Scientifically, life is a physico-chemical process. Transformations of
matter, with which the chemist deals, and transformations of energy,
with which the physicist deals, are all that is comprised in the
phenomenon of life; and mind, intellect, soul, personality, the ego, are
mere functions of the physico-chemical process of life, vanishing when
this process ceases, but are not a part of the transformations of matter
and of energy. If you thus speak of "mental energy," it scientifically
is a misnomer, and mind is not energy in the physical sense. It is true
that mental effort, intellectual work, is accompanied by transformations
of matter, chemical changes in the brain, and by transformations of
energy. But the mental activity is not a part of the energy or of the
matter which is transformed, but the balance of energy and of matter
closes.
In the energy transformations accompanying mental activity, just as much
energy of one form appears as energy of some other form is consumed, and
the mental activity is no part of the energy. In the transformations of
matter accompanying mental activity, just as much matter of one form
appears as matter of some other form is consumed, and the mental
activity is no part of either--that is, neither energy nor matter has
been transformed into mental activity, nor has energy or matter been
produced by mental activity. All attempts to account for the mental
activity as produced by the expenditure of physical energy, or as
producing physical energy--that is, exerting forces and action--have
failed and must fail, and so must any attempt to record or observe and
measure mental activity by physical methods--that is, methods sensitive
to the action of physical forces.
But what, then, is mind? Is it a mere phenomenon, accompanying the
physico-chemical reactions of life and vanishing with the end of the
reaction, just as the phenomenon of a flame may accompany a chemical
reaction, and vanish when the reaction is completed? Or is mind an
entity, just like the entity energy and the entity matter, but differing
from either of them--in short, a third entity? We have compared mind
with the phenomenon of a flame accompanying a chemical reaction; but,
after all, the flame is not a mere phenomenon, but is an entity, is
energy.
More than once, in the apparently continuous and unbroken structure of
science, wide gaps have been discovered into which new sections of
knowledge fitted, sections the existence of which had never been
suspected. So in Mendelejeff's _Periodic System of the Elements_ all
chemical elements fitted in without gaps--in a continuous series (except
a few missing links, which were gradually discovered and filled in).
Nevertheless, the whole group of six noble gases, from helium to
emanium, were discovered and fitted into the periodic system at a place
where nobody had suspected a gap.
One of the most interesting of such unsuspected gaps in the structure of
science is the following, because of its pertinency to the subject of
our discussion.
In studying the transformations of matter, the chemist records them by
equations of the form:
(1) 2H_{2} + O_{2} = 2H_{2}O, which means:
Two gram molecules of hydrogen H_{2}(2 X 2 = 4 grams) and 1 gram
molecule of oxygen O_{2}(1 X 32 grams), combine to 2 gram molecules of
water vapor H_{2}O (2 X 18 = 36 grams).
For nearly a hundred years chemists wrote and accepted this equation;
innumerable times it has been experimentally proved by combining 4 parts
of hydrogen and 32 parts of oxygen to 36 parts of water vapor; so that
this chemical equation would appear as correct and unquestionable as
anything can be.
Nevertheless, it is wrong, or rather incomplete. It does not give the
whole event, but omits an essential part of it, and now we write it:
(2) 2H_{2} + O_{2} = 2H_{2}O + 293,000 J., which means:
The matter _and energy_ of 2 gram molecules of hydrogen, and the matter
_and energy_ of 1 gram molecule of oxygen, combine to the matter _and
energy_ of 2 gram molecules of water vapor and 293,000 joules, or units,
of _free energy_.
For a hundred years the chemists thus saw only the material
transformation as represented by equation (1), but overlooked and did
not recognize the energy transformation coincident with the
transformation of matter, though every time the experiment was made, the
293,000 J. of energy in equation (2) made themselves felt as flame, as
heat and mechanical force, sometimes even explosively shattering the
container in which the experiment was made. But the flame and the
explosion appeared only as an incidental phenomenon without
significance, as it represents and contains no part of the matter, but
equation (1) gives the complete balance of matter in transformation. It
was much later that the scientists realized the significance of the
flame accompanying the material transformation as not a mere incidental
phenomenon, but as the manifestation of the entity energy, permanent and
indestructible, like matter, and the complete equation (2) appeared,
giving the balance of energy as well as the balance of matter--that is,
coincident with the transformation of matter is a transformation of
energy, and both are indissoluble from each other, either involves the
other, and both may be called different aspects of the same phenomenon.
But we have seen, when mental activity occurs in our mind, chemical and
physical transformations accompany it, are coincident with it, and
apparently indissoluble from it. Does there possibly exist the same
relation between mental activity and the transformations of energy and
matter, as we have seen to exist between the latter two? Are mental
activity, energy transformation, and transformation of matter three
aspects of the same biochemical phenomenon?
If for nearly a hundred years equation (1) was considered complete,
until we found that one side was incomplete, and arrived at the more
complete equation (2), the question may well be raised: Is equation (2)
complete, dealing as it does with two entities, matter and energy, or is
it not possibly still incomplete, and a third entity should appear in
the equation, an entity "X," as I may call it, differing from energy and
from matter, just as energy and matter differ from each other, and
therefore not recognizable and measurable by the means which measure
energy or matter, just as energy cannot be measured by the same means as
matter?
