It seems that much that is pertinent to that discussion can be found here: Some notes on Simon Conway Morris. There is also a podcast with Conway Morris linked to here: All sown up by Darwin? (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)
[Conway Morris] considers the possibility that the singing of whales is such an 'artful' exploration. It's all highly speculative, of course: he knows that. But not unreasonable, given what is emerging about the personal nature of whale music and the way it develops. If you accept evolutionary convergence, it might even be expected: why shouldn't the music of different species be similar, in the way that their camera eyes are too? To put it another way, and just to stay with that one example, people are drawn to whale music since in essence it is like human music. If you accept that, then you might be inclined to make a Platonic turn. This would suggest that the apparent invention of metaphysical reality by evolution is actually the discovery of metaphysical reality. Using the music example again: both whale and human music could be thought of as reflections of a kind of 'cosmic music'. To put it a different way again, evolution is a kind of search engine, powered by Darwinian mechanisms. (Note, there is no intelligent design here! Conway Morris is quite clear about that.)I might add that, regarding the discussion of Christianity in Mark's post, what Conway Morris says might also apply to other faiths: Another example of more than one solution to the same equation (I know I'm being heretical. I'm also just thinking out loud.)
Hi—
ReplyDeleteI was familiar with Conway Morris' ideas previously, partly thanks to Mark Vernon. His ideas of convergence, and Gould's, are logical if you consider that forms evolve to fit a niche. This interpretation of natural selection is, probably stated really too simply on my part, that as a species evolves to adapt to an available niche, forms converge to adjust to the niche's need. What's probably true is that more than one kind of need affects natural selection. The "purist" interpretation of natural selection as purely random may be true, but so is the convergence interpretation. Both can be true without being in conflict.
Mark is right that this doesn't mean that consciousness in different species is the same, of course. But alien doesn't mean lesser,o r superior for that matter, just different.
What's interesting to me is how Conway Morris' ideas are also converging with Teilhard de Chardin's ideas, and Rupert Sheldrake's, in some ways. I find it interesting whenever certain ideas keep turning up, again and again, in multiple guises. It's usually indicative of a paradigm shift.
Mark makes a central point, I believe, when he says: "although Conway Morris collapses physiological differences between humans and animals - they are often only skin deep - he also emphasizes that this is quite enough nonetheless to make for massive psychological differences. Thus, though we share so much of our DNA with chimps, we are at once quite like and quite unlike our cousins. I think this makes sense and neatly deals with all those endless arguments about whether we radically differ from other animals: it all depends on how you are looking." That's the perspective I've been coming from, in a nutshell.
On the faith issue, I think your point, Frank, that Conway Morris' ideas DO apply to all of the existing religions, not just Christianity.
What I do note, however, is that the mystics of almost all of the world's religions have already converged, or perhaps had never diverged, in that they all say some very similar things. So, if there is a convergent evolution to consciousness and spirituality, I quite agree that it will go past all the existing institutional religions, and probably whatever new ones might arise. It is not a matter of one faith being greater than all others, or of any one dogma or belief system evolving to dominate all others. That attitude is just the same old conqueror/proselytization paradigm. It neglects to remember that there are many, many "masks of god."
But glimpses of what convergent evolution of the spiritual plane might look like already exist. There has been for almost fifty years an ecumenical movement towards compassion, empathy, and peace through nonviolent action. As Gandhi said, "I am a Muslim as well as Hindu." And he also included everyone else in his identification. Teilhard talked about the noosphere. Others have talked about very similar things, under different names but probably talking about the same things in essence. So, the seeds are already planted.
Thanks for pointing me toward Conway's work. I've always had questions about Gould's "tape of life" thought experiment (although Gould was brilliant -- no one else had formulated the issue in such an elegant way -- and he is sorely missed.) My gut feeling is that contingency played an important role early in evolutionary history, but that its influence has steadily lessened as complexity of both organisms and ecosystems has increased. By the time life reached Conway's era of study, the basic developmental templates had already been laid down. What's left is variations on a set of themes.
ReplyDeleteI realize it's Simon Conway Morris.
ReplyDeleteVery good point, Art, about the convergence among mystics, which is practically the essential note among them. I, too, find it interesting when "certain ideas keep turning up, again and again, in multiple guises." I also think this process will be accelerated by the internet making dialogue among kindred spirits easier. From my perspective, the principal problem with the ID/New Atheist debates is how old-fashioned they seem, as if the participants were re-enacting some Victorian pantomime.
ReplyDeleteInteresting observation, Jeff, and interesting notion of the emergence (if that is the right word) of themes upon which variations (or development, to continue the musical analogy)are played out.
ReplyDeleteFrank, I've heard more than one speculation that the Internet IS Teilhard's noosphere. I've heard that from McLuhanites as well as from the mystically-inclined. It seems possible to me that the internet is at least a carrier of the noosphere, one important strand in its matrix.
ReplyDeleteOne very interesting book that includes this sort of discussion is Jose Arguelles' "Earth Ascending," a book that largely consists off conceptual diagrams of how our spiritual technologies converge towards global social and and noospheric evolution. It's heady stuff, and I had to read it twice when it first came out in the mid-80s, but it's also remarkably prophetic.
As to your comment: "From my perspective, the principal problem with the ID/New Atheist debates is how old-fashioned they seem, as if the participants were re-enacting some Victorian pantomime." I quite agree. A lot of this debate is overly familiar because it's an old debate dressed up in new clothes. Just as ID is creationism repackaged, the current wave of atheists attacking religion is also very familiar. At times, some of what Dawkins says sounds a lot like what Marx once said, dressed up in new language. When I first read Dawkins' plans for educating children, they struck me very much as pre-Orwellian.
Some of the new atheists' criticism of religious institutions, their accumulated infrastructures and attitudes, I think has merit. There is a lot of evidence that institutional religion can indeed stifle intellectual freedom. BUT they take that to level of denying any possibility of truth to religious sensibilities and spiritual experiences. They throw the baby out with the bathwater. They claim that personal spiritual experience (no matter what cultural forms it's cloaked in) is nothing but delusion; when in fact millenia of cross-cultural study tends to give evidence that in fact it's a basic human birthright.
By contrast, this quiet growth, that we already mentioned, of non-denominational peace movements, compassion-centered spirituality that contains no burden of sectarian dogma, is a real peace/unity movement, and it is based on real, universal spiritual insights and experiences. So the argument that institutional established religions may not be capable of convergence carries some weight. But nonetheless that convergence IS happening—through other channels, other meetings of minds.
One branch of this quiet movement, BTW, is thoroughly reported about in Frederick Franck's wonderful book, "To Be Human Against All Odds." Franck is one the great thinkers of this trend, I feel. This is truly an inspiring book.
Jeff, those are fascinating thoughts. I need to think about them some more before I can comment, though.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if your thoughts have a connection to Rupert Sheldrake's thoughts on morphogenetic resonance. Sheldrake's ideas are often rejected out of hand by more materialistic biologists, but there's some core ideas there that might well prove to be part of the mechanism of evolution.