Evolution and Psi

Evolution and Psi! JULE EISENBUD I curious to many of you that I have again been invited topic which is widely felt to be without scientific merit. I of course not to evolution but to psi phenomena, more m as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and the like. ngs that have ultimately proved worth while in science estionable beginnings, so I do not feel too apologetic in ce more to entertain provisionally the notion that it is ormation to be conveyed and apprehended apart from hysical means of so doing, which is what is meant when psi phenomena. ark right off that saying something of significance on of psi abilities (or at least of those that manifest them- ) is much more difficult than saying something of the possible role of psi in evolutional processes. The we are shorter on hard data bearing upon the former on theoretical considerations conceivably relevant to the h, we know virtually nothing about the genetic aspects , despite the widespread notion that these seem to run valid studies have been made in this area and no such © made, when the tremendous difficulties encountered le data on the heritability of even normal cognitive considered. Nor are there any artifacts or paleontological place psi abilities within the evolutionary scheme. we have records of what today we would call psi as long as there have been written records of man Y merely an instant on the scale of human evolution), based on the second of two addresses given by Dr. Eisenbud to the h into the Dissemination of Human Knowledge, University of Colorado. A paper based on the first address was published in the ue of the Journal.—Ed. The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Vol. 70, January 1976

36 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research hing that gives us a hint on the question that Seems to ponte: ‘pny ere Saeies which way are our psi abilities going? Are they, like our molars and body hair, likely to disappear in time, or are they, like our burgeoning cerebrums, likely to “salad to in. crease in magnitude and complexity so long as nature and providence allows the human experiment to continue? If we opto say something definite about the relation between psi ‘salpee the enigma of consciousness, and the physical attributes of t central nervous system, we might be able to infer something about this question; but here too, unfortunately, hard data are lacking. ; With such a paucity of data, and small possibility of performing pertinent experiments, one would think that the problem could be laid to rest as one of nature’s great unsolved mysteries. But such is not the case. Forecasting trends in human evolution, including evolution of the psychic side of man, has long been one of the fringe benefits available to anyone who has had anything at all to say about the human condition. As far as the psychic side of man goes, two points of view may be said to sum up the situation: In ona abilities are seen as residua of archaic modes of functioning w ich will probably disappear as the brain becomes cleverer and ore ness expands; in the second, these abilities are forerunners : tine to come and will probably become more important as t ‘4 rain becomes cleverer and consciousness expands. The first point of view is apt to be held by those to whom the existence of psi processes Is embarrassment; the second by those to whom human depravity is “ embarrassment. Neither point of view is supported by facts, a there is in any case no guarantee that were psi abilities to become i t for evil. However more available they would be used for good and no that be, all we seem to be left with in regard to the question of bie and whither psi abilities in evolution, after the smoke of Pe aa entious speculation has lifted, are man’s ceaseless fears and fanta about his own nature. Il But this does not end the question of the possible relation ot Li evolution. According to several biologists, if psi didn’t exis Ta thing like it might well have to be invented to account for s arrell standing puzzles in the field. The situation 1s this: No ge sons ii with the importance of mutations (spontaneous random Virol the germ plasm) and natural selection (the selection by the . i jorit ment of those features most favorable to reproductive superiority of ; e producing evolutionary changes. Doubts about the Alli these processes were laid conclusively to rest decades ago by : 5 i, moths experiments on protective coloration and countershading 10 and Psi 37 s, and fish, and by a variety of experiments with that stellar ntal performer, Drosophila, the little fruit fly. The only that remains is whether mutation and selection is the whole nerous biologists, exemplified by Nobel laureates Monod (1971) ria (1973), believe that these dual processes are quite , given enough time and a sufficient number of chances in tational lottery, and aided perhaps by certain types of guiding on selection which may develop (still by chance) en route. illie, 1945; Koestler and Smythies, 1969; Polanyi, 1958; 965) feel, however, that it is not simply a matter of time and kets but basically a question of how and to what degree the rigged as, according to them, it necessarily has to be. These at the evolutionary development of complex structural and characteristics of different populations would seem to on the confluence of combinations of factors requiring a ordering of events—at the very least some highly efficient and control mechanisms—impossible to ascribe to pure problem, as seen by many who argue for something beyond utation and selection, is not merely that of the enormous of even the most elementary biological structures (let marvels of design which characterize more advanced ut is one of how selection can work on behaviorisms and that have not yet arrived at the point where there can