followed in the first part of this article may consult Professor A. N. Whitehead’s “Science and the Modern World,” General Smuts’ “Holism and Evolution,” and my Gilford Lectures on “Emergent Evolution,” and “Life, Mind and Spirit.”
“The world has been evolved, not (specially) created; it has arisen, little by little, from a small beginning at an almighty word. What a sublime idea of the Infinite might of the great Architect, the Cause of all causes, the Father of all fathers, the Ens Entium! For if we would compare the Infinite it would surely require a greater Infinite to cause the causes of effects than to produce the eflFects themselves.”— Erasmus Darwin (Grandfather of Charles Darwin).
“It is absolutely certain that we are in the presence of an Infinite Eternal Energy from which all things proceed.”—Herbert Spencer.