mind is a double-edged weapon: it cuts both ways: if mind is matter,
matter is mind; if mind is thinking matter, then matter is latent
thought; and thought is consequently exhibited not as being the last
product of evolution, but as a factor in it from the beginning. But this
identity of mind and matter is a purely metaphysical speculation: it is
a conjecture to explain _how_ it is that two phenomena can co-exist in
the way in which they are observed to do. Such conjectures science does
not require: she does not undertake to explain why things are, but to
describe--if possible with mathematical exactness--the order of their
sequence or co-existence. This function science can discharge equally
well whether the changes of consciousness are or are not supposed to be
movements in space. Metaphysicians may argue the point; in the meantime
science is describing and formulating the laws of mind and endeavouring
to correlate the changes of consciousness with the physical changes of
the brain and the nervous system. The mechanical theory neither helps
nor hinders science in her work.
But science does throw some difficulties in the way of the mechanical
theory; or, rather, the facts of science refuse to fit into the theory.
If the stream of consciousness is nothing but a series of physiological
and chemical changes, the laws of the one ought to be identical with the
laws of the other, and both with the laws of mechanics, on the
mechanical theory. But they are not. Those concise descriptions of
mental phenomena which constitute the laws of psychology ought to
coincide with those other concise descriptions of fact which constitute
the laws of chemistry, if the facts described by the two sciences are
the same. But the two sets of laws have, to say the least, more
differences than resemblances.
This brings us to our second point. Our first point was that if the
concise description of evolution, which sums it up as the process by
which matter is continually redistributed in space, is to be proved to
be true, it must be shown that movements in space are the only events
which we know to take place. Our second point is that, unless it can be
shown that mechanical laws are the only laws at work in the universe,
this description of evolution does not find room for the whole working
of the process of evolution.
Whether the only laws in the universe are mechanical laws is primarily a
question of fact; and on the facts, as known to us at present, the
answer to the question is a decided negative. The laws of psychology and
of ethics are neither identical with nor have they been deduced from any
physical laws. As a hypothesis designed to explain the way in which the
world works, the redistribution of matter and motion neither includes
nor accounts for those laws which are of most importance to man.
This appeal to the facts which are actually known is, however, often
conceived to be in reality an appeal to our ignorance: mental laws have
not as yet been shown to be deducible from physical laws, but they may
be. So, too, the fact that no attempt to extend the gravitation formula
from astronomy to any other department of science has yet succeeded, is
no proof that it never will be so extended. Neither, we may remark, does
it constitute any presumption that it will. Are there, then, any other
grounds for presuming that mental law may yet be shown to be merely a
case of some physical law? To some minds there seem to be grounds for
presuming that it not only may, but must. However great our ignorance of
the details of the process of evolution, there are certain broad facts
which are beyond dispute. It is indisputable that there was a period in
the history of the earth when there was no life upon it; that the
elements which constitute living matter are themselves lifeless; that
consciousness is correlated somehow with those organic compounds, the
elements of which are inorganic. These facts together constitute an
irresistible presumption that ultimately mind and matter must obey the
same laws.
But this is not the desired conclusion. The conclusion desired is that
mind must obey matter's laws. The fact that mind and matter obey the
same ultimate laws is a different thing, and rather indicates that even
the redistribution of matter and motion requires ultimately some other
explanation than merely mechanical laws afford. To the religious mind it
is quite intelligible that mind and matter should obey the same
laws--God's laws.
It may be said, however, that we have not done full justice to the
presumption raised by the broad facts of evolution. When there was no
life upon the earth, the only laws in operation must have been physical
laws, and consequently the laws of life and consciousness must have been
produced by the laws of matter.
Now, this argument in effect amounts to a denial of any difference
between the mechanical composition and the chemical combination of
bodies. Bodies when mechanically compounded continue to follow the same
laws as they obey when uncompounded, and their conjoint action can be
deduced and foretold from the laws to which they are subject in their
separate state: "Whatever would have happened in consequence of each
cause taken by itself happens when they are together, and we have only
to cast up the results."[17] With chemical combination the case is quite
different: the chemical compound exhibits properties and behaves in ways
which are quite different from the properties and behaviour of its
elements, and could not be foretold from any observation of them. Water,
which is a combination of oxygen and hydrogen, exhibits no trace of the
properties of either. "If this be true of chemical combinations, it is
still more true of those far more complex combinations of elements which
constitute organised bodies, and in which those extraordinary new
uniformities arise, which are called the laws of life. All organised
bodies are composed of parts similar to those composing inorganic
nature, and which have even themselves existed in an inorganic state;
but the phenomena of life, which result from the juxtaposition of those
parts in a certain manner, bear no analogy to any of the effects which
would be produced by the action of the component substance considered as
mere physical agents.... The tongue, for instance, is, like all other
parts of the animal frame, composed of gelatine, fibrin, and other
products of the chemistry of digestion, but from no knowledge of the
properties of those substances could we ever predict that it could
taste, unless gelatine or fibrin could themselves taste; for no
elementary fact can be in the conclusion which was not in the
premises."[18]
What is thus true of physiology and of those chemical combinations on
which it is based, is true also of sociology and the psychological facts
on which it is based. "When physiological elements are combined, the
combination reveals properties which were not appreciable in the
separate elements. The increasingly complex combination or association
of organic elements may produce an entirely special set of phenomena....
