Bergson, "Creative Evolution" "Bergsonian Creative Evolution" and "Steady Evolution"

Bergson, "Creative Evolution" "Bergsonian Creative Evolution" and "Steady Evolution"

Let's see, Bergson's "Creative Evolution" and another story called "Directed Evolution" are composed of three parts: organic and inorganic matter, animals and plants in the second chapter, and consciousness and instinct in the third chapter. Finally, there is a branch called "postural humans," and the whole picture is grasped in this structure.

As far as the editor-in-chief is concerned, we are talking about the distinction between organic and inorganic matter, that is, how organic and inorganic matter change form. The position is that inorganic matter can be explained by mechanics and object theory, but the morphological change of organic matter, or so-called evolution, cannot be explained by mechanics and object theory.

At that time (1906), evolutionary theory was generally a combination of mechanism and teleology divided by two, and could not adequately explain the reality of evolution. In recent years, computer simulations, probability theory, and the concept of entropy have made it possible to describe evolution in a way that is close to the reality of evolution, but it was difficult to do so using the mathematics of the time, and in a sense, Bergson was well ahead of mathematics.

Therefore, there were four evolutionary theories that were the subject of consideration and criticism at the time. The first was Darwin's "cumulative change," Fries' "mutation," Eimer's "directed evolution," in which light guides evolution in a certain direction, and Lamarckism.

Now, regarding Aimer's "Eimer's constant evolution," the point is that there are two different meanings of "adaptation" and three different "causes. This theory explains that similar results and similar functions were realized in different lineages of organisms due to the influence of light. The gist of the theory is that light, a common cause, can explain this, but Bergson refutes this.

First, there are two types of adaptation. Matter is imprinted by light, which explains why primitive organisms such as ciliates develop in response to light. However, it is difficult to accept that the optic nerves and nervous systems of vertebrates developed simply by exposure to light. It is impossible to explain everything from simple organs to sophisticated nervous systems by the same "light" cause alone. Light imprinting is only one part of "passive adaptation"; the other is "active adaptation to the environment." The vertebrate nervous system developed in order to actively respond to and exercise in the environment and is not simply the result of exposure to light.

Second, there are three types of relationships between cause and effect. They are initiation (the relationship between gunpowder and a bomb), impact (the collision of billiard balls), and development (the gradual unwinding of a mainspring). Furthermore, cause and effect have a quality/quantity relationship and do not necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence. The same cause does not always produce the same result, and different causes can produce similar results. Therefore, it cannot be said that the quantity or quality of light determines everything.

In this light, Bergson argues that there is still a kind of "driving force of life" that cannot be explained by mechanics or objectivity alone. For example, when the lens of a newt is shaved, another cell takes its place. The result is the same "eye," even though the cause is different cells. Such phenomena are difficult to explain by mechanistic or purposive theories, and this is a criticism of one of the evolutionary theories of the time.