CHAPTER VI 



AN AETIFICIAL HELIOTEOPIC MACHINE 



THE reader will have perceived that in the preceding 

 analysis animals are treated as machines whose appar- 

 ently volitional or instinctive acts, as e.g., the motion 

 toward the light, are purely physical phenomena. The 

 best proof of the correctness of our view would consist 

 in the fact that machines could be built showing the same 

 type of volition or instinct as an animal going to the light. 

 This proof has been furnished by the well-known inventor, 

 Mr. John Hays Hammond, Jr. The following is a descrip- 

 tion of the machine given by one of Mr. Hammond's 

 fellow-workers who cooperated with him in the develop- 

 ment of the machine, Mr. B. F. Miessner. 



This " Orientation Mechanism " consists of a rectangular box, about 

 3 feet long, 1% feet wide, and 1 foot high. This box contains all the 

 instruments and mechanism, and is mounted on three wheels, two of 

 which are geared to a driving motor, and the third, on the rear end, is so 

 mounted that its bearings can be turned by solenoid electro-magnets 

 in a horizontal plane. Two 5-inch condensing lenses on the forward end 

 appear very much like large eyes. 



If a portable electric light, such as a hand flashlight, be turned on in 

 front of the machine it will immediately begin to move toward the light 

 and, moreover, will follow that light all around the room in many complex 

 manoeuvres at a speed of about 3 feet per second. The smallest circle 

 in which it will turn is about 10 feet diameter; this is due to the limiting 

 motion of the steering wheel. 



Upon shading or switching off the light the " dog " can be stopped 

 immediately, but it will resume its course behind the moving light so 

 long as the light reaches the condensing lenses in sufficient intensity. In- 

 deed, it is more faithful in this respect than the proverbial ass behind 

 the bucket of oats. To the uninitiated the performance of the pseudo 

 dog is very uncanny indeed. 



The explanation is very similar to that given by Jacques Loeb, of 

 reasons responsible for the flight of moths into a flame. . . . 

 68 



