70 SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE ORGANISM 



of the reaction when the stimulus is altered fundamentally, 

 and again, there may be the most fundamental difference in 

 the reaction when there is almost no change in the stimulus. 

 This is a very strange result to have reached by our 

 analysis. 



Let us now try to state our result in more abstract form. 

 This will bring us face to face with our central problem : Is 

 acting explainable on the hypothesis of a specific physico- 

 chemical arrangement, say a machine, or is it not ? 



The individualised stimulus in acting, represented in 

 our instance by the phrase " my brother is seriously ill," may 

 be expressed analytically as being a specific arrangement of 

 the specific elements a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and so on. The 

 specific effect which the stimulus has upon the acting person, 

 say the friend B in our example, may be figured as being a 

 typical combination of a ]t b^ c v d v e v f r g v h v i v and so 

 on. The question then is : How is the series a, I, c, etc. 

 connected with the series a lt b v c^ etc., and is there any 

 way of explaining a , & , c , etc. by a, b, c, etc., with the aid 

 of the given organisation, with the aid of the brain in 

 particular, or at least with the aid of any kind of machine, 

 in the broadest sense of the word, in general ? 



Matters would be easy if to each element of the stimulus 

 there corresponded an element of the effect, if a^ were the 

 effect of a, \ of b, c of c, and so on. That is so in the 

 phonograph, but by no means in acting. How then may 

 our observations of what happens in ordinary conversation 

 be formulated analytically ? It seems to me that our 

 particular result may be generalised in the following 

 manner. 



Firstly, change the stimulus from , &, c, d, e, /, g, h, i 