be like a clear payoff in terms of differential death and ve rates. The most frequently cited instance is that of the e eons would have had to elapse before the light-sensitive became an optical system with enough efficiency to sense edators. (The fact that eyes have developed independently an a dozen species doesn’t make the problem any easier.) ples can be given in the hundreds: almost any moderately animal courtship or nest building or ritualized predatory om protozoa up) will do, to say nothing of the delicately behavior of conglomerates, from colonies of protozoa out complicated building activities to the well-known avior of termites, bees, and ants. What happens during the of millions of years before these complex instinctual d group behaviorisms—that work, as the ethologists tell all-or-nothing basis—get to the point where they can work win himself was well aware of the difficulties that some of ints made for his theory of natural selection. (The eye and the $s both individual and conglomerate, particularly disturbed We add to problems of this sort questions as to how constancy MS as well as of species is maintained, the seemingly

38 Journ rr al of t ; : | | if the American Society for Psychical Rese i | contradictory questio arch ; — l structure so often pinto rigs Sayre of organizatio ¥ a m | adaptation (again a head point far beyond what is ne n and - : \) identi : adache to Darwin cessa: e, meaning ‘‘it i 39 a | entical anatomical and biochemi ), the occurrence of vi ty for o. is fated or neces A ‘ | widely dissimilar gene iochemical structures (e.g., enz ” virtually - od seems to be not unlik sary,’’ and Horod, meani structures when the ag and finally, the Scion from ea psd 9% once Pek ey our local tnisionciaa P ors responsible fi ent of ¢ runoff (and unfort , tends t n ii experimentally removed, as in th P e for them hav su lies i unately for erosi O perpetuate hh reappeared after iubaeedl n the case of Drosophila, wh © been Bee euilies in the genesca rosion too). Waddi . P ; ly initi ‘scape, which he thi addington | (T. H. Morgan 1929) ug ing 60 generations of an ose eyes ly random initial conditi m e thinks c i) ‘ gan, , it would eyeless straj - puzzles lik ions, might s can develo iil mutation might i y ld appear that a maj rain A e the explosi ght go far oe 7 | \ gai te ra a el be required for all the ical theoretical the mesozoic perio a separation bad Pr explaining | One might gig heey 2a for. s of evolutions BE other problems. Waddingto of apotiee th Oe, | Semipurtations pe that a few comparatively simpl = genetic sedimilati addington (1961) bined change, il could have evolved to pape to show whether or ee i. o- amounts to ean Lianpigboaiessiieens one 4 i operati s present state with ‘ iosphere ses the term “ the process of organi s which I perating purely on a ch , mutation and selecti ons i canalization”’ ganic selectio I biologists differ wi chance basis. But d selection ations in the creodic gulli ) are able th n (for iil gists differ widely on just mathematician Tes inher ic gullies that wi en to stabili | d Kapl J st about every ste f S and certain inherited ch F at will further i 1ze i all plan, 1967), resulting i : p of the way (Moorh Bf characteristi : er increase th allow every investi g ina theoretical free-for- orhead a cs persisting i e } gator to maintain th ee all that seems to e these a g in the genetic had anyway. To some the very f e position he probably al “tg mendments to the classi | I improbability, to sa NCE act of life itself remains th y awa 1g nearly enough of a catal assic Darwinian sch | the first or urdu nothing of everything that h e height of or problems of th alyst to evolution cheme as il first organic molecules 1 g tat has happened since re. e magnitud ary developm ill replicatin es learned the h A since e powerful shapi e of those ; pment ily g themselves; oth ighly unlikely tri k k i aping pressu Ove mentioned earli i Hi) unshaken faith that si ; others seem ready to go to th ick of rovide at best merel res, it is held, thes lier. 1 equall at simple dice casting, if s e stake with easing the ch ly a few more tick Dertines dubious 4 i | y capable of prod ‘ g, carried out long en + ue chances of tti ets in a gi 4 i where DNA i producing the marvels f ough, is to near zero. Th getting some of th 1 gigantic || | is parceled out t ; of sexual reproduction (1952 . The late great th : e prizes fro Hi (as Genesi : o various populations “ La (1952) saw the beginni eoretical biologi m i) senesis has it), and the hi ons ‘‘after their kind” Ory, P eginnings of iologist Ludwi consciou P : e highest distillati a? e manifol hings of an an: ; ig | sii uae sness in a Shakespeare, a Mozart istillation of huméé nd principles snd derived discipline one in General sbi title The Origin of Species art, or a book with the nature of abel ierarchial systems as hai vith: the Will isn’t as if . z . a ae ss com oles, i | Pe bi nance bie artis to a mechanistic approad cating, on ibleteat factors’ 7 oe (1965), also Ml ttempts to deal with e of the problem on their h eee ons by whi evolution,”” postula ‘ cs al : . 