THE MONIST
A
QUARTERLY MAGAZINE
VOL. III.
CHICAGO:
THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING CO.
1892-1893
COPYRIGHT, 1893,
BY
THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING CO.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME III.
PAGE
ARTICLES.
Auta, The Doctrine of. By C. Lloyd Morgan 161
Cruelty and Pity in Woman. By Guillaume Ferrero 220
Doctrine of Auta, The. By C. Lloyd Morgan 161
Education, Nationalisation of, and the Universities. By H. von
Holst 493
Evolutionary Love. By Charles S. Peirce 176
Foundations of Theism, The. By E. D. Cope 623
Founder of Tychism, The: His Methods, Philosophy, and Criticisms.
Editor 571
Fourth Dimension, The By Hermann Schubert 402
Hindu Monism. By Richard Garbe 51
Insects, The Nervous Ganglia of. By Alfred Binet 35
Intuition and Reason. By Christine Ladd Franklin 211
Issues of “Synechism,” The. By G. M. McCrie 380
Love, Evolutionary. By Charles S. Peirce 176
Man’s Glassy Essence. By Charles S. Peirce 1
Meaning and Metaphor. By Lady Victoria Welby 510
Mental Mummies. By Felix L. Oswald 30
Modern Science, Religion and. By F. Jodl 329
Monism, Hindu. By Richard Garbe 51
Nationalisation of Education and the Universities. By H. von Holst 493
Necessitarians, Reply to the. By Charles S. Peirce 526
Necessity, The Idea of: Its Basis and Its Scope. Editor 68
Necessity, The Superstition of. By John Dewey 362
Panbiotism, Panpsychism and. Editor 234
Panpsychism and Panbiotism. Editor 234
Reason, Intuition and. By Christine Ladd Franklin 211
Religion and Modern Science. By F. Jodl 329
Religion of Science, The. Editor 352
Renan: A Discourse Given at South Place Chapel, London. By Moncure
D. Conway 201
Reply to the Necessitarians. By Charles S. Peirce 526
Science, The Religion of. Editor 352
Superstition of Necessity, The. By John Dewey 362
“Synechism,” The Issues of. By G. M. McCrie 380
Theism, The Foundations of. By E. D. Cope 623
Thought in America, The Future of. By E. D. Cope 23
Tychism, The Founder of: His Methods, Philosophy, and Criticisms.
Editor 571
Universities, Nationalisation of Education and the. By H. von Holst 493
Woman, Cruelty and Pity in. By Guillaume Ferrero 220
LITERARY CORRESPONDENCE.
France. By Lucien Arréat 111, 258
France, The Religious Outlook in. By Theodore Stanton 450
Germany. By Christian Ufer 264, 640
New French Books. By Lucien Arréat 456
Recent Evolutionary Studies in Germany. By Carus Sterne 97
CRITICISMS AND DISCUSSIONS.
A Letter from Mr. Herbert Spencer 272
Comte and Turgot. By Louis Belrose, Jr. 118
Is Monism Arbitrary? Editor 124
James’s Psychology, Observations on Some Points of. By W. L.
Worcester 285
Logic as Relation Lore. By F. C. Russell 272
Mathematics a Description of Operations with Pure Forms. Editor 133
Reply to a Critic, A. By Edward T. Dixon 127
Sensation, Prof. Ernst Mach’s Term 298
Some Remarks Upon Professor James’s Discussion of Attention. By
Hiram M. Stanley 122
BOOK REVIEWS.
_Acht Abhandlungen, Herrn Professor Dr. Karl Ludwig Michelet zum
90. Geburtstag_ 478
Arréat, Lucien. _Psychologie du Peintre_ 142
Baets, l’Abbé Maurice de. _L’école d’anthropologie criminelle_ 649
Becker, George F. _Finite Homogeneous Strain, Flow, and Rupture
of Rocks_ 480
Berendt, M. and J. Friedländer. _Der Pessimismus im Lichte einer
höheren Weltauffassung_ 477
Binet, Alfred. _Les Altérations de la Personnalité_ 145
Blackwell, Antoinette Brown. _The Philosophy of Individuality, or
the One and the Many_ 649
Cattell, James McKeen, and George Stuart Fullerton. _On the
Perception of Small Differences_ 141
Delbœuf, J. _L’Hypnotisme devant les Chambres Legislatives Belges_ 318
Dessoir, Max. _Ueber den Hautsinn_ 319
Dixon, Edward T. _An Essay on Reasoning_ 138
Dreher, Eugen. _Der Materialismus, eine Verirrung des menschlichen
Geistes, widerlegt durch eine zeitgemässe Weltanschauung_ 479
Edinger, L. _Vergleichend-entwickelungsgeschichtliche und
anatomische Studien im Bereiche der Hirnanatomie. 3.
Riechapparat und Ammonshorn_ 648
Engel, Gustav. _Die Philosophie und die sociale Frage_ 478
Eucken, Rudolf. _Die Grundbegriffe der Gegenwart_ 650
Friedländer, J. and M. Berendt. _Der Pessimismus im Lichte einer
höheren Weltauffassung_ 477
Fullerton, George Stuart, and James McKeen Cattel. _On the
Perception of Small Differences_ 141
George, Henry. _A Perplexed Philosopher_ 482
Gutberlet, Constantin. _Die Willensfreiheit und ihre Gegner_ 646
Hiller, H. Croft. _Against Dogma and Free-Will_ 649
Hirth, Georges. _Physiologie de L’Art_ 143
Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. _Hand-Commentar zum neuen Testament.
