300 BRAINS OF RATS AND MEN 



come in at the beginning of a scientific inquiry. In 

 fact, the purpose of the inquiry is to make such defi- 

 nitions possible, and they come (if at all) at its 

 close. We certainly are not yet in possession of a 

 final definition of either mind or matter, but we have 

 practical working knowledge of both which is ade- 

 quate for getting along in the world and for the 

 prosecution of further scientific inquiry. 



Awareness, mind, consciousness, are currently 

 used in so diverse ways that one would like to be able 

 to define his own usage unambiguously. My only re- 

 sponse to this appeal is ad hominem. If I know that 

 I have an experience, this is a conscious act, a mental 

 process, an awareness. In this work no attempt is 

 made to analyze this experience further, to distin- 

 guish the various grades or qualities of experiencing 

 or knowing, or to justify, psychologically or other- 

 wise, the common-sense datum that I can and do have 

 experience. Ordinarily this implies a polarization of 

 myself over against the objects "of which" I am 

 aware, but the usage here adopted carries with it no 

 implication that such a subject-object polarization is 

 a necessary factor in all kinds of awareness. There 

 may be simpler forms of awareness in which ''self- 

 consciousness" is not a factor.^ I do not know. The 

 various attempts to define mind, mental or psychic, 

 in terms of any kinds of process which are known only 

 as "objects" with any sort of awareness left out, do 

 not clarify the question for me at all. 



* Lotka thinks that this is probable (1925, p. 392). 