66 ‘$ t | back to the end of the! at least some of the difficulties in ionel 9 ona’ ee oe resect okoe: de ich a ‘‘St. Peter of inter ne | | | Sdeiaewel Csi MA ast century. Around this time Baldwin (1896) if . situation. And the he ec Ne the requirem nal | | “organic sel pips Moreen (1896) in Britain introd an eT ictions and rule ematician Ulam (19 ents Mil selection,’ which th roduced the notion 0 and othe ules as conceivabl lam (1967) sees | | shortcut to the evolution of | thought might provide a kind 0 theless = questioners of classi iI carried in the gene | i and subsequently hotly: di certain characteristics. Their idea thet al fo ce: at although the la cal Darwinism appear t ; | ii] in habits in res y isputed, was that animals devel h. neg 5 Se till required to sha ws and principles of si I | Fi gaa ponse to environmental cha: elop ¢ ange re still ultimate! pe evolution are i f the ih pply) and then tend nges (e.g., in climate ™ entary fi y rooted in (even if nsufficientl I AM these changed feat to seek out those environments whet t wh orces known to physi n if not wholly 7 | time bring about asap gi or less constant. Mutation would i ee hi not accept this ous sini ic i “te ni i ic ah te perpetuate the adaptive bere i that, by selection, would tend n of the a; In his Preside of faith is Sir Alister a on an up-to-date armel ak obi scheme was subsequent chica ee sceton Agen te ee to. the n 1957 : asis by Th | eae rch and thei 249), he drew : | | the ee °y Edinburgh ore iy, intro Bee evoiutic nes ince et “agai filing some . 4: n i oe stabilize out by means of wh of genes and gene combinations | (1965), a ri He further a so-called neo-Dar- | at he calls “‘oreods,”’ after the Gre! data th etailed, lucid, and ated his ideas in Th t | ‘ oa at present Aor provocative t ¢ { 0 acco evolutio reatment of | unt for. Curi nary theo | 7 Des ° uriously (or perha in ry seems unable j | | 4 ps not so curiously in

| 40 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Researep a nd Psi 41 plying the varying physical form of the organic stream n by selection—and the psychic stream of shared experi- bconscious species ‘blueprint’—which together with the would select those members in the population better on the race’”’ (p. 258). Most instinctive behavior, he tely comes about in this way—changes in behavior pre- es in structure and ritualized function. Hardy also feels hic blueprint idea might go far in explaining the secret of may be, he conjectures, ‘‘the group ‘mind’ which in- those gene complexes presenting (in development) its n.’’ it The Living Stream Hardy carefully avoids any sug- psychic action on the gene or gene complex. Indirect mes about through changes of habit, and it is only this, y later become structuralized through genetic changes aemselves are purely fortuitous, that is facilitated through sharing’ or the ‘‘psychic blueprint.”’ ty of direct action on the genetic material of a more ed psi factor was suggested in 1971 by another British L. Randall, who sees in both the origin of life and in its lution ‘‘a tremendous increase in information content t be satisfactorily accounted for by any mechanistic ng the work of Grad (1967), Smith (1968), and others on f psychic activity on cellular and enzymatic processes, ted that it ‘“‘would be of the greatest interest to dis- the same force which can promote wound healing in also induce mutations in Drosophila or bacterial cul- . 163). It is obvious that successful results in such experi- ess far reaching in importance than the production ans of self-replicating molecules in a medium simu- timordial broth (which some of you may recall was men- ibility in my previous lecture in this forum [Eisenbud, immediately open up staggering vistas in biology and view of the earlier mentioned absence of a mathematical yardstick in these matters), Hardy accepts the classical hypotheses as adequate ia account for such complex processes as camouflage and mimicry (his special area of expertise), and even for such a remarkable develop. ment as so-called coincident disruptive coloration, where a pattern, (e.g., lateral stripes) that is carried across an animal s (e. g:, frog's) limbs folded close to its body in the resting position (as if Painted on) disintegrates when the animal extends its limbs in motion. What boggles him are the variegated data of homology—the developmer ‘ of similar structures in different species (like the fin and the limb) from totally different gene pools and, along somewhat different lines, the occurrence of virtually identical structures not only from wide. ly dissimilar gene pools but from widely separated tegions (e.g, the Tasmanian wolf, a pouched marsupial, and the Siberian wolf, 7 placental). To illustrate the difficulties involved for classical selection theory, Hardy gives extensive citations of the data of Sir D’ Arey Thompson, who had wrestled with these problems in his great work, On Growth and Form (1917/1961). Thompson demonstrated he morphological intertranslateability of disparate species and showed ‘““that forms mathematically akin may belong to organisms biologi- cally remote.”’ In The Living Stream, after reviewing some of the data of psychical research, Hardy speculates on how extrasensory com munication between animals might lead to some answers. ine existence of telepathy, according to him, ‘‘may bea clue toa re more fundamental biological principle.’’ Holding it ‘most un ri that so remarkable a phenomenon should be confined to just a individuals of one species of animal,’’ he believes that the ae side of animals, independent though it may be of the DNA a : governs the form of the physical frame, “may interact wi on physical system in the evolutionary process. ewig _— eal scious telepathic communication between members of oll species of animals, he sees such a process as aiding organic s an (‘‘or genetic assimilation—whichever term you prefer’’) by a ‘a ‘‘psychic blueprints’’ that would stabilize common behav terns until they gradually became converted through a ‘ genetic changes into well fixed instinctive patterns. er ‘stall believer in organic selection in its own right, Hardy feels t a a of changes in behavior coming about solely through a - acting separately in each individual animal (aided at oe mf 30m haps, by some imitative tendencies, or possibly the tenden ; Fall i animals to follow one another as they browse and graze ri — similar habits through trial-and-error exploratory be 5 and B changes would tend to spread through the pepalsie asi canalized by psychic sharing of experience on a telepa Goma “There would [then] be two parallel streams of inform f Ill what short of direct genic action of the psi factor that be explored would be that of psi communication not mbers of the same species, as Hardy has suggested, mbers of different species. Such a possibility was ue years ago by observations I made quite by chance 86-67). The first of these, which was so seemingly odd am ly alert me to its possible implications, was simply the et =