IV. Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes_ 643
Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. _Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen
Einleitung in das neue Testament_ 150
Janet, Pierre. _État mental des hystériques les stigmates mentaux_ 648
Joël, Karl. _Der echte und der Xenophontische Sokrates_ 480
Jones, E. E. Constance. _An Introduction to General Logic_ 314
Lindemann, Ferdinand. _Vorlesungen über Geometrie_ 314
Lotze, Hermann. _Outlines of a Philosophy of Religion_ 140
Lubbock, John. _The Beauties of Nature_ 323
Meynert, Theodore. _Sammlung von populär-wissenschaftlichen
Vorträgen über den Bau und die Leistungen des Gehirns_ 151
Mik, J. _Graber’s Leitfaden der Zoologie für die oberen Classen
der Mittelschulen_ 322
Münsterberg, Hugo. _Beiträge zur experimentellen Psychologie_ 304
Oelzelt-Newin, Anton. _Ueber sittliche Dispositionen_ 323
Offner, Max. _Ueber die Grundformen der Vorstellungsverbindung_ 479
Paszkowski, Wilhelm. _Wie steht es jetzt mit der Philosophie, und
was haben wir von ihr zu hoffen?_ 478
Paulsen, Friedrich. _Einleitung in die Philosophie_ 466
Rolfes, Eugen. _Die Aristotelische Auffassung vom Verhältnisse
Gottes zur Welt und zum Menschen_ 311
Royce, Josiah. _The Spirit of Modern Philosophy_ 306
Royer, Clémence. _Recherches d’optique physiologique et physique_ 320
Salter, William M. _First Steps in Philosophy_ 470
Schellwien, Robert. _Max Stirner und Friedrich Nietzsche_ 311
Schmidt, Johannes. _Die Urheimath der Indogermanen und das
europäische Zahlsystem_ 149
Schmidkunz, Hans. _Der Hypnotismus in gemeinfasslicher Darstellung_ 317
Sharp, Frank Chapman. _The Æsthetic Element in Morality_ 650
Sidgwick, Alfred. _Distinction and the Criticism of Beliefs_ 312
Spencer, Herbert. _Social Statics and Justice_ 136
Sterne, Carus. _Natur und Kunst_ 323
Topinard, Paul. _L’Homme dans la Nature_ 146
Topinard, Paul. _L’Anthropologie du Bengale_ 322
Tufts, James Hayden. _The Sources of Development of Kant’s
Teleology_ 312
Verworn, Max. _Die Bewegung der lebendigen Substanz_ 321
Williams, C. M. _A Review of the Systems of Ethics Founded on
the Theory of Evolution_ 474
Wundt, Wilhelm. _Vorlesungen über die Menschen- und Thierseele_ 300
Wundt, Wilhelm. _Hypnotismus und Suggestion_ 315
Wundt, Wilhelm. _Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie_ 648
PERIODICALS 153-160; 325-328; 488-492; 651-658.
APPENDIX.
Plates belonging to the article “The Nervous Ganglia of Insects.”
(In No. 1 of this volume.)
VOL. III. OCTOBER, 1892. NO. 1.
THE MONIST.
MAN’S GLASSY ESSENCE.
In _The Monist_ for January, 1891, I tried to show what conceptions
ought to form the brick and mortar of a philosophical system. Chief
among these was that of absolute chance for which I argued again in last
April’s number.[1] In July, I applied another fundamental idea, that of
continuity, to the law of mind. Next in order, I have to elucidate, from
the point of view chosen, the relation between the psychical and physical
aspects of a substance.
The first step towards this ought, I think, to be the framing of
a molecular theory of protoplasm. But before doing that, it seems
indispensable to glance at the constitution of matter, in general. We
shall, thus, unavoidably make a long detour; but, after all, our pains
will not be wasted, for the problems of the papers that are to follow in
the series will call for the consideration of the same question.
All physicists are rightly agreed the evidence is overwhelming which
shows all sensible matter is composed of molecules in swift motion and
exerting enormous mutual attractions, and perhaps repulsions, too.
Even Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, who wishes to explode action at
a distance and return to the doctrine of a plenum, not only speaks of
molecules, but undertakes to assign definite magnitudes to them. The
brilliant Judge Stallo, a man who did not always rightly estimate his
own qualities in accepting tasks for himself, declared war upon the
atomic theory in a book well worth careful perusal. To the old arguments
in favor of atoms which he found in Fechner’s monograph, he was able to
make replies of considerable force, though they were not sufficient to
destroy those arguments. But against modern proofs he made no headway
at all. These set out from the mechanical theory of heat. Rumford’s
experiments showed that heat is not a substance. Joule demonstrated that
it was a form of energy. The heating of gases under constant volume, and
other facts instanced by Rankine, proved that it could not be an energy
of strain. This drove physicists to the conclusion that it was a mode of
motion. Then it was remembered that John Bernoulli had shown that the
pressure of gases could be accounted for by assuming their molecules to
be moving uniformly in rectilinear paths. The same hypothesis was now
seen to account for Avogadro’s law, that in equal volumes of different
kinds of gases exposed to the same pressure and temperature are contained
equal numbers of molecules. Shortly after, it was found to account for
the laws of diffusion and viscosity of gases, and for the numerical
relation between these properties. Finally, Crookes’s radiometer
furnished the last link in the strongest chain of evidence which supports
any physical hypothesis.
