Originally posted on sciy.org by Ron Anastasia on Thu 14 Jul 2005 10:33 AM PDT
037 d&j. Question about challenging the materialist view of the evolution of consciousness
From: "Jan Maslow" <jmaslow@jps.net>
To: scienceandspirit@sriaurobindocenter-la.com
Subject: Question about challenging the materialist view of the evolution of consciousness
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:32:44 -0400
Dear Post-AUM folks:
We (Don and Jan) are (hopefully) about 6 months from completing a book,
"Through the Eyes of Inï¬nity: Exploring the Vision of Yoga Psychology",
which presents Sri Aurobindo's Integral Psychology in the context of
the Indian tradition of Yoga Psychology. We very much need some help
from someone familiar both with the science of evolutionary biology and
with Sri Aurobindo's spiritual vision.
In the ï¬rst three chapters of the book, we present "The View From
Nowhere" – the mainstream scientiï¬c materialistic outlook on evolution.
In the ï¬rst chapter, we give an overview of the unfolding of
consciousness in 3 different time frames as understood within the
materialistic perspective. We describe the unfolding of consciousness
over billions of years of cosmic and biological evolution, as it
develops over the course of an individual human life, and the unfolding
of consciousness in the moment (as measured in milliseconds).
In the 2nd and 3rd chapters, we challenge the view from nowhere – ï¬rst,
somewhat along the lines of Matthijs' talk on the sense mind – undoing
the construction of the world which our mind takes to be "THE" world;
and then challenging speciï¬c assumptions of materialism – (1) that laws
of nature somehow arise by chance, (2) that biological evolution takes
place entirely as a result of random mutations and natural selection;
and (3) that consciousness is simply the creation of the material brain
(in the closing section of Chapter 3, we refer to thousands of
methodologically impeccable studies conducted over the last 100 years
by parapsychologists which refute this idea)
For the section challenging conventional Neo-Darwinian views of
evolution, we draw particularly on the work of biologists Elisabet
Sahtouris and Mae Wan-Ho, and bring in the work of quantum theorist
Amit Goswami. Since we know next to nothing about biology and (less
then) nothing about quantum physics, we are very interested in getting
some feedback from those who do. We sent the section to Don Cruse who
has written an excellent book challenging conventional Darwinism
("Evolution and the New Gnosis"), and he liked it very much. We sent
the same section to two professors at Carleton College in Vermont – one
a professor of molecular biology, the other the head of the biology
dept and a specialist in evolutionary biology – both mainstream
materialist thinkers – and both were, understandably, very critical of
what we wrote – construing it to be basically the same as "Intelligent
Design" (which it is not).
We plan to ask the authors we mentioned above (Goswami, Sahtouris and
Wan-Ho) if they would be willing to read what we wrote and correct any
errors, but it would be really helpful to get feedback from those
familiar with Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. The section in question
(which is posted below) comes before we begin our presentation of Yoga
Psychology. Its essential purpose is to invite the reader to take an
agnostic stance – suggesting that the involvement of intelligence or
consciousness of some kind in the evolutionary process is at least as
reasonable as the deï¬nitive assertion that evolution is an entirely
random, physical process.
The strongest and most common objection we've heard so far is that
by suggesting intelligence of some kind is associated with the
evolutionary process, we've taken the discussion out of the realm of
science, as it is impossible to detect the workings of intelligence in
matter, plants or animals by scientiï¬c means. As far as we can see, the
best answer to this challenge can be found in parapsychological
research, in which hundreds of studies, meeting the highest standards
of scientiï¬c methodology, show the workings of intelligence in matter,
plants and animals. Parapsychologist William Braud, for example, has
conducted studies over the last 2 decades showing the ability of mind
to influence – over a distance – the following biological targets:
bacteria, plants, ants, mice, gerbils, cats, dogs, cellular
preparations, blood cells, neurons, cancer cells and enzyme activity.
Furthermore, although Amit Goswami's quantum theories of evolution are,
as he admits, speculative, British biologist Mae Wan-Ho claims to have
done experiments which show the interaction of intelligence with
quantum processes in the mutation of several generations of fruit flies.
Elisabet Sahtouris cites other biologists who have conducted successful
studies along similar lines.
Our major questions: Speciï¬cally, in what we write about evolution
or quantum physics, did we make any scientiï¬c errors? And generally
speaking, does the flow of thought in this section make sense? Is there
anything else we can do to distinguish what we write here from
"Intelligent Design"?