42 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Researo Sand Psi 43 higher rate of success of a nursing cat in catching mice from a mouse. hole in the floor than that of a perfectly functional cheese-baiteg mousetrap placed there. Presumably the cheese had given off a mo inviting, less alarming odor than the cat, but the mouse population kept behaving as if just the opposite were true. “‘Sometimes days op weeks would go by without the trap being sprung by a venturesome mouse, but the cat, once it came into the picture, for some reason—it was nursing kittens at the time—never seemed to have to wait more than a couple of hours before it would be rewarded, and this woulg happen several times a day. At times the cat would grow impatient and screw her eye right down to the hole as if to see why nothing much was happening, but she would then settle back a few inches and resume her wait for the mouse that sooner or later would crawl out” less, the seemingly ritualistic behavior of the dog and the (p.153[653]). med to me, must also in some way have been the A conceivable key to this situation was provided some months late of built-in inherited mechanisms. The highly stylized when I noticed that a peculiar game had begun to go on between the yed over and over again in exactly the same manner (and aforementioned cat’s no longer nursing kittens and a several months subsequently learned was not unique in the case of the old shepherd-husky pup that belonged to the ranch which was the animals I observed) could hardly have arisen spontane- scene of the game. Again and again, one or another of the kitten novo but must also have called upon latent behavior would not only allow itself to be pounced upon and shaken like a tag cient lineage. And perhaps what had begun as a ritual doll by the dog, who would grasp the kitten’s neck or even its enth harge of tension, enabling two natural enemies to live in head in its maw, but it would repeatedly invite this behavior from the t out of hand when the dog, growing older and functioning dog. Each time this was accompanied by the fiercest growls on the nl ticking away toward an explosion, had simply got to the dog’s part and the most piteous meows and squeals from the kitten, e it could no longer inhibit the powerful impulses it was who would sound as if its very life were at stake. But every time the ‘required to hold in check. The question arises whether pup, tiring of the game, would drop the kitten and settle dowml yoked in this repetitive reenactment of an age-old drama indifferently a few feet away, the latter, instead of scampering ™ been the shadow of a reciprocal predator-prey duality safety, would merely spend a few minutes licking itself back into hind the scenes through nature. If so, what part might shape and then begin again to disport itself seductively in front of th uch an interplay? pup. This would, in short order, have the effect of rousing the pup ™ st simply the possibility of covert predator-prey pounce upon it, whereupon the (to me) alarming spectacle would (we will come to the psi aspects of the matter begin again, once more with the most fearsome sounds issuing frot uch a notion might at first appear to be in strong the pair. I soon found that there was no point in my trying to res " to one of the chief tenets of the theory of natural the kitten from its tormentor, since both participants in what I finally it the primary drive of every animal is to survive, except recognized as some sort of highly stylized pas de deux would on ‘ e its death would serve the continuance of its own move out of my reach and start all over again, sometimes one ki “ examples are known where members of one species spelling another for a round or two. T hus it went on for weeks. e to those of another in highly ritualized manners, as in day two of the kittens were found torn to pieces, literally limb 10 of the tarantula spider which in a most complaisant but limb, dead but not devoured. if pout Scribed way allows itself to be paralyzed by the sting of No one around the place could imagine how this had come @ 4 p and then becomes the incubator for the wasp’s larvae The dog’s behavior, I learned, was largely an innate response c 7 ch » 1955). How this sort of thing can be squared with forth simply by the presence of something furry in its nota ection theory is not entirely clear, but a somewhat puzzling thing from the beginning was not so much the dog send could accommodate the possibility of such ‘‘arrange- however, but the apparent need on the part of the kittens to f ttl ng in subtle form, if needed, throughout nature. over and over again the role of prey animals about to lose the . there were a degree of flexibility whereby every animal . Something of the sort is well known among members of pecies where the loser in a fight at one point signals its y ceasing its defensive maneuvers and exposing itself in plainly announces that it will accept a technical knockout. aggression is immediately and automatically inhibited, takes place. This dovetailing inherited species-specific ern presumably acts in the service of the preservation of , and also establishes the animal’s position in the pecking functions to the same end). But if a submission pattern ort were to be used with an animal of another species, it ad only to an immediate kill (and ultimately to the genetic n of the trait).

