HOW PHENOMENA ARE INTERPRETED. 75 



is present, and conditions the exchange either in character or 

 amount. There is no physical thing which possesses it and is 

 able to impart any of it to another thing without an equal loss 

 to itself. Yet the above conception of something with inher- 

 ent energy, able to move other bodies in this way or that, with- 

 out being depleted in its store, implies as much. To make the 

 matter clearer, suppose a mechanical engine to be thus endowed 

 with energy inherent in it and able to act without loss ; evidently 

 it would be what we would call a perpetual motion, would give 

 power indefinitely, and that without any supply for its expendi- 

 ture. It would mean an infinite source in a finite thing, and a 

 finite thing which can do an infinite amount of work. If this 

 be considered as an attribute of mind, that is, such a mind as 

 humanity exhibits and which each individual of us is assumed 

 to possess, then each one of us would so far be independent of 

 antecedents, and would need no other resources, which is con- 

 trary to our uniform experiences. It should be noted that this 

 cannot be considered as a matter of degree, that is, ability 

 to do more or less, for the smallest thing or object possessing 

 ability to do work of any kind without a physical supply from 

 some other source can do an infinite amount of work in an 

 infinite time. The whole has to be granted or nothing. If we 

 are to eschew romancing and interpret phenomena in accordance 

 with our uniform experiences, that is, scientifically, for that is 

 scientific method, then it seems plain that one must surrender 

 the notion that life and mind energize ordinary matter which is 

 otherwise inert or dead. There is something wrong in one 

 assumption or the other as to the nature of mind or the nature 

 of matter or possibly both. 



What reason has been given or can be given for supposing 

 that matter, as we know it, is inert and incapable of doing any- 

 thing ? There are two answers to this, one coming from relig- 

 ious or theological sources, the other from a physical source ; 

 the former probably derived from the story of the creation of 

 living things wherein special creative acts were needed to endow 

 matter with life, and a second creative effort to endow a living 

 thing, man, with a soul. Such a view assumed that matter 

 had in it neither life nor mind, and therefore considered it as 



