220 Transactions of the Society. 



as manifested by man belong to a totally different category. They 

 maintain that while the movement of living matter is physical, con- 

 sciousness is altogether and absolutely distinct, and must be placed 

 in a separate class. But those who entertain this idea ought surely 

 to point out exactly what they mean by " consciousness," and the 

 particular phenomena to which they propose to restrict the term 

 " psychical " as opposed to physical. Yet this consciousness, which 

 is held to be quite distinct from irritability and other supposed 

 properties of ordinary matter, some of which are manifested by 

 living matter, is intimately associated with living matter only — 

 nay, we can even point out the living matter which is concerned in 

 the manifestation of consciousness. The extreme divergence of 

 opinion existing in connection with this part of the subject is very 

 remarkable. Thus Virchow confers upon cells a power of influ- 

 encing neighbouring cells, in virtue of which they seem, according to 

 him, to be cognizant of what is going on around them, nay, almost 

 capable of acting in sympathy with the actions of neighbouring 

 cells. Haeckel ironically retorts " that we must ascribe an inde- 

 pendent soul-life to each organic cell." We must distinguish, says 

 Haeckel, " between the central soul of the total polycellular organ- 

 ism, or the ' personal soul,' and the separate elementary souls of the 

 single cells, or ' cell souls.' " But Haeckel's " soul " is evidently so 

 very vague in its nature and so uncertain in its manifestation, that 

 it is at present impossible to predicate anything more definite con- 

 cerning it, than that in all probability, like the Batliyhius Haechelii, 

 it originated by spontaneous generation from some form of the in- 

 organic flourishing at unfathomable depths. The discussion is ren- 

 dered still more difficult by the perplexing views of many concerning 

 the likeness of things which, to all ordinary minds, seem to be very 

 unlike one another. Particularly as regards the words " identical " 

 and " identity " is there much confusion. 



It would, indeed, be difficult in any other department of human 

 knowledge to find anything to equal the extravagance of the hypo- 

 theses recently advanced concerning living matter and its properties. 

 We are told that particles of matter out of which are evolved 

 things utterly unlike one another are nevertheless identical. 



The stuff which develops an oak, that which becomes a cabbage, 

 that which gives origin to a dog, and the living matter which 

 represents a man at an early stage, are all said to be " identical." 

 Because forsooth two portions of matter resemble one another closely 

 in appearance, in the elements which enter into their composition, in 

 the way in which they increase, divide, and so forth, they are " iden- 

 •tical." We may actually see matter developing into a man, and 

 matter developing into a dog, and because we cannot distinguish 

 one from the other by physical investigation, we are expected to 

 assent to the dictum that they are identical. It is difficult to argue 



