THE SPECTRE OF VITALISM 447 



the/ad that an egg-cell can divide and still retain its potentiality 

 of development. However absurd that fact may be, it is true. 

 But surely few will be found to agree with the theory that 

 any physico-chemical action by which such a process could be 

 brought about is so inconceivable as to justify our parading the 

 process as a proof of vitalism. The great majority of biologists 

 do not regard a mechanistic explanation as being in the least 

 inconceivable ; on the contrary, they regard it as probable, 

 even as certain. Can Driesch, then, be serious in bringing 

 forward this process, without adding a single new fact, as proof 

 of vitalism? Surely that is to beg the whole question from the 

 beginning. We might as well dispense with researches into 

 morphogenesis, declare at once that it is impossible to believe 

 we are machines and invoke this as a third proof of vitalism. 

 It would indeed be of equal cogency with the first two. 



Nor is this very far removed from Driesch's actual procedure. 

 His third proof of vitalism is founded, like the first two, on the 

 difficulty of conceiving a mechanistic explanation of some 

 complex organic event. The concrete instance which he gives 

 is that of the different effect produced when one friend tells 

 another " my brother is seriously ill " from that which would 

 have been produced if he had said " my mother is seriously ill." 

 The stimuli constituted by the sounds of these sentences are 

 closely alike. They differ in fact only in the substitution of m 

 for br. Yet the reaction of the listener is or may be altogether 

 different. If the mother and brother inhabit different parts of 

 the world, his thoughts will be carried to those parts ; and the 

 resulting trains of reflection set up in the two cases are far more 

 removed from one another than can be accounted for by so slight 

 a variation in the stimulus. No mere mechanical arrangement, 

 however complex (according to Driesch), could conceivably have 

 such a result. Driesch further strengthens the argument by 

 pointing out that, per contra, the sound stimulus may be radically 

 changed and yet the reaction remain unaltered. For the 

 sentence may be " mon frere est severement malade" or " mein 

 Bruder ist ernstlich erkrankt." The result of either of these 

 would be the same as though they were spoken in English. 

 Thus, says Driesch, the result cannot be mechanically brought 

 about by the stimulus. 



This argument amounts to saying that because we cannot 

 point out in detail how the machine works, it cannot therefore 

 29 



