Teilhard de Chardin offers a strong case for the process of
evolution selecting for and favoring consciousness. He establishes his point
that evidence for evolution of consciousness which can be seen by evaluating
the varying levels of perception in animals. Here he says there is “order”, and
“mechanism selecting for consciousness”, which is the nervous system. (p. 144)
He later goes on to say that as instincts grow, the “phenomena of socialization
appears.” (p. 145) It is here where I began to question what aspects of social
behavior might contribute to the development of greater concentration of nerve
ganglion in the brain. Teilhard refers
to this as (cerebralisation), which indicates there has been evolutionary
progress in animals.
It is known that
there are groups of humans living in the remote depths of places like the
Amazon basin that have established limited but effective social structures that
facilitate their survival. The question is, do they have any more or less brain
(nerve ganglion development) than say, an introverted young adult plugging away
at some complicated video game in his basement?
One could say that the young gamer has far less socialization, and need
for social dependence for survival than those of the primitive Amazon tribe.
Yet, it could be assumed that the ganglion development in the tribe member are
less developed. In this model what
social factors would Teilhard say contribute to the evolution of consciousness and
how do they play out in the real world?
Shouldn’t the gamers consciousness be stunted due to lack of
socialization, and the tribe more advanced? If it is true that as instincts
grow cerebralisation advances, then shouldn’t society be regressing on the
evolutionary scale as we delve further into the realm of technology and less
interaction with nature?
After speaking of
the “phenomena of socialization”, which we can presume to be random and
relatively unpredictable, Teilhard states that the overall process of
cerebralisation is a result of a determined process. (p. 146) While one can
understand that it seems apparent that various animals have a certain level of
consciousness, in humans, consciousness has the ability to evolve in a
multitude of directions. If the evolution of consciousness were determined as
he suggests, we should not be endowed with “free will” or “choice”.
If socialization,
which is random and unpredictable, is necessary for the development of advanced
progress in ganglion development, how can he justify that there is absolute
order to this process? If he is set on his position that the evolution of
consciousness does not occur by chance, then how can he explain individual
autonomy since humans are not “paralyzed with single directed functions” (p.
155) as other organisms are? What is his measure of an evolved state of
consciousness? As we look around our world today, humans are developing things
such as human like robots with artificial intelligence. These creations are programmed to learn from
the particulars of their environment in order to respond and develop new
opinions and reactions as they evolve from the “inwardness” of their
perceptions. Teilhard’s argument for a determined evolution toward
consciousness would suggest that as these creations evolve their “digital
ganglion”, their “instincts” would grow more complex. Should these creations be
considered to have consciousness and are they evolving?
Teilhard opens
his book with a in depth description of the natural elements of the universe.
He explains his idea of a radial energy that forces outward from its natural
starting point. If all things are expanding outward (evolving) from a set
point, and as it were, evolutionary pressures would cause some branches to dead
end at extinction, then it is possible that our specialized consciousness could
one day evolve beyond our ability to respond to the natural forces we once were
united with. This means we would become so specialized using technology on our
branch of the evolutionary tree, that we would parish due to our inability to
respond to the decay of our natural environment. If the stuff of the universe
in its most primitive form is energy, then perhaps the radial nature of our
existence in Teilhard’s system will contradict our ability to become a
universal consciousness. As our technological developments advance, and our
ability to co-exist in nature diminishes we will go extinct. If Teilhard
believed his evolutionary idea was pre-determined, it seems consciousness
cannot continually evolve and should end with our extinction. This would be a
complete transformation, as nothing ceases to exist, it ultimately changes form
altogether.