oom 44 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Send Psi my were given the option to play the game or not, such a system woulg _ possess an unsurpassable efficiency and would present the ideaj paradigm for all ecological relationships. Unfortunately, gathering examples of more subtle, less obviously — ritualized predator-prey ‘‘fixes’’ is difficult because few eyewitness accounts of capture and kill are made (most statistics are compiled from animal carcasses and stomach contents) and those that are tenq almost automatically to be ‘‘normalized’’—sometimes in most procrustean fashion—to fit the classical mold. Again and again we Si which read descriptions of ‘‘inattentive”’ or “‘lagging’’ or “‘hesitant’’ prey, atangia i a least afford such an expenditure, the old of confused prey which zigged when they should have zagged, of prey . mos e y to flee. Since these happen also to be the which just made the wrong decision about when to run, where to run, , oe run neither fast nor long, would it not seem that how to run. Some, inexplicably—and I myself have observed in ; «hil arranged for these population units, classi- this—run right toward predators, even when they have definitely To a om the standpoint of procreative capability, to be sensed them (Schaller, 1972). Generally it is assumed—and there is am 4 ne conventionally tutored eye these animals may some evidence for this (Schaller, 1972)—that it is mostly prey animals — . ape just as fast as they can, but from Nature’s point handicapped by extreme youth or age or by disease that are the tes 4 Dad the final scores, they can only be said to be vulnerable ones; but there is good evidence that this is far from _ 24 advance. always the case and that healthy prey in their prime are often taken. og me moment, anyhow, that the moose situation is One conservation officer remarked that such an animal, a deer whose ies “~ ose, if subtly concealed (from ecologists, capture and kill he witnessed, acted plain ‘‘stupid’’ (Mech, 1970). 7 oy in nature. Where would psi come into the Granting the impossibility of getting inside the head of an animal at : t " f could be Wireman determinant of behavior at the the moment of decision, one can nevertheless sometimes come across ny s Sheil “Just what makes certain moose stand what appear to be obvious indications of predator-prey cooperation and others run is unknown,”’ writes Mech (1970). It is that are passed over with little or no puzzlement simply because they Siam to what extent information that is conveyed are being viewed through the wrong end of the theoretical binoculars. an 4 4y means of psi ‘means mediates decision of one It is known, for example, that many prey which are large enough and (Eisen a not simply an inert registration in the mind of a well enough equipped to defend themselves even when dragged 965) en ud, 1970, Chapter 14). And since decision, as daven (ister bufiala, sabia) db/not do 80 we A Wve up without 2 | Pointed out, is necessarily a major factor in shaping struggle; and several authors have noted that horns, hooves, and fis et mating, about seeking new habitats, tusks are used primarily in fighting among members of the same a . eeing—any psi-mediated factor that could work in species rather than in defense against predators (Mech, 1970; " and complement normal determinants influencing Schaller, 1970). Some of this would even appear to be a kind of almost gh just tip the balance in one direction or another. ritualized submission behavior (rather than mere ‘‘shock,”’ as is ofter Ai at which psi might affect the balance of adjust- supposed); but for some reason no one asks how it is that such i complementing normal mechanisms, would be by behavior (even if it should happen to be a shock response) shoul S wh coming into each other’s range of those predator- have been selected ‘‘in” rather than ‘‘out.”’ a ete ultimate encounter would tend best to fulfill A beautiful example of the paralyzing hold of classical selection : ee requirements. The prototype of this would be theory may be seen in descriptions of wolf predation (Mech, 1970). © . human individuals may be presumed to be drawn is known that if moose stand their ground when attacked by WOT ut of their normally expected paths to consummate the packs their chances of being killed are slight because the via inner needs (Eisenbud, 1963b, 1970; Stanford, 1974), almost never go in on these dangerous animals and sooner or - 4 had punishment (Eisenbud, 1952). tiring of waiting, move off. In fact, the most effectual attach 4 ons work? Normally, an individual animal’s role in a behavior in the wolf is instinctually released only by the stimulus © vs insane is determined by a complex interplay of fleeing moose; at the same time, moose in flight are less able .. Osocial factors. It has been experimentally demon- €rg, 1963) that variations in individual animals’ alert- hemselves. How is it, then, that ‘‘standing’”’ and fleeing out? Would not the answer sia 5 bestia moose and the attacking wolf make one ecological (and ne ) unit, and that fleeing and chasing constitute interspecific tion just as effectively as the dovetailing behavior of the a and the wasp? From the conventional point of view such a ght to appear the more paradoxical when it is realized that ng obviously takes more energy than standing, it is often

