182 g The Evolution of Mind. 



guine flood of the circle of Willis may surge and beat in 

 unison with my heart, but all unknown to me. The rush 

 and whirl of volitional and sensory nerve-force is in incessant 

 play, but I know it not. The believer in special creations 

 can hold to a belief in mind as separate from body, but the 

 evolutionist must accept the doctrine of one persistent reality 

 ihat subjectively is mind and objectively matter.* Now of 

 this something — the " ding an sich " of Kant f — material- 

 ists try to wipe out the subjective aspect, and idealists the 

 objective. It is as if two men should quarrel about whether 

 the glass of a bottle all belonged to the outside or inside 

 surface of it. It lies between both, but is neither. So long, 

 however, as the glass persists, it will have opposite faces. 

 So long as the unknowable persists, it is rational to believe 

 that it will ever have an objective and a subjective aspect. 

 If in sleep and coma mind is a total blank, creation must 

 be a common occurrence and evolution an unnecessary ex- 

 planation. That the sleeping is different from the waking 

 state is evident, but as to how much different, and how 

 different, careful study alone can determine. Awake and 

 in a comfortable room, we give no attention to the tempera- 

 ture, the atmospheric pressure, or our own breathing. Let 

 any of these be disturbed and we know it immediately. In 

 our sleeping moments may not our consciousness of all en- 

 vironing forces be of this suppressed, non-attentive kind ? 

 Men sleeping amid noise will awake if it ceases. On stopping 

 a railroad train all its motion changes into heat. But heat 

 is motion too. When the molecules of the train all go to- 

 gether along the track we call it motion. When they indi- 

 vidually vibrate at a given speed we call it heat. May not 

 the sleeping and waking states of consciousness bear some 

 such relationship to each other ? Let us try an experiment. 

 Here, we will suppose, is a sleeping boy. " Berty ! " I call, 

 but there is no reply. " Berty ! " I repeat, and he simply 

 moves. In louder pitch, " Berty ! " is once again repeated, 

 when he awakes and asks, " What is it, papa ? " Did he hear 

 first and then awake, or did he awake first and then hear 

 me ? If he first heard me and then awoke, he could not have 

 been psychically asleep. If he awakened first and then 

 heard me, the call took no part in his awakening. As the 

 call did waken him, he must have observed a change in the 



*Fiske's Cosmic Philosophy, Vol. 2, pp 448-449. 

 tMuller's Kant's Critique, Vol. 2, pp. 112-114. 