Their combination exhibits something more than the mere sum of their
separate properties. Thus, no knowledge of man as an individual would
enable us to forecast all the institutions which result from the
association of men and which can only manifest themselves in social
life."[19]
It is clear, then, that the mechanical theory of evolution can only
maintain itself by obliterating the distinction between mechanical
juxtaposition and chemical combination. The obstacles which stand in the
way of this obliteration, at the outset, are two. First, the behaviour
of a chemical compound bears no resemblance to the behaviour of its
constituents when separate. Next, the laws of the compound cannot be
deduced or exhibited as consequences of the laws of the separate
elements. To these two objections it may be replied, first, that though
the compound bears no resemblance to its separate constituents, the
character of every aggregate must be determined by that of its component
parts; and, next, that with more knowledge we shall come to see the way
in which the laws of the separate components generate the law of the
whole. Perhaps, by way of illustration, we may employ an analogy. A
number of bricks can be placed on one another to form a cube; a number
of cannon balls will form a pyramidical pile. The aggregate of bricks
resembles in shape the separate bricks; the aggregate of balls does not
resemble a ball in shape. Yet the pyramidical shape of the pile of
cannon balls is as certainly determined by the shape of the separate
balls, as the cubical shape of the heap of bricks is determined by that
of the separate bricks. Now, we do not know the geometrical structure of
chemical atoms; but, on this analogy, it is reasonable to suppose that,
if we did, we should see at once that the structure of a chemical
compound is dependent on, though different from, that of its elements.
So too in sociology, the aggregate, society, is not a human being, but
the character of any given society is determined by the character of its
individual members.
This last illustration, however, brings us to a fresh difficulty in the
way of the mechanical theory. As is observed in the remarks quoted
previously from Monsieur Bernard, the peculiar characteristic of those
more intimate combinations which form the subject-matter of chemistry,
physiology, and sociology is that in them the combining elements reveal
properties which were not perceptible in them previous to their
combination. It may be true that the character of these more intimate
combinations is determined by the properties of their constituents, but
it is by the properties which they reveal when in combination, not by
those which are manifest in them when uncombined. Therein lies the
difference between mechanical compounds and chemical combinations; and
it is that difference which the mechanical theory does not account for.
The more intimate, chemical, physiological, and sociological
combinations take place in virtue of properties which require the
combination to reveal them. In sociology it is not the juxtaposition of
individual men, but their co-operation, which makes a society. In
chemistry, the formation of chemical compounds implies the affinity of
the elements.
It seems, then, that the mechanical theory contains half the truth, but
not the whole truth. The half-truth which it insists on is that in both
mechanical and chemical combinations there is juxtaposition of the
constituent elements. The half of the truth which it overlooks is that
when the elements are juxtaposed in one way they develop or manifest new
qualities, when juxtaposed in the other way they do not. The mechanical
theory asserts that the only factors in evolution are matter and the
force which moves matter about: it takes into account the external
factors, but leaves out the internal force or spontaneity in virtue of
which things in a suitable environment develop new qualities. Doubtless
the juxtaposition of the elements is a condition without which they
would not manifest their new properties: the redistribution of matter
and motion is a condition of evolution, but it does not constitute
evolution. Rather, it is the continual revelation of these new qualities
which constitutes evolution, chemical affinity and all its consequences
in chemistry, spontaneous variation and all its consequences in the
evolution of organic life.
From this point of view it becomes clear why the laws of a chemical
compound neither are nor can be exhibited as consequences of or
deductions from the laws of its separate constituents. The properties
which the law of the compound describes are not the properties which the
separate elements exhibit. The living matter of biology, the active
atoms of chemistry, are not products of the lifeless, inert matter of
mechanics; but are different and higher revelations of the same power
which is manifested in different degrees in all. It is this progressive
manifestation, and not the mere drifting about of bits of matter, which
constitutes evolution. The redistribution of matter and motion may be a
concomitant of evolution, but it is not evolution. "The continuous
adjustment of internal relations to external relations," which Mr.