Such being the constitution of gases, liquids must clearly be bodies in
which the molecules wander in curvilinear paths, while in solids they
move in orbits or quasi-orbits. (See my definition _solid_ II, 1, in the
“Century Dictionary.”)
We see that the resistance to compression and to interpenetration between
sensible bodies is, by one of the prime propositions of the molecular
theory, due in large measure to the kinetical energy of the particles,
which must be supposed to be quite remote from one another, on the
average, even in solids. This resistance is no doubt influenced by finite
attractions and repulsions between the molecules. All the impenetrability
of bodies which we can observe is, therefore, a limited impenetrability
due to kinetic and positional energy. This being the case, we have
no logical right to suppose that absolute impenetrability, or the
exclusive occupancy of space, belongs to molecules or to atoms. It is
an unwarranted hypothesis, not a _vera causa_.[2] Unless we are to give
up the theory of energy, finite positional attractions and repulsions
between molecules must be admitted. Absolute impenetrability would amount
to an infinite repulsion at a certain distance. No analogy of known
phenomena exists to excuse such a wanton violation of the principle of
continuity as such a hypothesis is. In short, we are logically bound
to adopt the Boscovichian idea that an atom is simply a distribution
of component potential energy throughout space, (this distribution
being absolutely rigid,) combined with inertia. The potential energy
belongs to two molecules, and is to be conceived as different between
molecules _A_ and _B_ from what it is between molecules _A_ and _C_. The
distribution of energy is not necessarily spherical. Nay, a molecule may
conceivably have more than one centre; it may even have a central curve,
returning into itself. But I do not think there are any observed facts
pointing to such multiple or linear centres. On the other hand, many
facts relating to crystals, especially those observed by Voigt,[3] go to
show that the distribution of energy is harmonical but not concentric.
We can easily calculate the forces which such atoms must exert upon one
another by considering[4] that they are equivalent to aggregations of
pairs of electrically positive and negative points infinitely near to one
another. About such an atom there would be regions of positive and of
negative potential, and the number and distribution of such regions would
determine the valency of the atom, a number which it is easy to see would
in many cases be somewhat indeterminate. I must not dwell further upon
this hypothesis, at present. In another paper, its consequences will be
further considered.
I cannot assume that the students of philosophy who read this magazine
are thoroughly versed in modern molecular physics, and therefore it
is proper to mention that the governing principle in this branch of
science is Clausius’s law of the virial. I will first state the law,
and then explain the peculiar terms of the statement. This statement is
that the total kinetic energy of the particles of a system in stationary
motion is equal to the total virial. By a _system_ is here meant a
number of particles acting upon one another.[5] Stationary motion is a
quasi-orbital motion among a system of particles so that none of them are
removed to indefinitely great distances nor acquire indefinitely great
velocities. The kinetic energy of a particle is the work which would
be required to bring it to rest, independently of any forces which may
be acting upon it. The virial of a pair of particles is half the work
which the force which actually operates between them would do if, being
independent of the distance, it were to bring them together. The equation
of the virial is
(Transcriber’s Note: Italics have been removed from the
formulæ for readability.)
½Σmv² = ½ΣΣRr.
Here _m_ is the mass of a particle, _v_ its velocity, _R_ is the
attraction between two particles, and _r_ is the distance between them.
The sign Σ on the left hand side signifies that the values of _mv_²
are to be summed for all the particles, and ΣΣ on the right hand side
signifies that the values of _Rr_ are to be summed for all the pairs of
particles. If there is an external pressure _P_ (as from the atmosphere)
upon the system, and the volume of vacant space within the boundary of
that pressure is _V_, then the virial must be understood as including
³⁄₂_PV_, so that the equation is
½Σmv² = ³⁄₂PV + ½ΣΣRr.
There is strong (if not demonstrative) reason for thinking that
the temperature of any body above the absolute zero (-273° C.), is
proportional to the average kinetic energy of its molecules, or say _aθ_,
where _a_ is a constant and _θ_ is the absolute temperature. Hence, we
may write the equation
aθ = ½m̅v̅²̅ = ³⁄₂PV̅ + ½ΣR̅r̅
where the heavy lines above the different expressions signify that the
average values for single molecules are to be taken. In 1872, a student
in the University of Leyden, Van der Waals, propounded in his thesis for
the doctorate a specialisation of the equation of the virial which has
since attracted great attention. Namely, he writes it
aθ = (P + (c⁄V²))(V-b).
The quantity _b_ is the volume of a molecule, which he supposes to
be an impenetrable body, and all the virtue of the equation lies in
this term which makes the equation a cubic in _V_, which is required
to account for the shape of certain isothermal curves.[6] But if the
idea of an impenetrable atom is illogical, that of an impenetrable
molecule is almost absurd. For the kinetical theory of matter teaches
us that a molecule is like a solar system or star-cluster in miniature.
