August 6, 1891] 



NATURE 



19 



yet been published, and even a fragment like the present, 

 containing a list of the species of a neighbouring region, 

 is a welcome addition to our knowledge. Four other 

 "Parts" have been issued on the Insecta — the " Neuro- 

 ptera" and " Hymenoptera" (both in 1878), and the 

 •' Lepidoptera " and "Rhynchota" (both in 1879); the 

 last Part of the whole series being the "Araneidea" 

 (1885). 



Popular Astronomy. By Sir George B. Airy, K.C.B. 



Seventh Edition. Revised by H. H. Turner, M.A., B.Sc. 



(London : Macmillan and Co., 1891.) 

 Although our astronomical knowledge has been enor- 

 mously extended since the lectures forming the basis of 

 this well-known book were delivered (1848), Mr. Turner 

 has not found it necessary to make any very considerable 

 revision, for the reason that the advances have been 

 chiefly on the chemical and physical sides. Still, in the 

 lapse of time, methods of observation have been im- 

 proved, and accounts of these find a place in Mr. Turner's 

 notes. Among these are short descriptions of the chrono- 

 graph and the new " electrical controls " for the driving- 

 clocks of equatorials. One of the most noteworthy 

 points brought out in the new edition, however, is the 

 modern estimate of the value of observations of the 

 transit of Venus as a means of determining the solar 

 parallax. It was formerly supposed that this would be 

 one of the best methods, but the difficulties encountered 

 in 1874 and 18S2 prevented observations of the necessary 

 degree of accuracy ; and now most astronomers are of 

 opinion that this method can never give more than an 

 approximation to the truth. Numerous minor additions 

 have also been judiciously made. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



( The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 10 return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any other part of Nature. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications.^ 



Force and Determinism. 



" The relation between force, which is a mechanical thing, 

 and will or life, or whatever it is, which is a psychological 

 thing "—a relation which, as Dr. Lodge rightly says, "demands 

 investigation " — presents if^elf to some of us as follows. 



When a stimulus received by an organism gives rise to a 

 response, however particular to the individual respondent, there 

 are (i) a number of complex but determinate molecular changes 

 in the organic tissues ; and (2), accompanying some of these 

 changes, certain psychological states Are these psychological 

 states produced by the molecular changes? or are the m' lecular 

 changes produced or in any way guided by the psychological 

 states ? Neither the one nor the other. The molecular changes 

 and the psychological states are different aspects of the same 

 occurrences. In other words, they are distinguishable (and the 

 distinction is absolute), but not divisible. 



"The energy displayed by a gang of navvies is not theirs, 

 hut their victuals' ; they simply direct it." In physiological 

 language it is the outcome of the proper functioning of their 

 cerebral control-centres. Now we believe that, although we 

 can at present by no means adequately explain them, all the 

 molecular occurrences within the organism, forming, as we 

 believe they do, an orderly and determinate sequence between 

 stimulus and response, whether they involve force or energy, 

 are of such a nature as to be explicable in physical and physio- 

 logical terms. The fact that certain phases of the sequence have 

 also a subjective or psychological aspect does not, it is held, 

 justify us in changing our point of view, and ignoring the distinc- 

 tion between the p'^ychology and the physiology of the process. 



Now to say that mind, or will, or consciousness directs the 

 organic energy along a definite path we regard as incorrect, 

 because it ignores a distinction which we hold to be valid and 

 valuable, and conducive to clear thinking on these difficult 

 subjects. But we have no such objection to the statement that 



NO. I I 36, VOL. 44] 



the energy is guided by molecular forces which have for their 

 subjective aspect certain states of consciousness. To unscien- 

 tific folk this may sound mere quibbling ; but to physicists, who 

 have done so much to teach us the vital importance of accurate 

 language for clear thinking, we look for support in drawing this 

 distinction, unless the distinction can be shown to be either 

 invalid or useless. 



This distinction between force, energy, and the physical series 

 (what I have elsewhere spoken of as kinesis) on the one hand, 

 and thought, consciousness, and the psychical series (what I 

 have elsewhere spoken of as metakinesis) on the other hand, we 

 hold to be absolute ; while at the same time we hold that con- 

 sciousness is indivisible from particular (neural) modes of kinesis. 

 And this distinction we hold to be especially valuable when 

 questions of the origin and development of consciousness are 

 under consideration. This may, perhaps, best be expressed by a 

 diagram. 



SIMPLE FORMS OF KINESIS 

 SIMPLE FORMS OF METAKINESIS 



wiAA/lT 



Now, looked at from above, this wriggle is supposed to repre- 

 sent the development, from simple forms of molecular transac- 

 tions, of that complex form of kinesis which we call neurosis. 

 From this point of view, all is force and energy or kinesis, and 

 can become nothing else. Looked at from below, we have the 

 development of consciousness. From what ? We must not say 

 from lower forms of energy or kinesis, because that involves 

 jumping across the line, or, in other words, ignoring the dis- 

 tinction. From what, then? From those lower forms of 

 ' ' something- which-is-not-yet - consciousness - but- which - may-de- 

 velop-into-consciousness," for which I have ventured to coin the 

 term metakinesis. 



I have elsewhere endeavoured to show that this view is not 

 open to the objection that, since the kinetic sequence is a con- 

 tinuous and determinate one, consciousness is merely a by- 

 product, and that an unconscious Darwin might have written 

 and influenced the conduct of unconscious Englishmen. For 

 consciousness, though it is distinguishable from, is, according to 

 the hypothesis, no less inseparable from, certain complex modes 

 of the kinetic process. As the world is constituted, such 

 supposed kineses, separated from their metakinetic aspect, would 

 not be the same kineses but something altogether different. In 

 other words, it is with certain molecular transactions which have 

 also a conscious aspect that, in the world of living beings of 

 which we have practical knowledge, we have to deal. 



It is essential that physicists and psychologists should work 

 hand in hand. Both are endeavouring to explain the phenomena 

 on positive lines. And if there is anything in the views that I 

 have briefly sketched in the preceding paragraphs which runs 

 counter to the conclusions of physics, it must go by the board, 

 and give place to a more widely-consistent conclusion, to which 

 physics, speaking with the voice of authority in its own special 

 province, can give a cordial assent. C. Lloyd Morgan. 



I AM afraid that, as Prof. Lodge has accepted my "middle 

 paragraph " so easily, he has failed to appreciate its point. For, 

 if that paragraph is correct, the Professor's assertion, " Force 

 is certainly necessary to direct the motion of matter," is only a 

 truism, similar to the important geometrical theorem, " In any 

 right-angled triangle, one angle is equal to 90°." On the other 

 hand, Dr. Croll's assertion, to the effect that guidance is effected 

 by "determinism," and not by force, is a contradiction in 

 terms. For, by definition, that which changes motion is force. 

 If, therefore, Prof. Lodge's assertion has any real meaning, he 

 must have some independent definition of " force," and I should 

 very much like to know what that is. 



Again, Prof. Lodge in no way answers " the crux in my last 

 paragraph." Prof. Lloyd Morgan implies in his last letter that, 

 in the case of the sun altering the direction of motion of the 

 earth, no energy is expended. This is, of course, only ap- 

 proximately true ; and even in the case of his twirling his stick 

 round his finger and thumb, as the slick is elastic, its forces of 

 cohesion in reality do some small amount of work. It is indeed 

 true that, if two particles were once connected by an absolutely 

 inextensible string, the cohesion of the string would do no 

 work. But what I pointed out was that, in order to bring such 