Herbert Spencer[20] offers as a definition of life, may be a condition
of the maintenance of an organism; but life is and means to each one of
us, and to the humblest thing that breathes, much more than that. Mr.
Spencer's definition of life leaves, for instance, consciousness out, as
of no account in life, and would be equally applicable to many
automatic, self-adjusting machines. The definition constitutes an
admission that life and consciousness cannot be exhibited as a
consequence of the redistribution of matter and motion. They appear at a
certain (or uncertain) point in the process of redistribution, and they
have as concomitants certain further redistributions; but they are
neither the consequence of nor are they identical with that
redistribution; nor can their laws be reduced to mere cases of the laws
of matter and motion.
The doctrine that evolution consists in nothing but movements in space,
amounts to the assertion that we know nothing about things and men
except that they move. In point of fact, we know a good deal more. We
know that men think, and that the movement of thought is not a movement
in space. We know that the vibrations of the ether are movements in
space and that they are also something more: they are known to us also
as sights, sounds, etc. No explanation or concise statement of the
process of evolution can be satisfactory, or even scientific, which
begins by denying the relevance and even the reality of the most
important part of our knowledge. If the "first principles" of evolution
are to be scientific, they must be inductions drawn from observation and
based on some similarity in the phenomena observed, in which case, and
in which case alone, they will apply to both classes of phenomena,
mental and material. If any "principle" is true of one class alone, it
is shown thereby not to be a "first principle": it is not universally
applicable.
This raises the question whether there can be any first principles in
this sense, whether mind and matter are, to some extent, subject to the
same laws; or whether the resemblances which are sometimes drawn are not
merely metaphors more or less expanded. Thus we speak of "weighty"
objections; but will anyone maintain that ideas are subject to, or
exemplify, the law of gravitation? We speak of ideas as "coherent" or
"incoherent"; does anyone suppose that they stick together in the same
way and from the same causes as material objects cohere?
Mr. Herbert Spencer has written a chapter[21] under the title "Society
is an Organism," in which he points out many resemblances between
society and an organism. But Mr. Spencer himself "distinctly
asserts"[22] that the resemblances imply nothing more than that in both
society and organisms there is "a mutual dependence of parts." That is
to say, sociology does not herein "exemplify" some of the laws of
biology, but sociology and biology both exemplify certain laws which
hold good wherever there is a mutual dependence of parts.
Again, Mr. Spencer says[23] that "evolution is definable as a change
from an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity, accompanying
the dissipation of motion and integration of matter"; and, having shown
how and why the homogeneous and the incoherent in the domain of physics
tend to become coherent and heterogeneous, he proceeds to show that
there is a similar process in the evolution of knowledge, and to say
"these mental changes exemplify a law of physical transformations that
are wrought by physical forces."[24] Now it doubtless is a fact that
with intellectual development there goes a more accurate discrimination
of differences at first unnoticed, a readier perception of resemblances
at first undetected, a consequent segregation and classification of
ideas, and a recognition of heterogeneity where homogeneity was at the
first glance supposed to prevail. Doubtless, too, as a result of this
process, there is greater coherency in our ideas. But is all this
anything more than expanded metaphor? If it is something more, how can
these mental changes "exemplify" a law of physics when ideas neither
stick physically to each other nor gravitate to one another like the
particles of the original, homogeneous, nebular mass? If mental and
material phenomena can to some extent obey the same laws, and these laws
are scientific inductions, there must be some resemblance between the
phenomena.
That resemblance cannot be physical or spatial, because mental phenomena
do not occupy space, or possess weight, or exist in three dimensions. As
far as one can see, it consists in two points: both classes of phenomena
(1) are objects of thought and (2) are displays of force or power. This
implies that movements in space are displays of the same force as is
manifested in the non-spatial movements of thought. The force which is
displayed in consciousness as Will appears in space as motion. Both
classes of phenomena, however, are not only displays of force, but also
objects of thought. The reality of a phenomenon of either class
consists in its being the manifestation of Will to or in consciousness.
The reality of the two classes is co-extensive with their similarity,
and is the sole foundation for any true inferences or justifiable
generalisations about them.
If the law of "the instability of the homogeneous" is a first principle,
and is a scientific induction based upon a real similarity between the
mental and material phenomena of which it is offered as an explanation,
it becomes interesting to inquire how far the similarity extends. In the
case of mental evolution the essential feature of the process is that
the mind gradually comes to perceive resemblances and to discriminate
differences which, though they were present all the time, were not at
first appreciable. In other words, the apparently homogeneous was, from
the beginning, really heterogeneous. Now this fact, which is true in the
sphere of mental evolution, finds its exact parallel in the evolution of
the material universe, if the account given above of mechanical
compounds and chemical combinations be true. What appears first in the
process of evolution, and is exemplified by mechanics, is matter
apparently inert. But when the particles of this apparently inert matter
enter into chemical combinations with one another they reveal a fresh
set of properties, quite different from those exhibited by them previous
to their combination; and, when they enter into physiological
relations, they display yet further additional properties. This
progressive manifestation it is, and not the accompanying "dissipation
of motion and integration of matter," which constitutes evolution in the
material world, and finds its exact parallel in mental evolution. In
both cases we have Will manifested as object of thought; and in both
cases we judge most truly of that which is manifested when we judge it
by its most complete manifestation. In both cases the apparent
homogeneity is not the ultimate fact underlying everything, but is only
the first-fruits of that which is yet to come.