Unless we suppose that in all heating of gases and vapors internal
work is performed upon the molecules, implying that their atoms are at
considerable distances, the whole kinetical theory of gases falls to the
ground. As for the term added to _P_, there is no more than a partial
and roughly approximative justification for it. Namely, let us imagine
two spheres described round a particle as their centre, the radius of
the larger being so great as to include all the particles whose action
upon the centre is sensible, while the radius of the smaller is so large
that a good many molecules are included within it. The possibility of
describing such a sphere as the outer one implies that the attraction
of the particles varies at some distances inversely as some higher
power of the distance than the cube, or, to speak more clearly, that
the attraction multiplied by the cube of the distance diminishes as the
distance increases; for the number of particles at a given distance
from any one particle is proportionate to the square of that distance
and each of these gives a term of the virial which is the product of
the attraction into the distance. Consequently unless the attraction
multiplied by the cube of the distance diminished so rapidly with the
distance as soon to become insensible, no such outer sphere as is
supposed could be described. However, ordinary experience shows that such
a sphere is possible; and consequently there must be distances at which
the attraction does thus rapidly diminish as the distance increases. The
two spheres, then, being so drawn, consider the virial of the central
particle due to the particles between them. Let the density of the
substance be increased, say, _N_ times. Then, for every term, _Rr_, of
the virial before the condensation, there will be _N_ terms of the same
magnitude after the condensation. Hence, the virial of each particle will
be proportional to the density, and the equation of the virial becomes
aθ = PV̅ + c⁄V̅.
This omits the virial within the inner sphere, the radius of which
is so taken that within that distance the number of particles is
not proportional to the number in a large sphere. For Van der Waals
this radius is the diameter of his hard molecules, which assumption
gives his equation. But it is plain that the attraction between the
molecules must to a certain extent modify their distribution, unless
some peculiar conditions are fulfilled. The equation of Van der Waals
can be approximately true therefore only for a gas. In a solid or
liquid condition, in which the removal of a small amount of pressure
has little effect on the volume, and where consequently the virial must
be much greater than _PV̅_, the virial must increase with the volume.
For suppose we had a substance in a critical condition in which an
increase of the volume would diminish the virial more than it would
increase ³⁄₂_PV̅_. If we were forcibly to diminish the volume of such
a substance, when the temperature became equalised, the pressure which
it could withstand would be less than before, and it would be still
further condensed, and this would go on indefinitely until a condition
were reached in which an increase of volume would increase ³⁄₂_PV̅_ more
than it would decrease the virial. In the case of solids, at least, _P_
may be zero; so that the state reached would be one in which the virial
increases with the volume, or the attraction between the particles does
not increase so fast with a diminution of their distance as it would if
the attraction were inversely as the distance.
Almost contemporaneously with Van der Waals’s paper, another remarkable
thesis for the doctorate was presented at Paris by Amagat. It related
to the elasticity and expansion of gases, and to this subject the
superb experimenter, its author, has devoted his whole subsequent life.
Especially interesting are his observations of the volumes of ethylene
and of carbonic acid at temperatures from 20° to 100° and at pressures
ranging from an ounce to 5000 pounds to the square inch. As soon as
Amagat had obtained these results, he remarked that the “coefficient of
expansion at constant volume,” as it is absurdly called, that is, the
rate of variation of the pressure with the temperature, was very nearly
constant for each volume. This accords with the equation of the virial,
which gives
dp⁄dθ = a⁄V̅ - dΣR̅r̅⁄dθ.
Now, the virial must be nearly independent of the temperature, and
therefore the last term almost disappears. The virial would not be
quite independent of the temperature, because if the temperature (i.
e. the square of the velocity of the molecules) is lowered, and the
pressure correspondingly lowered, so as to make the volume the same,
the attractions of the molecules will have more time to produce their
effects, and consequently, the pairs of molecules the closest together
will be held together longer and closer; so that the virial will
generally be increased by a decrease of temperature. Now, Amagat’s
experiments do show an excessively minute effect of this sort, at least,
when the volumes are not too small. However, the observations are well
enough satisfied by assuming the “coefficient of expansion at constant
volume” to consist wholly of the first term, _a_/(_V_). Thus, Amagat’s
experiments enable us to determine the values of _a_ and thence to
calculate the virial; and this we find varies for carbonic acid gas
nearly inversely to (_V_)⁰˙⁹. There is, thus, a rough approximation to
satisfying Van der Waals’s equation. But the most interesting result of
Amagat’s experiments, for our purpose at any rate, is that the quantity
_a_, though nearly constant for any one volume, differs considerably with
the volume, nearly doubling when the volume is reduced fivefold. This
can only indicate that the mean kinetic energy of a given mass of the
gas for a given temperature is greater the more the gas is compressed.