EXCERPT FROM "Through the Eyes of Inï¬nity",
Chapter 3:
Questioning the Assumptions of the View From Nowhere
Intelligent Mutation: Exploring Hidden Assumptions About Life
A.G. Cairns-Smith and Richard Feynman openly admit they don't know
what matter and energy are. Rupert Sheldrake maintains that nobody
knows where the laws of nature came from, nor what keeps them in place.
Though there seems to be widespread agreement regarding our ignorance
of the ultimate nature of the universe, this neutral, agnostic stance
is usually abandoned when it comes to discussion of the evolutionary
process.
According to prevailing Neo-Darwinian theories, the mechanism of
evolution is fully accounted for by the non-conscious, purely physical
processes of natural selection and random mutation. However, that claim
is not based on scientiï¬c evidence. There is no scientiï¬c reason why
what biologists take to be random, chance mutations cannot equally be
the workings of some kind of intelligence.
*****
[NOTE: THIS WAS A BOX WITHIN THE TEXT, WHICH CAN' T BE PASTED INTO AN EMAIL LETTER:
The suggestion that a conscious intelligence of some kind is involved
in evolution is usually associated with the movement known as
"Creationism", or in its slightly more sophisticated form, "Intelligent
Design" – both of which are based on a Christian perspective. Many
people are not aware that there are others ways of understanding the
possibility that conscious intelligence is associated with evolution,
some quite different from Creationism or Intelligent Design. Science
writer Roy Abraham Varghese, for example, has described a way of
understanding the relationship of an inï¬nite intelligence to the
process of evolution that is based on the perspective of the Hindu
philosopher, Madhvacharya. It is not our intention to put forth any
particular philosophic or religious viewpoint. Rather, we simply wish
to show that there is a way of understanding the involvement of
intelligence in the process of evolution that does not conflict with the
ï¬ndings of science.]
******
If we consider the actual ï¬ndings of biologists as distinct from their
interpretation of those ï¬ndings, we ï¬nd there is virtually nothing to
preclude the involvement of some kind of intelligence in the emergence
of new species or, for that matter, in the entire process of evolution.
For example consider the human body. The body contains nearly a
trillion cells. 600 billion die and are regenerated each day, at a rate
of over 4 million per second. Every 1 and ? minutes millions of
antibodies are synthesized; every hour 200 million red blood cells are
regenerated.[i][i]
Perhaps it is the case that such astonishing complexity came about as a
result of a random series of fortuitous mutations which occurred over
the course of billions of years. Is there any possibility that some
kind of intelligence played at least a part in the process that led to
such a complex phenomenon?
According to current evolutionary theory, it is chance biological
mutations that play the fundamental role in determining whether various
plant and animal species survive or die out. The emergence of
altogether new species is thought to be determined in the same way. Are
there ï¬ndings and/or theories which offer a plausible account of how
intelligence might play a role in this process?
Many mutations that occur are maladaptive; as a result of these
mutations, a species can no longer survive and eventually dies out. Is
it possible that there is some process of intelligent choice involved
in the development of such maladaptive mutations? We are not aware of
any scientiï¬c theories which suggest that is the case. However, if we
allow for the possibility that virtually all the processes or "laws" of
physical nature are in some way supported by conscious intelligence,
then there would also be room for some sort of intelligence to be at
work even in maladaptive mutations.
On the other hand, biologist Elisabet Sahtouris asserts that there
is much evidence that organisms can intelligently respond to mutations
which are recognized as errors: "Rather than being the sources of
variation and evolution, errors known to occur in DNA during
reproduction and by cosmic radiation or other accidents, are recognized
at the molecular level and ï¬xed by repair genes. Thus we see
intelligence at work not only in higher brains, but in the lowliest of
bacteria and cellular components."
Biologists have also found a role for intelligence in bringing about
genetic change in response to the environment. Sahtouris writes that
there is over "ï¬fty years of research evidence that DNA reorganizes
itself intelligently when organisms are environmentally stressed". She
cites biologist Mae Wan-Ho's observations of live bacteria responding
to changes in the environment by means of appropriate mutations, more
rapidly than would be possible through natural selection. Sahtouris
also describes an experiment by Barry Hall, who "found that when E.
coli in a solution of salicin was given little other nourishment, it
underwent two otherwise rare mutations together at a rate thousands of
times higher than in normal growth, making itself able to use the
salicin. [Hall] suggested, 'that cells have some means of recognizing
what would be an advantageous mutation and increasing the chance that
it occurs.'"
