Evolution to be brought by chance and inevitably. Evolution and the will to it. This first was written in Japanese on December 4, 2013. And, it was translated into English on December 7, 2013. It fixed the language of html in February 10, 2017. Noguti Hiromasa				"To Japanese Edition"
	Would evolution be the phenomenon to occur inevitably? If not, would it be the phenomenon to occur by chance? By any chance, there may be a person thinking the question showed in the title isn't so important. Probably it is because it thinks in the viewpoint different from my viewpoint. This question is very important for me. I in old days thought about Evolution from not only the biological viewpoint but also the viewpoint of social science and philosophy, and psychological. As for this, it already was stated in the "Civilization and living body" though the explanation may not have been enough. And although in connection with the thing, it was supposed to need the consideration of the inevitability and possibility, it had lacked for the explanation like that. This lack seems to have been serious considerably. It was because my thought of evolution may be understood to be same as so-called vitalism because of that. Needless to say, although it isn't that my thought isn't related to vitalism at all, I think my thought is situated to the position which sublates the contradiction which is between the understanding like materialism and the so-called vitalism. The concept of material object and the concept of spirit only express two feature the phenomenon shows us. In other words, the phenomenon those concepts show can't be recognized if it lacks for either of those concepts. It is because the action called recognition needs both the cognition-subject and object which will be recognized. Needless to say, it is natural that no one, using causation and the logical turn, can understand the relationship between those two concepts. It is because those things can't be separated originally.
	Thereupon, based on my understanding about the relationship like that, next it will think about the living thing who is cognition-subject, and also about whether evolution is the inevitable result or accidental result. By any chance, although my opinion to be stated next may be out of the biological viewpoint, I think that is very important philosophically if it tries to understand the living things, especially human being. However, as for the living things which are as object, it isn't stated here because it already is known as the object of the scientific research, and as the object of various desires. By the way, at least in Modern Japan, it seems that the thought that evolution is the result occurring because of the thing that many accidental phenomenons were accumulated is general. I understand this thought as follows. "If the variant of gene born accidentally works well for the said creature with fitting the environment by chance, the probability the kind like that survives becomes higher. Conversely if it works disadvantageously for the said creature by chance, the probability the kind like that survives becomes lower. In other words, whether some kind of creature survive or not is decided with the relationship between the variant born accidentally and the environment the said variant is placed in by chance. Therefore, evolution is the result of the accidental phenomenons accumulated". Although this thought probably seems to be based on the materialism, would this thought reflect actual evolution really?
	Needless to say, this thought roughly seems to be right. But, it seems it is hard to say unconditionally that it is right. Would it be really right to think evolution is the result of the accidental phenomenons accumulated? In passing, at present, there is the Christian thought that God's will materializes through evolution. This probably is the thought that evolution is the phenomenon which occurs inevitably by God's will. But, my thought about evolution is different from this at all. * Thereupon, let's think a gene and organism, and so on are cognition-subject tentatively. Needless to say, I think that this supposition is right as the major premise to think about evolution. And If so, it would have to think positively about the influence the gene and organism give to evolution. But, it seems that the evidence the gene, organism, and so on influence positively the birth of variant which would bring evolution isn't found even now. And, I know there is the report denying the active work like that the gene, organism, and so on would do. * The caution; It never be the concept of cognition-subject is used instead of God. This persistently is based on the thought that the relationship between cognition-subject and object is most important if it tries to know this world.
			However, If the gene, organism, and so on, to keep or use the information one's self has, are doing the logistic calculation, wouldn't it seem their action like that gives evolution the influence of something? Especially, since higher forms of life have many genes, how the information one gene has influences organism seems to be decided not only with the interrelationship of genes but also with the relationship between the interrelationship like that and organism. If so, it can think that the group of genes has the possibility to make the new variant active or passive. And, if so, it by any chance may be mistake to deny the possibility the gene takes part in the birth of variant of gene. Even if it assumes the variant which would bring evolution was born *by chance, it is possible to think that the above-mentioned relationships about the genes and organism, and so on influenced evolution which includes the birth of various variant. If it reads the "Civilization and living body; 4th knot, The vector of the change of living body", it seems that the thing can be guessed easily. Therefore, as for the research of evolution, it may need more deep research of the interrelationships in between the genes and organism and in between the organism or gene and the environment.
