On the Hypothesis That Animals Are Automata, and Its History (T. H. Huxley)

READING NOTES

Descartes’ doctrine states that brute animals are nothing more than automata and have no reason or consciousness. This is a doctrine that has caused much discussion.

Descartes comes to this conclusion because he believes that the entire behavioural aspects and movements of animals could be performed by machines. This is not the case for humans. Some of our actions are performed mindlessly, such as putting our hands out when we fall. These are the actions that animals are capable of.

Huxley asks why the actions of humans- which Descartes thought were brought about by the mind and through reason- are nothing more than complex reflex actions.

He says that modern discoveries have managed to support Descartes’ theory. Although it’s impossible to prove the existence of consciousness in anything other than in ones own brain, we can justly deduce that other men are also conscious. But where is this consciousness?

As soon as certain parts of the front of the brain are attacked, we lose consciousness, which shows that this must be where consciousness lies both in man and in other vertebrate animals.

Reflexes can then be demonstrated, for example, by tickling the paralyzed man’s feet, his leg will retract due to the grey matter of the spinal chord, causing a complex set of muscular contractions to take place.

As this is the case, we can cut a frog’s spinal chord and perform experiments on the animal without remorse as the animal with have no knowledge or consciousness of what is happening to it.

Even when acid is placed on the frog’s leg, it uses its other leg to try to wipe it off, even though it feels no pain. This shows that the frog’s movements and actions must be nothing more than automatic reflexes. Consciousness and reason do not come into the equation.

In another case, if we destroyed part of the frog’s brain, and threw it into water, it automatically starts to swim. This is an even more complex reflex not relying on consciousness. All that is needed is sensory impression.

If another part of the brain were removed, the frog would act differently. It would sit indefinitely, appearing to be blind but sensory impression would still cause reflexes. If it had to jump, it would jump around obstacles even though it appears to not see them.

This greatly supports Descartes idea that brutes are nothing more than automata. The frog has been shown to perform all of its actions without the need of consciousness.

Men have also been shown to display similar results after injury. Dr Mesnet’s example where the injured man goes through phases where his self-consciousness seems to cut out displays this well. He appears normal, but no sound or taste bothers him, he will change direction when pushed aside, he will walk into objects and feel around them, he will wake up at the right time, and eat food. It is through touching that he can interact with the external world.

We can’t prove that the man is completely unconscious, and nor can we prove he is conscious, but comparing this example to the frog example suggests that in this state, the man is no more than a mere machine.

(BUT THE POINT IS THAT SOMETHING IS MISSING FROM THIS MAN. HIS MIND SEEMS TO BE MISSING. HIS MIND SEEMS TO BE CUTTING OUT. HIS RATIONALITY DISAPPEARS. IT IS THIS MISSING PIECE THAT MAYBE MAKES US DIFFERENT FROM ANIMALS?)

Huxley Says that though we can’t completely reject Descartes’ argument, he is not inclined to accept it because of the doctrine of continuity. By this he means that that it is not continuous with our beliefs about the world that something consciousness, can come into being spontaneously with nothing actually constructing it.

It is also not continuous to believe that it is only men who have this consciousness. Many animals appear to utilize the same part of the brain that seems to suggest consciousness in a human being. Obviously their ‘consciousness’ is not as vivid and complex as our own. They do not have language to form trains of thoughts, but they do have trains of feelings. Their consciousness is a minute version of our own.

If Descartes is in fact right, but we’re still not completely sure, it is best for us to play the role of believing that domestic animals do have some form on consciousness so that we do not cause any unnecessary suffering.

Although Descartes may be wrong in saying that animals are nothing more than unconscious machines, this does not mean that they are not automata. They may be conscious automata: this is the view that most people take toward animals.

Motion on the nervous system stimulates consciousness, and those adherents of Occasionalism and Pre-Established Harmony must agree that the causation of motion on the nerves to stimulate consciousness is just as likely as any other example of cause and effect.

In all, we are justified in showing that what happens in ourselves, is also likely to happen in brutes: effects on the nervous system gives rise to molecular chance, which then stimulates certain modes of consciousness.

Some people would object to this by appealing to memory, but Huxley says that some molecules store information that the body can then call on to stimulate a less vivid reproduction of an event or sensation- memory is a physical thing.

Another attack would be that it is the consciousness that is causing muscular movement, not motion on the nerves, but there is no evidence for this, whereas there is evidence that supports motion on the nerves giving rise to some aspects of consciousness.

Brutes seem incapable of altering the workings of their body. Any suggestion of their ‘choice’ of action is made from a physical change. This ‘choice’ does not cause a change. This does not mean they don’t have free will. Free will is the freedom to fulfill desires, and brutes do fulfill their desires. Their programming generates desires within them which the brutes then seek to satisfy.

This idea gets rid of the need for an explanation of how something non-physical can act with the physical, for everything is now explained in terms of the material, including voluntary acts. Physical changes cause desires, not vice versa.

Now to whether brutes can have immortal souls. If they have consciousness and no soul, then this shows that consciousness is directly caused by physical change. If they are conscious WITH souls, then, because consciousness is caused by molecular change, then the soul is an indirect consequence of these physical workings.

It appears that Huxley’s ideas lead to fatalism, atheism and materialism when we apply these ideas of brutes to men. That is, all states of our consciousness are caused by molecular changes in the brain.

‘We are conscious automata, endowed with free will in only the intelligible sense of that much abused term- inasmuch as in many respects we are able to do as we like- but nonetheless parts of the great series of cause and effects, which in unbroken continuity, composes that which is, and has been, the sum of existence…’

THOUGHTS

A nice piece of philosophy that has explained my own line of thought extremely well. My mind is still a bit boggled as to our own nature of thought and learning though. When I sit here at my laptop and philosophize, how can this be mere reflexes? I have a feeling Richard Dawkins may know the answer, so I’ll have to look into it a bit more.

Also, the free will section seemed a little vague. His definition of free will could have been expanded a bit more. I see very well where he is coming from but I think this area is open to criticism.