46 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research jl as passivity and aggressiveness in relation to other ‘ask pol re by the accidents of early development, particularly the conditions of the neonatal and nursing period. And Wynne-Edwards (1962) has shown that animal populations them- selves tend to sort out those marginal individuals in the pecking order who, by becoming social outcasts as it were, constitute a sort of roving reservoir of vulnerable prey. According to classical concepts, these are the individuals, along with the sick and the old, that make up the largest part of the vulnerable prey population. It would be precisely from such a reservoir that individuals (with relatively strong “‘death-need’’ predispositions, as it were) could be recruited for roles in psi-mediated pairings. A marginal animal might thus be drawn into position by psi to fulfill in a single act the population-limiting needs of its own species (Carr-Saunders, 1922) and the high priority survival needs (as in the case of my nursing cat) of a member of an ecologically competing species. Animals on the roam, according to this somewhat idealized paradigm, might thus be regarded as some- thing like a fleet of radio-dispatched and radio-controlled taxicabs. As roving vehicles, they would have relative freedom to cruise and some vs im ; the while remain sure to “‘random’’ calls; but they would all in on to the requirements of their district control centers operating — hierarchically in interlacing systems with mutually geared feedback mechanisms. hould be noted, however, that psi might, if required, operate to bia prey away from potential predators, just as a pea decision on the part of a prey animal to be or not to be mig t y me way. Such nonrandom flexibility, as pointed out earlier, cou he the greatest importance in the highly complex 9 amie he that operates in the biosphere. The mechanisms by nig hs a populations are kept within bounds that seem imposed by poe a self and are not allowed either to grow without limit or to cie © not wholly known (Errington, 1967). Still not entirely underst ‘intrinsic’ compensating processes come into play long va population levels get too high or too dangerously low of os sensitive thermostat works long before a room gets too ee 7 cold). And although predation levels do not seem to play as ; i i sli role in these processes as was at one time believed, even a Sig : . ne complementation of pure chance in this area could sea ten tuning necessary to keep things running smoothly. (All it ’ every croupier knows, is a slight edge, like the double zero 0 roulette wheel, to keep the house in business.) ‘ i si- In any case, and regardless of whether or not anything like P mediated predator-prey ‘‘fixes’”’ play an appreciable part—0F i i ov nection with whatever mechanisms do operate 1s that of i jn cone part at all—in the balance of nature, the problem that arises oral sn and Psi 47 ere ecologists become somewhat vague. By way of account- yarious feedback and buffering mechanisms, they tend or explicitly to fall back upon physiological models of s (the living organism’s ability to maintain its component finely balanced equilibria). But what individual organ- ss that is critically lacking in the pictures drawn by are built-in mechanisms for some sort of central control, as higher animals, more or less fail-safe nervous and ‘means of communication between component organs and onventional informational mechanisms cannot in them- ovide this control, no matter how extensive the catalogue of s capabilities (Wilson, 1975; Wynne-Edwards, 1962) and tricately they may seem to be woven into the manifold of ecological interrelatedness, any more than the various unicating bureaucracies that make up a government can IV returning now to evolution (ecology is merely evolution ig), is precisely the problem here too. The hope of certain ts that new branches of mathematics or of computer science e the answer is as doomed as the perpetual motion For mathematics, however cleverly it describes and oblems of order, organization, and control, is as ineffec- eek chorus when it comes to doing anything; and if com- ever able to create anything like stable self-perpetuating out of purely random inputs, as Waddington (1969) have happened, the only plausible inference would be xperimenter effect’’ occasionally manifests itself (pre- ough PK) with otherwise fairly reliable computer hard- ents, it is not simply a matter of pumping information or the evolutionary system here or there in small doses by unting for this or that highly improbable bit of order or n, this pocket of anti-chance or that one; the problem is overall interrelatedness of all the systems of nature—in- inanimate, when it comes to that (Eisenbud, 1956). For ns, like the organizing fields within which embryos mani- ‘harmonious equipotential gradients’ (Driesch, 1907-08; 933/1962) or the ‘‘autonomous centers of decision’ of ), which oppose the entropic push toward disorder, will More than Whyte’s St. Peter at the genetic gate or any n of Maxwell’s ubiquitous demon (even that in the mind - Nor will general systems theory provide an answer that

q ‘ id ° 48 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Resear on and Psi ‘ doesn’t immediately beg the next higher question; for you Cannot go on indefinitely in ascending hierarchies without sooner or latey getting to some ultimate ground of existence whose nature has beat the perennial preoccupation of philosophers and theologians aa which only a handful of mystics have claimed to have glimpsed in th raw. It may be doubted that there is a patriarchal (or matriarch A figure sitting at a celestial desk pointing to a sign saying The bucd stops here’’; but it is difficult to avoid the impression that it is re. quently the dread of having to confront a bogey of this sort that ‘ responsible for the curious contortions, evasions, and hysterica blindnesses of those who, with almost religious faith, nurture thei own version of the resurrection—the notion that electrons, partic] eS atoms, molecules, genes, organisms, and events somehow orde eee Ateier Hardy does not have a trace of doubt as to how th problem of ultimate control must find its solution. An uncomp 0: mising theist, he totally rejects the tendentious arguments of Tei hard de Chardin (1959) in this regard (as does also psychologist Si Cyril Burt, 1966, who provides a penetrating glimpse of how un simplistic informed thinking in this area can be), but arrives * i position through an ‘‘inner certainty’’ that has nothing to do _ ology or logic. Although this may seem to scientists to be a _ wast of both, there it is, this inner certainty, as much a fact : na i according to Hardy, as evolution and just as deserving of scienti p25 OEARLE NN to realize, at this late date in the history Oa tion and its critics, that Darwin himself was not et oy oan such high-level enigmas. In The Origin of Species (1 ee took it for granted (as did Newton before him) that i Ss ‘Creator, and he more than once, when examining ee on ee bit of evolution, alluded to how infinitely superior t = m a ia Creator was to the mind of man. All he was attemp ne Pp asserted, was to account for the mechanism of sane ee ty, not for life itself and everything that came with " as Be winian followers have set themselves a larger task, ei etn and Shaw, 1973) have even found an extraterrestria! = jot ; special creation. This would not have budged pes asi only thing it could possibly have meant to him was tha and well on some other planet too. ) whereby events that have yet to happen appear capable prehended apart from any possibility of rational inference n means of information transfer. If such a phenomenon s occur—and there seems to be ample evidential reason that it does—would this necessarily mean that something more inexorable than Waddington’s creods—super- haps—are at work guiding the entire show along a fated d all seemingly random phenomena, including genetic s and the whole panel of behavioral responses and decisions y the struggle for existence, then be merely so much stage play acting from a script that has existed from beyond ‘would it still be possible to think of evolution, as did 11), as a creative process with an indeterminate future? f course aware that the basic issue here, whether or not of necessity lies inside the velvet glove of appearance, en a prime philosophical puzzle even apart from the f precognition, and that to some—Einstein, for one 1949)—this issue has enjoyed only a temporary and in fact ado resolution in terms of the dogma of indeterminacy that Tules quantum physics. Unfortunately, the data of on have not really advanced the problem beyond the point ie stoics confronted it since these data can not as yet be any satisfactory theoretical framework; and it may be that n cannot be resolved in terms of present modes of thought, thing more radical even than the major theoretical mutation in evolution theory will be required to get us off dead awhile we continue to sift through what data we can Strange phenomenon for clues, insights, or anything at provide a chink in what now appears to be an - wall. the results of some experimental work on precognition ugh doing little to further the problem from the point cussed above, cast an interesting light on the factors } decision-making in animals and on the flexibility of this experiments indicated that rodents were able, to a enificant degree, to avoid a future traumatic event such hock or death by making a correct choice (e.g., in from among a number of alternative possibilities 2; Craig, 1973; Duval and Montredon, 1968a, 1968b; we assume that it is the animal and not the hich is responsible for such effects, we must suppose ng a latent ability ordinarily held in check, an ability dly manifest itself in such a manner in natural *8-, to avoid predators and other dangers) without there @ rodent population explosion of such magnitude as to val Vv I cannot conclude without making some mantin < on pro and its conceivable relation to evolution. Precognitio

50 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research d Psi 51 dwarf everything else in the biosphere. If, on the other hand, we assume that it is the experimenters who are responsible for part of all of these effects (an alternative impossible to rule out), then we must presume not only the same latent ability on the part of the rodents but also their capacity and readiness to respond to psi-mediated signals (‘‘instructions,” if you will) in essentially the manner that was postulated earlier for animals on the roam. The important point is that either way what occurred in the laboratory could only have been a temporary (quite temporary, to my ming [Eisenbud, 1963a]) suspension of the real rules of the game, the rules ' that apply in the field at large, as if another game entirely were being played, as indeed it was. But the very fact that this is possible reveals the leeway and the flexibility that allows whole systems in nature to adapt to each other. Such systemic rather than individual adaptation would no doubt require a certain percentage of those animals who might in the laboratory show a tendency successfully to avoid traumatic events to join the ranks of my covertly masochistic kitchen mice and the moose fleeing surely toward their capture and kill. For what is certain, whichever way the issue of predetermination is resolved (if ever it will be), is that all organisms in nature, insofar as they can exercise choice at all, must do so in accordance with overall requirements that transcend individual concerns. But if the great constants of nature have to be satisfied no matter what, if the ultimate boundary conditions (Polanyi, 1968) are as invisibly preset as our persistent and multifarious background radiation, is conceivable that this imposes on evolution a destiny and a design (homage to Alfred Russel Wallace, 1911) which the mechanics a random mutations and all kinds of psi-mediated ierconiol aa i merely help to carry out? Conceivable perhaps, but it is unlikely that the question can ever be settled. Precognition in rats as a function of shock and death. In ‘oll, R. L. Morris, and J. D. Morris (Eds.), Research in ology 1973. Metuchen, N. J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974, Pp. . The Origin of Species. New York: Collier’s, 1909. (Orig- blished in 1859.) P. T. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper & Gc, V.H. Early experience and emotional development. merican, June 6, 1963, 206, 138-146. The Science and Philosophy of the Organism. London: & Charles Black, 1907-1908. 2 vols. AND MONTREDON, E. ESP experiments with mice. of Parapsychology, 1968, 32, 153-166. (a) D MONTREDON, E. Further experiments with mice. Parapsychology, 1968, 32, 260. (Abstract.) (b) The use of the telepathy hypothesis in psychotherapy. wski and L. Despert (Eds.), Specialized Techniques in apy. New York: Basic Books, 1952. Pp. 41-63. Psi and the problem of the disconnections in science. the American Society for Psychical Research, 1956, 50, Psi and the nature of things. International Journal of logy, 1963, 5, 245-268. (a) Two approaches to spontaneous case material. Journal ican Society for Psychical Research, 1963, 57, 118-135. Why psi? Psychoanalytic Review, 1966-67, 53, 147-163 . Psi and Psychoanalysis. New York: Grune & Stratton, J. The mind-matter interface. Journal of the American Psychical Research, 1975, 69, 115-126. ‘a Of Predation and Life. Ames: Iowa State Univer- v2 REFERENCES BALDWIN, J. M. A new factor in evolution. The American Naturalist, 1896, 30, 354-451; 536-553. BERGSON, H. Creative Evolution. New York: Holt, 1911. d BERTALANFFY, L. Problems of Life. New York: Wiley, we all BESTALL, C.M. An experiment in precognition in the la oc / mouse. Journal of Parapsychology, 1962, 26, 269. (Absa BROOKS, P., AND SHAW, G. The Origin and Development of /™ Systems. New York: Academic Press, 1973. soci BurT, C. Evolution and parapsychology. Journal of the 5° Psychical Research, 1966, 43, 391-422. don: Oxfof CARR-SAUNDERS, A. M. The Population Problem. London: University Press, 1922. “Taying on of hands’’: Implications for psychotherapy, d the placebo effect. Journal of the American Society Research, 1967, 61, 286-305. Ogy outside the laboratory. The Advancement of 9, 6, 221-232. iving Stream: Evolution and Man. New York: Harper AND SMYTHIES, J. R. (Eds.). Beyond Reductionism: ves in the Life Sciences. New York: Macmillan, 1969.

on and Psi $2 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 53 ‘The Wistar Instit i ; a stitute Symposium Monograph No. 5, 1967. JGTON, C. H. 7; en, he Strategy of the Genes. London: Allen & NG" ON, C. H. The Nature of Life. London: Allen & Unwin, NGTON, C. H. The theory of evolution tod fe - In A. Koestl . R. Smythies (Eds.), Beyond Reducti a Mac. ioe, Se 3674s: oy) eductionism. New York: Mac- g, A.R. The World of Life: A Mani, i : ; y hs estat ; _" Mind and Ultimate hoe Now Youk eee, LILLIE, R. S. General Biology and Philosophy of the Organism Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945. 1 LuriA, S. E. Life, the Unfinished Experiment. New York: Scrip. ner’s, 1973. MECH, L. D. The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangereg Species. Garden City, N. Y.: The Natural History Press, 1970, MONOD, J. Chance and Necessity. New York: Knopf, 1971. MOORHEAD, P. S., AND KAPLAN, M. M. (Eds.). Mathematical Chal. lenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph No. 5, 1967. Morean, C. L. Habit and Instinct. London: Arnold, 1896. Moran, T. H. Variability of eyeless. In Contributions to the Gen- etics of Drosophila Simulans and Drosophila Melanogaster. Wash- ington: Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 399, 1929. Pp. 141-168. Morais, R. L. Psi and animal behavior: A survey. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1970, 64, 242-261. PETRUNKEVITCH, A. The spider and the wasp. In Twentieth Century Bestiary. A Scientific American Book. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1965. Pp. 3-8. POLANYI, M. Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. POLANYI, M. Life’s irreducible structure. Science, June 21, 1968, 160, 1308-1312. RANDALL, J. L. Psi phenomena and biological theory. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 1971, 46, 151-165. SCHALLER, G. B. The Serengetti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Re- lations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972. SCHILPP, P. A. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Evanston, Ill. The Library of Living Philosophers, 1949. SMITH, SR. J. Paranormal effects on enzyme activity. Journal of Para- psychology, 1968, 32, 281. (Abstract.) 1 SPEMANN, H. Embryonic Development and Induction. New York: Hafner, 1962. (Originally published in 1933.) | STANFORD, R. G. An experimentally testable model for spontaneous psi events. I. Extrasensory events. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1974, 68, 34-57. II. Psychokinetic even! Ibid, 1974, 68, 321-356. i THOMPSON, D. W. On Growth and Form. Abridged ed. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1961. (Originally published in 1917) THORPE, W. H. The evolutionary significance of habitat selectio® Journal of Animal Ecology, 1945, 14, 67-70. ULAM, S. M. How to formulate mathematically problems of rate © evolution. In P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan (Eds.), Matt matical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evo L L. Internal Factors in Evolution. New York: Braziller O. Sociobiology: : ; Press, 1975. nip io pho Cambridge, Mass.: ARDS, V.C. Animal Dispersion i. i é New York: Hafner, 1962. spicdmeeaiainiaitidits sain. ixth Avenue Colorado 80220