Facts and Factors of Development 35 



crally similar to the reactions of the germ cells and embryos of 

 other animals, and to the behavior of many lower organisms. 



Matter and Mind. — A few years ago such a statement would 

 have been been branded as "materialism*' and promptly rejected 

 without examination by those who are frightened by names. But 

 the general spread of the scientific spirit is shown not only by the 

 growing regard for evidence but also by the decreasing power of 

 epithets. "Materialism," like many another ghost, fades away 

 into thin air or at least loses many of its terrors, when closely 

 scrutinized. But the statement that mind develops from the germ 

 cells is not an affirmation of materialism, for while it identifies 

 the origin of the entire individual, mind and body, with the devel- 

 opment of the germ, it does not assert that "matter" is the cause 

 of "mind" either in the germ or in the adult. It must not be for- 

 gotten that' germ cells are living things and that we go no further 

 in associating the beginnings of mind with the beginnings of body 

 in the germ than we do in associating mind and body in the adult. 

 It is just as materialistic to hold that the mind of the mature man 

 is associated with his body as it is to hold that the beginnings of 

 mind in the germ are associated with the beginnings of the body, 

 and both of these tenets are incontrovertible. 



Body and Mind. — It seems to me that the mind is related to 

 the body as function is to structure; there are those who main- 

 tain that structure is the cause of function, that the real problem 

 in evolution or development is the transformation of one struc- 

 ture into another, and that the functions which go with certain 

 structures are merely incidental results; on the other hand are 

 those who maintain that function is the cause of structure and 

 that the problem of evolution or development is the change which 

 takes place in functions and habits, these changes causing corre- 

 sponding transformations of structure. Among adherents of the 

 former view may be classed many morphologists and Neo-Darwin- 

 ians ; among proponents of the latter, many physiologists and Xeo- 

 Lamarckians. It seems to me that the defenders of each of these 

 views fail to recognize the essential unity of the entire organism, 