But the laws of mechanics appear to enjoin that the mean kinetic energy
of a moving particle shall be constant at any given temperature. The
only escape from contradiction, then, is to suppose that the mean mass
of a moving particle diminishes upon the condensation of the gas. In
other words, many of the molecules are dissociated, or broken up into
atoms or sub-molecules. The idea that dissociation should be favored
by diminishing the volume will be pronounced by physicists, at first
blush, as contrary to all our experience. But it must be remembered
that the circumstances we are speaking of, that of a gas under fifty
or more atmospheres pressure, are also unusual. That the “coefficient
of expansion under constant volume” when multiplied by the volumes
should increase with a decrement of the volume is also quite contrary
to ordinary experience; yet it undoubtedly takes place in all gases
under great pressure. Again, the doctrine of Arrhenius[7] is now
generally accepted, that the molecular conductivity of an electrolyte is
proportional to the dissociation of ions. Now the molecular conductivity
of a fused electrolyte is usually superior to that of a solution. Here is
a case, then, in which diminution of volume is accompanied by increased
dissociation.
The truth is that several different kinds of dissociation have to be
distinguished. In the first place, there is the dissociation of a
chemical molecule to form chemical molecules under the regular action of
chemical laws. This may be a double decomposition, as when iodhydric acid
is dissociated, according to the formula
HI + HI = HH + II;
or, it may be a simple decomposition, as when pentachloride of phosphorus
is dissociated according to the formula
PCl₅ = PCl₃ + ClCl.
All these dissociations require, according to the laws of
thermochemistry, an elevated temperature. In the second place, there is
the dissociation of a physically polymerous molecule, that is, of several
chemical molecules joined by physical attractions. This I am inclined to
suppose is a common concomitant of the heating of solids and liquids;
for in these bodies there is no increase of compressibility with the
temperature at all comparable with the increase of the expansibility.
But, in the third place, there is the dissociation with which we are now
concerned, which must be supposed to be a throwing off of unsaturated
sub-molecules or atoms from the molecule. The molecule may, as I have
said, be roughly likened to a solar system. As such, molecules are able
to produce perturbations of one another’s internal motions; and in this
way a planet, i. e. a sub-molecule, will occasionally get thrown off and
wander about by itself, till it finds another unsaturated sub-molecule
with which it can unite. Such dissociation by perturbation will naturally
be favored by the proximity of the molecules to one another.
Let us now pass to the consideration of that special substance, or
rather class of substances, whose properties form the chief subject
of botany and of zoölogy, as truly as those of the silicates form the
chief subject of mineralogy: I mean the life-slimes, or protoplasm.
Let us begin by cataloguing the general characters of these slimes.
They one and all exist in two states of aggregation, a solid or nearly
solid state and a liquid or nearly liquid state; but they do not pass
from the former to the latter by ordinary fusion. They are readily
decomposed by heat, especially in the liquid state; nor will they bear
any considerable degree of cold. All their vital actions take place at
temperatures very little below the point of decomposition. This extreme
instability is one of numerous facts which demonstrate the chemical
complexity of protoplasm. Every chemist will agree that they are far more
complicated than the albumens. Now, albumen is estimated to contain in
each molecule about a thousand atoms; so that it is natural to suppose
that the protoplasms contain several thousands. We know that while they
are chiefly composed of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen, a large
number of other elements enter into living bodies in small proportions;
and it is likely that most of these enter into the composition of
protoplasms. Now, since the numbers of chemical varieties increase at
an enormous rate with the number of atoms per molecule, so that there
are certainly hundreds of thousands of substances whose molecules
contain twenty atoms or fewer, we may well suppose that the number of
protoplasmic substances runs into the billions or trillions. Professor
Cayley has given a mathematical theory of “trees,” with a view of
throwing a light upon such questions; and in that light the estimate of
trillions (in the English sense) seems immoderately moderate. It is true
that an opinion has been emitted, and defended among biologists, that
there is but one kind of protoplasm; but the observations of biologists,
themselves, have almost exploded that hypothesis, which from a chemical
standpoint appears utterly incredible. The anticipation of the chemist
would decidedly be that enough different chemical substances having
protoplasmic characters might be formed to account, not only for the
differences between nerve-slime and muscle-slime, between whale-slime
and lion-slime, but also for those minuter pervasive variations which
characterise different breeds and single individuals.
Protoplasm, when quiescent, is, broadly speaking, solid; but when it is
disturbed in an appropriate way, or sometimes even spontaneously without
external disturbance, it becomes, broadly speaking, liquid. A moner
in this state is seen under the microscope to have streams within its
matter; a slime-mould slowly flows by force of gravity. The liquefaction
starts from the point of disturbance and spreads through the mass. This
spreading, however, is not uniform in all directions; on the contrary it
takes at one time one course, at another another, through the homogeneous
mass, in a manner that seems a little mysterious. The cause of
disturbance being removed, these motions gradually (with higher kinds of
protoplasm, quickly) cease, and the slime returns to its solid condition.
The liquefaction of protoplasm is accompanied by a mechanical
phenomenon. Namely, some kinds exhibit a tendency to draw themselves
up into a globular form. This happens particularly with the contents
of muscle-cells. The prevalent opinion, founded on some of the most
exquisite experimental investigations that the history of science
can show, is undoubtedly that the contraction of muscle-cells is due
to osmotic pressure; and it must be allowed that that is a factor in
producing the effect. But it does not seem to me that it satisfactorily
accounts even for the phenomena of muscular contraction; and besides,
even naked slimes often draw up in the same way. In this case, we seem
to recognise an increase of the surface-tension. In some cases, too, the
reverse action takes place, extraordinary pseudopodia being put forth,
as if the surface-tension were diminished in spots. Indeed, such a slime
always has a sort of skin, due no doubt to surface-tension, and this
seems to give way at the point where a pseudopodium is put forth.