[note - the biology professors (the ones who have a materialistic view
of evolution) disputed Sahtouris notion that Hall's experiment showed
that the cells' "recognition" involved intelligence of some kind, and
aserted that this was nothing more than a purely non-conscious,
mechanical process. However, they didn't present any scientiï¬c evidence
that this was the case. We want to emphasize again - we're not
interested in this chapter in presenting "proof" that intelligence or
consciousness plays a part in evolution. We only want in this chapter
to suggest there's no scientiï¬c evidence against the possibility]
We've seen some possibility for intelligence to be involved in
helping a species adapt to its environment. Are there any theories that
allow for the involvement of intelligence in the appearance of new
species?
Amit Goswami suggests that consciousness may make use of quantum
processes to bring about the kind of creative mutations that lead to
the appearance of new species. He thinks that Darwinian natural
selection plays an important role in helping a species become stable
within its environment. However, he suggests that while this process of
stabilization is going on, mutations are accumulating in the form of
quantum possibilities which are passed down as potential mutations to
the subsequent generations. Then when a change in the environment calls
for it, a number of the potential mutations are "chosen" to manifest
simultaneously resulting in a new species that will be suited to the
new environment. In other words, Goswami is saying that conscious
intelligence is directly involved in this process of "choosing" that is
responsible for the quantum leap to a new species .[1][1]
Once again, rather than persuade the reader of any particular view, we
simply hope to make it clear that there is nothing in the ï¬ndings of
biology that rules out the possibility of a conscious intelligence at
work.
So far we've looked at patterns of nature and the process of mutation
in evolution, both of which are observable facts which seem to be
understandable in terms of either blind material processes, or as based
in some kind of conscious intelligence. We're now going to consider
some scientiï¬c ï¬ndings that are hard to make sense of from the
perspective of the view from nowhere.
[note, we go on here to the concluding section of chapter 3, on
parapsychology - you all might enjoy the opening quotes from this
section, from some rather prominent skeptics:
Neither the testimony of all the Fellows of the Royal Society; nor
even the evidence of my own senses, would lead me to believe in the
transmission of thought from one person to another independent of the
recognized channels of sense." (H.L.F. von Helmholtz, psychophysiologist, late 19th century[ii][i])
"Why do we not accept extra-sensory perception as a psychological
fact? [Parapsychologist] Rhine has offered us enough evidence to have
convinced us on almost any other issue…. I cannot see what other basis
my colleagues have for rejecting it…. My own rejection of his views is
in a literal sense prejudice." (Psychologist Donald O. Hebb, 1951)[iii][ii]
"This is a subject that is so intellectually uncomfortable as to be
almost painful… I end by concluding that I cannot explain away
Professor Rhine's evidence and I cannot accept it." (Warren Weaver, mathematician, 1963)[iv][iii]
"There are some things we know are not true, and precognition
[foreknowledge of the future] is one of them; therefore, in this case,
experimental data is irrelevant." (Director of a major nuclear physics institute)[v][iv]
"I wouldn't believe it even if it were true" – (contemporary
scientist speaking to researcher Willis Harman upon being told of
successful remote-viewing [formerly known as "clairvoyance"]
experiments)[vi][v]
[i]. H.L.F. von Helmholtz,
quoted in Leshan, L. and Margenau, H. (1982). Einstein's Space &
Van Gogh's Sky: Physical Reality and Beyond, p. 206. Collier Books: New
York.
[ii] Hebb, D.O., cited in Radin, D. ibid.
[iii] Weaver, W., cited in Leshan, L. and Margenau, H. ibid.
[iv] Quoted in Hayward, J. (1983). Perceiving Ordinary Magic: Science and Intuitive Wisdom. Shambhala: Boston.
[v] Quoted in Harman, W., (1998). Global Mind Change, p. 61. Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc. SanFrancisco.
[1] Goswami, p. 107 Both
Goswami and biologist Rupert Sheldrake also suggest that a signiï¬cant
part of this process involves a "morphogenetic ï¬eld" that contains a
kind of template for the form the species will take. For more on ï¬elds,
see Chapter 9 on the inner consciousness.
[i] Laszlo, Ervin, Science
and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything, pp. 34-39,
Inner Traditions, Rochester, Vermont, 2004.
Attachment: