Living systems are self-organizing; inquiring systems are also self-critical. All are texts which revise themselves in dialogue with their contexts. Over generations of interpretant symbols, the types of these texts evolve.
Let us inquire into the role of consciousness in this process. Thomas Metzinger begins here:
First, let’s not forget that evolution is driven by chance, does not pursue a goal, and achieved what we now consider the continuous optimization of nervous systems in a blind process of hereditary variation and selection.
— Metzinger 2009, 55
But if evolution has achieved ‘what we now consider the continuous optimization of nervous systems,’ why can’t we say that this was (and is) an intrinsic ‘goal’ of evolution, a final cause, before anyone considered it? Surely a real tendency (or intention) does not need to be consciously chosen in order to guide a process in a general direction. Why not say that a ‘goal’ of evolution is the development of guidance systems, of what Peirce calls self-control? Wouldn’t any real guidance system, no matter how primitive, have a tendency to optimize itself? After all, no process can be driven by ‘chance,’ although chance may contribute to the variation which is necessary in order for selection to operate. Nothing can be driven unless in some direction, and that directedness may itself evolve, from vague tendency to preconscious intention to conscious purpose, from natural selection to ethical inquiry.
I do not agree with M. that evolution is driven by chance. All living systems have the inherent characteristic of change. The change introduces a variety of options which are then tested for advantage in the specific context in which they interact. Only the few that are selected by the creation of a survival benefit persist. Saying evolution is driven by chance is like saying our personal growth is driven by winning a lottery. I would say evolution is a process of optimization inherent to all living things. Would Pierce call this Meaning?
Roy, to answer your question at the end, I don’t think Peirce would call this “meaning,” I think he would call it “mind.” He published an essay in 1892 called “The Law of Mind,” which finds this positive tendency to evolve in all forms of life. Later he attributed the evolution of the whole universe to this “law of mind.” In fact, he argued that physical matter is just mind “hidebound with habits,” i.e. so set in its ways that it has lost almost all the living spontaneity of Mind. Needless to say, most of his fellow scientists thought he was crazy (and some still do).
I just read this of possible interest by Roberto Mangebeira Unger
“In a universe… in which everything changes sooner or later, the really new- the new that is not simply an enactment of possible states of affairs defined from all eternity-can happen. Mind or consciousness, as it has evolved and been expressed in us, as well as in other animals, amounts to more than an outcome or an instance of such real novelty; it represents a master tool for making the new, as was life, with less power and haste, before mind…. Readiness for change in the types of things that there are as well as the way in which they change prefigures, in not yet mindful nature, openness to the new. Life is, in this sense, a prophecy of mind.” The Religion of the |Future
I don’t know what Unger means by “possible states of affairs defined from all eternity,” so it’s not very clear what he means by “really new.” He also seems to equate “mind” with “consciousness,” while I tend to think of consciousness as the tip of the iceberg of mind, so to speak. Certainly Peirce (and Gregory Bateson too) use “mind” as a much more comprehensive term, referring to a mode of being that is *continuous with* life, rather than merely prophesied by life. But except for terminology, Unger seems to be roughly on the same page with Peirce (and me).