FOOTNOTES:
[8] _First Principles_, § 46.
[9] MILL, _Inductive Logic_, bk. iii. ch. xii. p. 549.
[10] _Ibid._
[11] _First Principles_, ch. iii. § 46.
[12] SETH, _Chambers's Encyclopædia_, _s.v._ "Philosophy."
[13] KIRCHOFF, _Vorlesungen über mathematische Physik_, i. p. 1.
[14] MERTZ, _History of European Thought in the Nineteenth Century_,
i. pp. 382, 3, note.
[15] LOTZE, _Microcosmus_, E. T., ii. p. 718.
[16] LOTZE, _Microcosmus_, E. T., ii. p. 718.
[17] MILL, _Inductive Logic_, bk. iii. ch. vi.
[18] MILL, _Inductive Logic_, bk. iii. ch. vi.
[19] CLAUDE BERNARD, quoted in _L'Année Sociologique, première
année_.
[20] _Principles of Biology_, v. § 30.
[21] _Principles of Sociology_, vol. i. part ii.
[22] _Ibid._, § 260.
[23] _First Principles_, § 127.
[24] _Ibid._, § 153.
VII.
NECESSITY
We have seen that if material things can alone be treated of by science,
if things which can be seen and handled are alone amenable to the
methods of science, then there can be no science of mind, and no
scientific laws to regulate mental phenomena. In the same way, if the
field of evolution is completely filled by the redistribution of matter
and motion, then there is no room left in the theory of evolution in
which to accommodate the history of ideas or of morals, there is no
evolution of thought or morality, no continuity between higher and lower
in the intellectual development of man and the brute.
We may admit that the methods of mental and moral science, of sociology
and political economy, are not identical with those employed by physics
or chemistry or astronomy. But we cannot admit that the facts which, if
not the proper study of mankind, are at any rate of the greatest
interest to man, are not subject to or part of the process of evolution,
and cannot be reduced to scientific law and order. The methods of the
philosophical sciences may not be the same as those of the exact
sciences; but neither are the methods of chemistry those of
astronomy--just as the instruments of the astronomer are not those of
the chemist. The exactness which is attained by those sciences that can
apply the methods of mathematics to their subject-matter cannot be
rivalled by philology or psychology. But it is not to all the material
sciences that the mathematical methods can be applied: meteorology deals
with matter in motion, but not yet with exactitude. The intangible and
invisible, but none the less real, facts of our mental and moral
experience can be measured to some extent by the statistics and averages
and curves employed by the sociologist, the demographer, and political
economist: the intensity of a desire may be estimated roughly and
relatively by the "effective demand" for its object, the will to live by
the number of suicides.
Again, we may admit that the laws of the exact or material sciences do
not extend to mental science, without thereby forfeiting the right to
subject mental phenomena to scientific investigation and analysis.
Chemistry does not cease to be a science because chemical affinity
cannot be exhibited as a case of the gravitation formula. Need
psychology renounce the claim to be a science because the laws of the
association of ideas cannot be deduced, say, from the laws of motion?
Of course, if science has no other object than to describe with
mathematical accuracy the exact way in which material things move, if no
method is scientific which does not result in such a formula, and if no
generalisation, however true, is scientific which does not formulate
motion in space, then, indeed, it is unscientific to talk of the
evolution of mind and thought, of man and of society.
On the other hand, the movements of material things in space are facts
of which we are aware, phenomena of which we are aware through our
senses; in a word, they are sense-phenomena. We are aware of them as
existing simultaneously and in combination, or as succeeding one upon
another; and no truth, even of the most mathematical and exact of the
sciences, does, or can do, more than express with mathematical exactness
the precise conditions under which these sense-phenomena co-exist or
follow one another, or the precise conditions without which such
co-existence or sequence cannot take place. A mathematical science
dealing with material things states only and always that certain
sense-phenomena occur invariably and uniformly under certain conditions.
The exact sciences move within the limits of the Uniformity of Nature
and the law of Universal Causation; and their subject-matter consists of
sense-phenomena, _i.e._ of things which, as known to science, are
objects of perception to some mind.