Long-continued or frequently repeated liquefaction of the protoplasm
results in an obstinate retention of the solid state, which we call
fatigue. On the other hand repose in this state, if not too much
prolonged, restores the liquefiability. These are both important
functions.
The life-slimes have, further, the peculiar property of growing. Crystals
also grow; their growth, however, consists merely in attracting matter
like their own from the circumambient fluid. To suppose the growth
of protoplasm of the same nature, would be to suppose this substance
to be spontaneously generated in copious supplies wherever food is
in solution. Certainly, it must be granted that protoplasm is but a
chemical substance, and that there is no reason why it should not be
formed synthetically like any other chemical substance. Indeed, Clifford
has clearly shown that we have overwhelming evidence that it is so
formed. But to say that such formation is as regular and frequent as the
assimilation of food is quite another matter. It is more consonant with
the facts of observation to suppose that assimilated protoplasm is formed
at the instant of assimilation, under the influence of the protoplasm
already present. For each slime in its growth preserves its distinctive
characters with wonderful truth, nerve-slime growing nerve-slime and
muscle-slime muscle-slime, lion-slime growing lion-slime, and all the
varieties of breeds and even individual characters being preserved in the
growth. Now it is too much to suppose there are billions of different
kinds of protoplasm floating about wherever there is food.
The frequent liquefaction of protoplasm increases its power of
assimilating food; so much so, indeed, that it is questionable whether in
the solid form it possesses this power.
The life-slime wastes as well as grows; and this too takes place chiefly
if not exclusively in its liquid phases.
Closely connected with growth is reproduction; and though in higher
forms this is a specialised function, it is universally true that
wherever there is protoplasm, there is, will be, or has been a power
of reproducing that same kind of protoplasm in a separated organism.
Reproduction seems to involve the union of two sexes; though it is not
demonstrable that this is always requisite.
Another physical property of protoplasm is that of taking habits. The
course which the spread of liquefaction has taken in the past is rendered
thereby more likely to be taken in the future; although there is no
absolute certainty that the same path will be followed again.
Very extraordinary, certainly, are all these properties of protoplasm;
as extraordinary as indubitable. But the one which has next to be
mentioned, while equally undeniable, is infinitely more wonderful. It
is that protoplasm feels. We have no direct evidence that this is true
of protoplasm universally, and certainly some kinds feel far more than
others. But there is a fair analogical inference that all protoplasm
feels. It not only feels but exercises all the functions of mind.
Such are the properties of protoplasm. The problem is to find a
hypothesis of the molecular constitution of this compound which will
account for these properties, one and all.
Some of them are obvious results of the excessively complicated
constitution of the protoplasm molecule. All very complicated substances
are unstable; and plainly a molecule of several thousand atoms may be
separated in many ways into two parts in each of which the polar chemical
forces are very nearly saturated. In the solid protoplasm, as in other
solids, the molecules must be supposed to be moving as it were in orbits,
or, at least, so as not to wander indefinitely. But this solid cannot
be melted, for the same reason that starch cannot be melted; because
an amount of heat insufficient to make the entire molecules wander is
sufficient to break them up completely and cause them to form new and
simpler molecules. But when one of the molecules is disturbed, even
if it be not quite thrown out of its orbit at first, sub-molecules of
perhaps several hundred atoms each are thrown off from it. These will
soon acquire the same mean kinetic energy as the others, and therefore
velocities several times as great. They will naturally begin to wander,
and in wandering will perturb a great many other molecules and cause
them in their turn to behave like the one originally deranged. So many
molecules will thus be broken up, that even those that are intact will no
longer be restrained within orbits, but will wander about freely. This is
the usual condition of a liquid, as modern chemists understand it; for in
all electrolytic liquids there is considerable dissociation.
But this process necessarily chills the substance, not merely on account
of the heat of chemical combination, but still more because the number
of separate particles being greatly increased, the mean kinetic energy
must be less. The substance being a bad conductor, this heat is not at
once restored. Now the particles moving more slowly, the attractions
between them have time to take effect, and they approach the condition of
equilibrium. But their dynamic equilibrium is found in the restoration of
the solid condition, which therefore takes place, if the disturbance is
not kept up.
When a body is in the solid condition, most of its molecules must be
moving at the same rate, or, at least, at certain regular sets of rates;
otherwise the orbital motion would not be preserved. The distances of
neighboring molecules must always be kept between a certain maximum and
a certain minimum value. But if, without absorption of heat, the body be
thrown into a liquid condition, the distances of neighboring molecules
will be far more unequally distributed, and an effect upon the virial
will result. The chilling of protoplasm upon its liquefaction must also
be taken into account. The ordinary effect will no doubt be to increase
the cohesion and with that the surface-tension, so that the mass will
tend to draw itself up. But in special cases, the virial will be
increased so much that the surface-tension will be diminished at points
where the temperature is first restored. In that case, the outer film
will give way and the tension at other places will aid in causing the
general fluid to be poured out at those points, forming pseudopodia.
