THE UNIQUENESS OF LIFE 147 



If the term vitalism be restricted to (III), as many would 

 restrict it, and if a mechanistic theory mean tliat the cate- 

 gories of physics and chemistry suffice for tlie adequate de- 

 scription of the life of organisms (leaving mental processes 

 out of account), then we suggest that the proper answer to 

 the question " Mechanism or Vitalism ? " is '^ Neither ". 

 We regard the question as one of the many false dichotomies 

 with which Man in his search after clearness has been led 

 astray. The biologist is not bound to accept either a Vital 

 Force Theory, or a Machine Theory; he may demand a 

 hiological theory in terms of concepts neither transcendental 

 nor mechanical. 



§ 3. Are Organisms Unique in Virtue of their Complexity? 



The first position, recognising, as every one must, a nota- 

 ble difference between an organism and a not-living thing, 

 finds the difference in the much greater material complexity. 

 The configurations of elementary particles are so much more 

 intricate in organisms that the activities of organisms cannot 

 be predicted from our formulation of what occurs in inor- 

 ganic systems. This idea applies in other fields : If we have 

 never seen more than two or three people together, we are 

 not likely to be able to predict how a great crowd will be- 

 have. The mechanist passing to the study of living crea- 

 tures is like the student of inorganic chemistry who is sud- 

 denly confronted by the carbon compounds; he is assured 

 that he is still at the same science, but he finds this difficult 

 to believe, the data are so diiferent. This is a vital istic 

 view in so far as it recognises the apartness of living creatures 

 from things in general, but it does not admit that the problem 

 of the Amoeba on the hunt is more than a very difficult 

 problem in dynamics. It does not admit that now concepts 



