BIOPSYCHOLOGICAL 639 



CONCLUSIONS 



I. By "mind in animals" we mean whatever in them corresponds 

 in any degree to our own inner hfe of thinking, feeling, and purposing ; 

 but we must be prepared to find that what is a powerful stream in 

 ourselves is a very slender rill in many an animal. 



2. The inner or psychical life cannot be reduced to a lower 

 common denominator of nervous impulses and the like. The psycho- 

 logical cannot be expressed in terms of the physiological. Mental 

 activity cannot be explained in terms of matter and energy. To 

 mention only one reason: we require mental activity to realise 

 matter and energy at all, before and after we investigate them. 



3. No thinker has attained to clearness in regard to what is called, 

 badly perhaps, the relation of "Body" and "Mind". We say "badly 

 perhaps" because that way of putting the question commits one to 

 the theory that "Body" and "Mind" can be thought of as separate 

 realities or entities. Perhaps they are separable, as many believe, 

 but this should not be assumed at the beginning of the inquiry. 

 Some thinkers believe that the Mind uses the Body as its instrument, 

 as a musician his violin. To others it seems that mental and bodily, 

 psychical and physical, subjective and objective, are two aspects of 

 one activity which we call Life — ^just like the concave or inner and 

 the convex or outer surfaces of a dome. And there are other theories. 

 But in any case the certainty is that these are two sides of the 

 behaviour of man and of higher animals, and that neither can 

 be ignored. Sometimes the physiological or bodily side is more 

 prominent, and we say "B^opsychosis" or Body -mind. At another 

 time the psychological or mental side is more dominant, and we say 

 " Psychohiosis" or Mind-body. 



4. Animals seldom show more cleverness than is demanded of 

 them by the conditions of their life; and if frequently recurring 

 difficulties can be adequately met by some inborn predisposition 

 of the body, as when elvers swim straight upstream, or by some 

 ready-made or instinctive equipment that does not need any indi- 

 vidual apprenticeship or learning, there is not likely to be much (if 

 any) evidence of intelHgence on these occasions. 



5. In many cases it seems Hkely that the psychological side of 

 the animal's life does not count for very much in the ordinary 

 behaviour. That is to say, what the creature does may be sufficiently 

 accounted for by what has been racially enregistered in its Body- 

 mind, or, as some would prefer to say, in its Body. As Spinoza 

 warned us, we should beware of being dogmatic in regard to what 

 the body, as body, may not be able to do. In such cases we must 

 try to avoid two extremes. We must not think of a minute Mind, 

 which might be called a "menticule", sitting in the organism out 