When the protoplasm is in a liquid state, and then only, a solution of
food is able to penetrate its mass by diffusion. The protoplasm is then
considerably dissociated; and so is the food, like all dissolved matter.
If then the separated and unsaturated sub-molecules of the food happen
to be of the same chemical species as sub-molecules of the protoplasm,
they may unite with other sub-molecules of the protoplasm to form new
molecules, in such a fashion that when the solid state is resumed, there
may be more molecules of protoplasm than there were at the beginning.
It is like the jack-knife whose blade and handle, after having been
severally lost and replaced, were found and put together to make a new
knife.
We have seen that protoplasm is chilled by liquefaction, and that this
brings it back to the solid state, when the heat is recovered. This
series of operations must be very rapid in the case of nerve-slime and
even of muscle-slime, and may account for the unsteady or vibratory
character of their action. Of course, if assimilation takes place, the
heat of combination, which is probably trifling, is gained. On the
other hand, if work is done, whether by nerve or by muscle, loss of
energy must take place. In the case of the muscle, the mode by which
the instantaneous part of the fatigue is brought about is easily traced
out. If when the muscle contracts it be under stress, it will contract
less than it otherwise would do, and there will be a loss of heat. It is
like an engine which should work by dissolving salt in water and using
the contraction during the solution to lift a weight, the salt being
recovered afterwards by distillation. But the major part of fatigue has
nothing to do with the correlation of forces. A man must labor hard to do
in a quarter of an hour the work which draws from him enough heat to cool
his body by a single degree. Meantime, he will be getting heated, he will
be pouring out extra products of combustion, perspiration, etc., and he
will be driving the blood at an accelerated rate through minute tubes at
great expense. Yet all this will have little to do with his fatigue. He
may sit quietly at his table writing, doing practically no physical work
at all, and yet in a few hours be terribly fagged. This seems to be owing
to the deranged sub-molecules of the nerve-slime not having had time to
settle back into their proper combinations. When such sub-molecules are
thrown out, as they must be from time to time, there is so much waste of
material.
In order that a sub-molecule of food may be thoroughly and firmly
assimilated into a broken molecule of protoplasm, it is necessary not
only that it should have precisely the right chemical composition, but
also that it should be at precisely the right spot at the right time
and should be moving in precisely the right direction with precisely
the right velocity. If all these conditions are not fulfilled, it will
be more loosely retained than the other parts of the molecule; and
every time it comes round into the situation in which it was drawn in,
relatively to the other parts of that molecule and to such others as
were near enough to be factors in the action, it will be in special
danger of being thrown out again. Thus, when a partial liquefaction of
the protoplasm takes place many times to about the same extent, it will,
each time, be pretty nearly the same molecules that were last drawn in
that are now thrown out. They will be thrown out, too, in about the same
way, as to position, direction of motion, and velocity, in which they
were drawn in; and this will be in about the same course that the ones
last before them were thrown out. Not exactly, however; for the very
cause of their being thrown off so easily is their not having fulfilled
precisely the conditions of stable retention. Thus, the law of habit is
accounted for, and with it its peculiar characteristic of not acting with
exactitude.
It seems to me that this explanation of habit, aside from the question
of its truth or falsity, has a certain value as an addition to our
little store of mechanical examples of actions analogous to habit. All
the others, so far as I know, are either statical or else involve forces
which, taking only the sensible motions into account, violate the law
of energy. It is so with the stream that wears its own bed. Here, the
sand is carried to its most stable situation and left there. The law of
energy forbids this; for when anything reaches a position of stable
equilibrium, its momentum will be at a maximum, so that it can according
to this law only be left at rest in an unstable situation. In all the
statical illustrations, too, things are brought into certain states
and left there. A garment receives folds and keeps them; that is, its
limit of elasticity is exceeded. This failure to spring back is again an
apparent violation of the law of energy; for the substance will not only
not spring back of itself (which might be due to an unstable equilibrium
being reached) but will not even do so when an impulse that way is
applied to it. Accordingly, Professor James says “the phenomena of habit
... are due to the plasticity of the ... materials.” Now, plasticity
of materials means the having of a low limit of elasticity. (See the
“Century Dictionary,” under _solid_.) But the hypothetical constitution
of protoplasm here proposed involves no forces but attractions and
repulsions strictly following the law of energy. The action here, that
is, the throwing of an atom out of its orbit in a molecule, and the
entering of a new atom into nearly, but not quite the same orbit, is
somewhat similar to the molecular actions which may be supposed to
take place in a solid strained beyond its limit of elasticity. Namely,
in that case certain molecules must be thrown out of their orbits, to
settle down again shortly after into new orbits. In short, the plastic
solid resembles protoplasm in being partially and temporarily liquefied
by a slight mechanical force. But the taking of a set by a solid body
has but a moderate resemblance to the taking of a habit, inasmuch as
the characteristic feature of the latter, its inexactitude and want of
complete determinacy, is not so marked in the former, if it can be said
to be present there, at all.
