THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE AND MIND 77 



psychic phenomena, on which Sir O. Lodge ultimately 

 grounds his theory, in the same general way, we are likely 

 to be debarred from ever entering upon an examination of 

 them, as a hole-and-corner business, marked by a remarkable 

 story of fraud and hallucination. It is always more profit- 

 able to rise from well-established details and facts to 

 generalisations. However, Sir O. Lodge dwells so much 

 on consciousness that we must single this out as par 

 excellence the vital function that he believes to be 

 immaterial. 1 



I am not going to attempt to give a mechanical explana- 

 tion of consciousness. The only relevant thing to do is to 

 show the complete futility of the reasons alleged by those 

 who say it cannot be of material origin, and therefore must 

 be from an immaterial world. The best way to approach 

 the subject is through the evolution of mind. There are 

 philosophical critics of Haeckel who fancy that to prove 

 the evolution of consciousness proves nothing as to its 

 nature. But I find that one of the latest German writers 

 on philosophy, Dr. Otto Gramzow, declares that Haeckel's 

 "criticism of Kant's philosophy from the evolutionary 



1 Here he has positive data on which to speak of Haeckel being 

 "abandoned by his colleagues," or a few of them. He dwells on it 

 with luxuriant rhetoric, but even here has to improve on the facts. He 

 says the seceders from Haeckel have " marched in a more idealistic 

 direction." Now, the chief of them was Professor Virchow, and 

 Virchow declined to apply the mechanical theory to consciousness on 

 the express and repeated ground that he wanted a basis for " compro- 

 mise with the ruling Churches." Some of us prefer the "idealism" 

 that makes no compromise where truth is concerned. 



