﻿156 
  THE 
  UNIQUENESS 
  OF 
  LIFE 
  

  

  In 
  a 
  case 
  of 
  this 
  sort 
  it 
  is 
  the 
  opinion 
  of 
  expert 
  physicists 
  

   that 
  is 
  most 
  valued, 
  and 
  in 
  discussing 
  the 
  analogous 
  case 
  

   of 
  the 
  operation 
  of 
  our 
  will, 
  the 
  late 
  Prof. 
  J. 
  H. 
  Poyn- 
  

   ting, 
  an 
  authority 
  of 
  eminence, 
  suggested 
  that 
  a 
  merely 
  

   deflecting 
  force 
  does 
  no 
  work 
  though 
  it 
  changes 
  configura- 
  

   tion. 
  The 
  will 
  may 
  introduce 
  a 
  constraint 
  which 
  guides 
  

   molecules 
  to 
  glide 
  past 
  one 
  another 
  instead 
  of 
  clashing 
  a 
  

   slight 
  change 
  of 
  spin 
  which 
  may 
  be 
  compensated 
  for 
  by 
  a 
  

   slight 
  opposite 
  spin 
  put 
  on 
  the 
  rest 
  of 
  the 
  body. 
  " 
  The 
  will 
  

   may 
  act 
  as 
  a 
  guiding 
  power 
  changing 
  the 
  direction 
  of 
  the 
  

   atoms 
  and 
  molecules 
  in 
  the 
  brain, 
  and 
  we 
  can 
  imagine 
  such 
  

   a 
  guiding 
  power 
  without 
  having 
  to 
  modify 
  our 
  ideas 
  of 
  

   the 
  constancy 
  of 
  matter 
  or 
  the 
  constancy 
  of 
  motion 
  or 
  even 
  

   the 
  constancy 
  of 
  energy' 
  (Poynting, 
  1903, 
  p. 
  745). 
  

  

  (6) 
  A 
  recurrent 
  argument 
  in 
  Driesch's 
  exposition 
  of 
  his 
  

   doctrine 
  of 
  vitalism 
  is 
  that 
  no 
  machine-like 
  agency 
  can 
  possi- 
  

   bly 
  account 
  for 
  the 
  facts 
  of 
  development, 
  inheritance, 
  and 
  be- 
  

   haviour. 
  A 
  machine 
  is 
  defined 
  as 
  " 
  a 
  given 
  specific 
  combina- 
  

   tion 
  of 
  specific 
  chemical 
  and 
  physical 
  agents 
  ", 
  and 
  Driesch 
  

   seeks 
  to 
  reduce 
  to 
  absurdity 
  the 
  theory 
  that 
  any 
  machine 
  could 
  

   do 
  what 
  is 
  required. 
  His 
  argument 
  is 
  very 
  convincing, 
  but 
  

   of 
  course 
  we 
  can 
  argue 
  only 
  about 
  machines 
  that 
  we 
  know, 
  

   and 
  imaginative 
  combinations 
  or 
  improvements 
  of 
  these, 
  so 
  

   it 
  seems 
  open 
  to 
  the 
  critic 
  to 
  reply 
  that 
  no 
  one 
  knows 
  all 
  possi- 
  

   ble 
  machines, 
  and 
  to 
  urge 
  that 
  proving 
  the 
  untenability 
  of 
  a 
  

   machine-theory 
  does 
  not 
  prove 
  the 
  necessity 
  of 
  postulating 
  

   an 
  Entelechy. 
  

  

  Concerning 
  the 
  ingenious 
  machines 
  almost 
  super- 
  

   machines 
  invented 
  by 
  man, 
  it 
  may 
  not 
  be 
  needless 
  to 
  re- 
  

   mind 
  ourselves 
  that 
  their 
  introduction 
  into 
  the 
  argument 
  

   is 
  apt 
  to 
  be 
  fallacious. 
  For 
  they, 
  like 
  the 
  wonderful 
  achieve- 
  

   ments 
  of 
  the 
  synthetic 
  chemists, 
  are 
  the 
  fruits 
  of 
  intelligence, 
  

  

  