IS MAN AN AUTOMATION 155 



concomitants. This means that a given idea can not exist unless there 

 is a certain brain-change. But it also means that the brain-change 

 in question can not possibly exist unless the corresponding idea exists. 

 The relation between the two is not conceived to be an accidental one. 

 For reasons which have been indicated, the parallelist objects to calling 

 it a causal relation, and prefers the word ' concomitance.' Nevertheless, 

 he regards the relation as one on which we may depend absolutely — 

 as absolutely as we can depend upon the relation between a physical 

 cause and its effect. 



But, if this is so, the plain man may perfectly well become a 

 parallelist and yet go on talking as though certain results could not 

 be brought about in the absence of minds. He is quite justified in 

 maintaining that no clever book could ever be written, no such day 

 as his has been ever lived through, by a creature without a mind. 

 He may, if he choose, leave to the scholar by profession the question 

 whether the word ' cause ' is not somewhat loosely used in common life. 

 What he cares about stands firm on any hypothesis: ideas are signifi- 

 cant; if he can work out a satisfactory plan in his mind, desirable 

 results will be achieved ; if he has not the ideas, the results will *D.ot 

 follow. 



Now for the last point. Should the parallelist abandon our usual 

 ways of thinking and speaking about ourselves and others ? It must be 

 admitted that the words used by some parallelists suggest, at least, that 

 he should do so. 



" An automaton is a thing that goes by itself when it is wound up, 

 and we go by ourselves when we have had food." The suggestion 

 certainly is that, if we want men to function, we should feed them. 



It has been known, of course, from time immemorial, and in every 

 country under heaven, that men who get no food at all will soon cease 

 to go; and it has been known also that men who get too much drink 

 will first go irregularly and then not at all. It is an old secret that 

 what goes into the mouth of a man is not a matter of indifference. 



But did any man, parallelist or interactionist, ever try to control the 

 actions of his fellow man in detail by the giving of food? or try to 

 explain why Mrs. Smith visits Mrs. Brown and neglects Mrs. Jones, 

 by investigating the diet of that discriminating lady? We can not 

 explain her taking the longer walk through the park rather than the 

 shorter one along the street, by pointing out that she has legs. If she 

 were unprovided with these members, she would undoubtedly not walk 

 at all; but her having them does not enlighten us as to her choice of 

 a walk, nor does it give any key to the control of her actions. 



Clifford himself never tried to make men e go ' by the administra- 

 tion of food; he wound them up by public lectures and by printed 

 essays, when he wanted them to think as he did and to act as he wished 