	* The caution; Since a person not materialist may say that it was born inevitably, not by chance, which expression is right would have to be decided by whether there is the logical consistency, between the fact and the major premise which is the footing of the said conclusion. In passing, in connection with the organism which is as cognition-subject, there is the reference about ego which is as the real existence, in the "Civilization and living body; 10th knot, the complementary explanation of ego". And, if it understands that explanation exactly, it seems to become possible to think that the ego of organism and also of each cell which composes the organism exist as the real existence. As it stated before, the organisms and each cell which are as cognition-subject all do the logistic calculation based on one's purpose. And, the thing also can be applied to even the case of gene.
	Therefore, even if it assumes that the variant of gene is born accidentally, it seems that the reaction to the variant the other genes or the organism show is based on the logistic calculation supposed to be done in the inside of the organism. And, it has to think that the logistic calculation like that probably includes the calculation of how it should treat the ability the variant would have. Needless to say, it is natural that it can't assert that the result of the calculation like that always brings the success. But, it seems that it needs to assume that the calculation like that influences also evolution, if it tries to make the mechanism of evolution clear. It is because the change of organism including the change called evolution seems to be the result of the calculation like that. And, it is possible to think that the change based on the calculation like that occurred inevitably, if it sees in the viewpoint different from materialism, putting aside the argument of whether it is right selection or not. If my logic is proper, it is because a person believing one's self has ego and will has to think the stone to be seen on the sidewalk also has ego as well. As it stated before, it thinks it can understand this logic, if it reads the "Civilization and living body, 10th knot".
	Then, if it tries to know whether evolution is the result that the phenomenons which occurred accidentally were accumulated, it has to treat the concept of the inevitability and the concept of the possibility more carefully under the strict conditions and the strict consideration of environment. It is because the phenomenon to be understood to have occurred accidentally under the certain condition should often be understood to be the phenomenon which occurred inevitably if it considers it under more wide condition. For example, it can explain the thing with a half-life of radioactive substance. As you know, no one knows exactly when one radioelement gives off radiation, doing radioactive decay. Therefore it can say it occurs by chance within the extent of certain probability. But, we can know considerably exactly when the lump of the radioelemnts becomes half of the first amount because of the radioactive decay. In other words, it can say that is the phenomenon which occurred inevitably. In spite of that, it is that it has to say that one radioelement of the lump like that did the radioactive decay by chance within the extent of the certain probability. In other words, there are many cases that whether one phenomenon occurred inevitably or by chance is decided, corresponding to the observer's viewpoint and also the adopted conditions. Therefore, the considering each viewpoint and also condition each set are very important, if it tries to do argument on the inevitability and possibility. Thereupon, if it reads the "Civilization and living body, 4th knot", and if it understands that each member of the equation showed there has the flexibility of the concept to be substituted in, it seems that it can understand the above-mentioned thing and viewpoint. In other words, even if it can think under the certain condition, that evolution is the product of accumulated accidental phenomenon it seems that it also is possible to say that it is the product of the accumulated phenomenon which occurred inevitably if it thinks it under the more wide condition, as it thought before. And, this opinion is related to my idea that various phenomenon has ego though the ego I think is a little different from the ego Dr. Freud thinks, as it stated before. And, in connection with the thing, it has to consider the thing the whole isn't the mere set of the elemental parts composing the whole. The whole has the feature the parts haven't. I think that it is possible to understand my idea like this with dialectical analogy if it considers the content I explained about the relationship between one radioactive element and the lump of radioactive substance though the relationship between the whole and its parts seems to be different scientifically, corresponding to the object selected concretely.
			However, probably many people would think that it is hard to accept my idea of ego. But, I think there isn't mistake in my logic. If so, it is that it has to think all phenomenons have each ego, also the feature which is as cognition-subject. It is that not only evolution but also all the phenomenons have to be examined under the consideration of the relationship between cognition-subject and object. * I think there was the thought explaining the relationship between cognition-subject and object, in Ancient Japan. As for the person interesting oneself, read the homepage it shows with the next reference. * The reference;    1: The origin of Japanese culture, The divine nature of the gods of Koto-ama-tu-kami.    2: The origin of Japanese culture, The cognition-subject and object to realize into "Kan-musubi" and "Takami-musubi". * Then, since the English edition of the "Civilization and living body" was the unsatisfied translation, it thinks to retranslate it sometime.
		The dream like reality."		The dream like reality."		The true character of object "
Cotosiro Home for English