The truth is that though the molecular explanation of habit is pretty
vague on the mathematical side, there can be no doubt that systems of
atoms having polar forces would act substantially in that manner, and
the explanation is even too satisfactory to suit the convenience of an
advocate of tychism. For it may fairly be urged that since the phenomena
of habit may thus result from a purely mechanical arrangement, it is
unnecessary to suppose that habit-taking is a primordial principle of the
universe. But one fact remains unexplained mechanically, which concerns
not only the facts of habit, but all cases of actions apparently
violating the law of energy; it is that all these phenomena depend upon
aggregations of trillions of molecules in one and the same condition and
neighborhood; and it is by no means clear how they could have all been
brought and left in the same place and state by any conservative forces.
But let the mechanical explanation be as perfect as it may, the state of
things which it supposes presents evidence of a primordial habit-taking
tendency. For it shows us like things acting in like ways because they
are alike. Now, those who insist on the doctrine of necessity will for
the most part insist that the physical world is entirely individual.
Yet law involves an element of generality. Now to say that generality
is primordial, but generalisation not, is like saying that diversity
is primordial but diversification not. It turns logic upside down. At
any rate, it is clear that nothing but a principle of habit, itself
due to the growth by habit of an infinitesimal chance tendency toward
habit-taking, is the only bridge that can span the chasm between the
chance-medley of chaos and the cosmos of order and law.
I shall not attempt a molecular explanation of the phenomena of
reproduction, because that would require a subsidiary hypothesis, and
carry me away from my main object. Such phenomena, universally diffused
though they be, appear to depend upon special conditions; and we do not
find that all protoplasm has reproductive powers.
But what is to be said of the property of feeling? If consciousness
belongs to all protoplasm, by what mechanical constitution is this to
be accounted for? The slime is nothing but a chemical compound. There
is no inherent impossibility in its being formed synthetically in the
laboratory, out of its chemical elements; and if it were so made, it
would present all the characters of natural protoplasm. No doubt,
then, it would feel. To hesitate to admit this would be puerile and
ultra-puerile. By what element of the molecular arrangement, then, would
that feeling be caused? This question cannot be evaded or pooh-poohed.
Protoplasm certainly does feel; and unless we are to accept a weak
dualism, the property must be shown to arise from some peculiarity of
the mechanical system. Yet the attempt to deduce it from the three laws
of mechanics, applied to never so ingenious a mechanical contrivance,
would obviously be futile. It can never be explained, unless we admit
that physical events are but degraded or undeveloped forms of psychical
events. But once grant that the phenomena of matter are but the result
of the sensibly complete sway of habits upon mind, and it only remains
to explain why in the protoplasm these habits are to some slight extent
broken up, so that according to the law of mind, in that special clause
of it sometimes called the principle of accommodation,[8] feeling becomes
intensified. Now the manner in which habits generally get broken up is
this. Reactions usually terminate in the removal of a stimulus; for the
excitation continues as long as the stimulus is present. Accordingly,
habits are general ways of behavior which are associated with the removal
of stimuli. But when the expected removal of the stimulus fails to occur,
the excitation continues and increases, and non-habitual reactions take
place; and these tend to weaken the habit. If, then, we suppose that
matter never does obey its ideal laws with absolute precision, but that
there are almost insensible fortuitous departures from regularity, these
will produce, in general, equally minute effects. But protoplasm is
in an excessively unstable condition; and it is the characteristic of
unstable equilibrium, that near that point excessively minute causes may
produce startlingly large effects. Here then, the usual departures from
regularity will be followed by others that are very great; and the large
fortuitous departures from law so produced, will tend still further to
break up the laws, supposing that these are of the nature of habits.
Now, this breaking up of habit and renewed fortuitous spontaneity will,
according to the law of mind, be accompanied by an intensification of
feeling. The nerve-protoplasm is, without doubt, in the most unstable
condition of any kind of matter; and consequently, there the resulting
feeling is the most manifest.
Thus we see that the idealist has no need to dread a mechanical theory
of life. On the contrary, such a theory, fully developed, is bound to
call in a tychistic idealism as its indispensable adjunct. Wherever
chance-spontaneity is found, there, in the same proportion, feeling
exists. In fact, chance is but the outward aspect of that which within
itself is feeling. I long ago showed that real existence, or thing-ness,
consists in regularities. So, that primeval chaos in which there was
no regularity was mere nothing, from a physical aspect. Yet it was not
a blank zero; for there was an intensity of consciousness there in
comparison with which all that we ever feel is but as the struggling of a
molecule or two to throw off a little of the force of law to an endless
and innumerable diversity of chance utterly unlimited.
But after some atoms of the protoplasm have thus become partially
emancipated from law, what happens next to them? To understand this, we
have to remember that no mental tendency is so easily strengthened by the
action of habit as is the tendency to take habits. Now, in the higher
kinds of protoplasm, especially, the atoms in question have not only long
belonged to one molecule or another of the particular mass of slime of
which they are parts; but before that, they were constituents of food of
a protoplasmic constitution. During all this time, they have been liable
to lose habits and to recover them again; so that now, when the stimulus
is removed, and the foregone habits tend to reassert themselves, they do
so in the case of such atoms with great promptness. Indeed, the return is
so prompt that there is nothing but the feeling to show conclusively that
the bonds of law have ever been relaxed.