J.— PSYCHOLOGY. 155 
actually such parts of the object as are perceived’; and that the cross- 
_ section we are said to perceive is coincident with that towards which 
we behave. 
Obyiously we have in Mr. Holt’s doctrine one form of a behaviour- 
istic interpretation of consciousness. This opens up an issue which 
cannot here be discussed. One can, however, briefly indicate what 
seems to be the essential question at issue. Let us provisionally grant 
_ that organic behaviour towards what we call an object is ‘ coincident ’ 
with conscious reference to that object; nay more, let us grant that in 
the absence of prior behaviour to it there would never be evolved such 
conscious reference to it. ven granting this, does it follow that this 
conscious reference is not only ‘coincident with’ behaviour but is 
nothing more than that behaviour? In accordance with the principles 
of emergent evolution it does not follow, and it is not so; the one is 
a function of the organism’s life, dependent on, but emergently more 
than, its physico-chemical constitution, while the other is a function of 
that organism’s consciousness, dependent on, but emergently more 
than, that organism’s life. And just as life is a quality of the organism 
that behaves and is centred therein, so too is consciousness a quality 
higher in order of emergence) of the organism which is conscious in 
. . . . 5 —) 
perceiving and in behaving. 
Modes of being Conscious. 
We may revert, then, to the view that the quality of consciousness 
has place in the organism (or more strictly is correlated with physical 
and physiological events which have place there), but that conscious 
reference, like organic behaviour on the plane of life, is effluent from 
that organism which receives physical influence. 
My position under genetic treatment is this: (a) Physical processes 
of many and varied kinds are, on occasion, influent on the organism 
_which has receptors attuned to them; (b) very complex changes, 
physico-chemical and physiological, are called forth in that organism ; 
and (c) it responds in organic behaviour, coming thus into new fields: 
of physical influence. Thus, under light-radiation, influence from that 
which, in the language of our highly developed adult reference, we call 
a ladybird, affects the retinal receptors of the chick a few hours old; 
organised changes in his tissues result therefrom ; he pecks at the lady- 
bird, and tango- or chemo-receptors are thus physically influenced. So 
far the interpretation is biological and behaviouristic only. But, 
rightly or wrongly, I impute to the chick affective enjoyment on which 
some measure of conscious cognition is founded. That is neither 
physico-chemical nor physiological, though it is correlated with both, 
lt is mental. It is the psychical or inner aspect of processes which 
have also their outer aspect with which the bio-chemist and the physio- 
logist deal. But it just as truly belongs to that organism as does its 
life, or its chemical constitution. 
We want now to come to closer quarters with this inner or psychical 
aspect correlated with the whole range of life-processes (a), (b), and (c). 
What is it? Perhaps all that one can say in reply to this question is 
that what it feels like that it is. But one can enumerate different ways. 
N 2 