That is, the complete equation of transformation would read:
(3) 2H_{2} + O_{2} = 2H_{2}O + 293,000 J. + X, involving all three
entities, matter, energy, and mind, pertaining, respectively, to the
realm of chemistry, of physics, and of psychology, or possibly a broader
science of which psychology is one branch.
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of the existence of such a
third entity, "X," but all our deductions have been by analogy, which
proves nothing--that is, by speculation, dreaming, and unavoidably
so--since in these conceptions we are close to the border line of the
human mind where logical reasoning loses itself in the fog of
contradiction. But at the same time there is no evidence against the
conception of an entity "X"; it is not illogical, at least no more so
than all such general conceptions, no more so than, for instance, that
of energy or of matter. As empirical science deals with energy and
matter, and entity "X" is neither, it could not be observed by any of
the methods of experimental physics or chemistry.
If mind is a third entity, correlated with the entities of energy and
of matter, we should expect that mental activity, or entity "X," should
occur not only in the highly complex transformations of energy and of
matter taking place in the brains of the highest orders of living
beings, but that entity "X" should appear in all physico-chemical
reactions, just as energy transformations always occur in
transformations of matter, and inversely. But this seems not so, and in
most of the transformations of energy and of matter entity "X" does not
appear. However, we have no satisfactory means of recognizing entity
"X," no methods of studying it. Therefore, it may well be that it is
noticed only in those rare instances when it appears of high intensity,
but in most reactions entity "X" may be so small or appear in such way
as to escape observation by the means and by the methods now available.
Like energy or matter, entity "X" may have many forms in which it is not
recognized by us, just as for a long time the flame was not recognized
as the entity energy.
To illustrate, again by analogy: In many transformations of matter,
indeed, in most of the more complex ones of the organic world, the
concurrent energy transformation is of such slowness and of such low
intensity that it appears nonexisting, and can be discovered and
measured only by the delicate experiments devised by science.
Furthermore, the energy may appear in different forms. Thus the 293,000
J. of energy in equation (2) may appear as heat, or as electrical
energy, or as a combination of heat, light, sound, and mechanical
energy. Now assume that we could observe and notice only one of the
forms of energy--for instance, only electrical energy. We should then
find that in the equation (1) we only sometimes get energy--that is,
electrical energy--under special peculiar conditions, but usually do not
seem to get any of the entity energy, simply because we do not recognize
it in the form in which it appears. Analogously, there might be a term
of entity "X" in all transformations, even such simple ones as equation
(3), but entity "X" may appear in a far different, simpler form. It
would mean that "mind" is only one form of entity "X," perhaps the
high-grade form, as it appears in highly complex reactions. In the
simpler physico-chemical processes of nature, entity "X" also would
appear, but in other, simpler forms. It would mean that things such as
mind and intellect are not limited to the higher living beings, but
characteristics akin thereto would be found grading down throughout all
living and inanimate nature. This does not appear unreasonable when we
consider that some characteristics of life are found throughout all
nature, even in the crystal which, in its mother liquor, repairs a
lesion, "heals a wound," or which, in the colloidal solution, may be
"poisoned" by prussic acid.
Assume, then, that mind, intellect, personality, the ego, were forms of
a third entity, an entity "X," correlated in nature with the entities
energy and matter. Then, just as energy and matter continuously change
their forms, so with the transformations of energy and of matter, entity
"X" would continuously change, disappear in one form and reappear in
another form. Entity "X" could therefore not exist permanently in one
and the same form, and the permanency of the ego--that is,
immortality--would still be illogical, would not exist within the realm
of science, but would carry us beyond the limitations of the human mind
into the unknowable. Permanency of the ego--that is, individual
immortality--would require a form of entity "X," in which it is not
further transformable. This would be the case if the transformations of
entity "X" are not completely reversible, but tend one definite
direction, from lower-grade to higher-grade forms, and the latter thus
would gradually build up to increasing permanency. There is nothing
unreasonable in this, but a similar condition--in the reverse
direction--exists with the transformations of energy. They also are not
completely reversible, but tend in a definite direction, from higher- to
lower-grade form--unavailable heat energy (the increase of entropy by
the second law of thermodynamics). Thus in infinite time the universe
should come to a standstill, in spite of the law of conservation of
energy, by all energy becoming unavailable for further
transformation--that is, becoming dead energy. If entity "X" existed,
could it not also have become unavailable for further transformation by
reaching its maximum high-grade form and thus become not susceptible to
further change--that is, "immortal"--just as the unavailable heat of the
physicist is "immortal," and not capable of further transformation? Here
we are again in the fog of illogic, beyond the limitations. However, it
sounds familiar to the Nirvana of the Buddhist.
Physics and chemistry obviously could not deal with entity "X," and the
most delicate and sensitive physical or chemical instruments could get
no indication of it, and all attempts at investigation by physical or
chemical means thus must be doomed to failure. But such investigations
of entity "X" belong to the realm of the science of psychology, or,
rather, a broader science, of which psychology is one branch dealing
with one form of entity "X," mind, just as, for instance,
electro-physics is one branch of the broader science of physics, dealing
with electrical energy, while physics deals with all forms of energy.
In concluding, I wish to say that nothing in the preceding speculations
can possibly encourage spiritism or other pseudo-science. On the
contrary, from the preceding it is obvious that the alleged
manifestations of spiritism must be fake or self-deception, since they
are manifestations of energy. Entity "X," if it exists, certainly is not
energy, and therefore could not manifest itself as such.