July 4, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



11 



ogy with the material dolls, with which 

 children play. The child makes believe 

 with the doll, knowing all the time its im- 

 reality, assigns to it hopes, passions, appe- 

 tites ; the child may feel the intensest sym- 

 pathy with its doll, weep at its sorrows, 

 laugh over its joys, yet know always that 

 it is a mere inanimate, senseless doll. 

 Adult men and women have ideas, with 

 which they play make-believe; doll ideas, 

 which they know are unreal, and yet they 

 mourn sincerely over the adversities of 

 their mental dolls, rejoice over their suc- 

 cesses and fight for them with passion. 

 Such doll ideas become mingled with the 

 real and inextricably woven into the fab- 

 ric of life. They are treated with the most 

 earnest seriousness. Men will fight for 

 them as a child will fight for its doll, not 

 because it is property, but because it is a 

 sacred personality. So are doll ideas often 

 made sacred and defended with fanaticism. 

 Yet, behind, in consciousness is the sense 

 of unreality, the disregarded admission of 

 'making believe.' Do not doll ideas, pseu- 

 do-opinions, play a great role in human 

 life? I think they do, and thinking so, 

 deem it all the more imperative that you 

 and others should teach the people the 

 standard of science, the humble acknowl- 

 edgment of reality. I wish that an im- 

 pulse toward this goal from our Association 

 could be imparted to every man and woman 

 in the country, and I hope that the Asso- 

 ciation may' continue to grow in number 

 and power for long years to come, as it has 

 grown in the last few years, so that it shall 

 be a national, all-pervading influence serv- 

 ing the truth. 



It seems to me inconceivable that the 

 evolution of animals should have taken 

 place as it actually has taken place, 

 unless consciousness is a real factor and 

 dominant. Accordingly I hold that it ac- 

 tually affects the vital processes. There is, 

 in my opinion, no possibility of avoiding 



the conclusion that consciousness stands 

 in immediate causal relations with physio- 

 logical processes. To say this is to abide 

 by the facts, as at present known to us, 

 and with the facts our conceptions must be 

 made to accord. 



The thought which I wish to emphasize 

 is the importance for the future investiga- 

 tion of consciousness of separating the 

 study of what it does from the study of 

 what it is. The latter study is recondite, 

 metaphysical, and carries us far beyond 

 the limits of verifiable liiiman knowledge. 

 The former study is open to us and offers 

 opportunities to science, but it has hitherto 

 been almost completely neglected. Biology 

 has now to redeem itself by effectual re- 

 searches on consciousness. On the ade- 

 quate prosecution of such researches we 

 base great hopes. 



Before I close permit me a few words 

 concerning the relations of consciousness 

 to the body, to living substances through 

 which it manifests itself. It is intimately 

 linked to protoplasm. Probably no ques- 

 tion is so profoimdly interesting to aR 

 mankind as the old question, Avhat is the 

 relation of the mind to the body? It is a 

 question which has been stated in many 

 forms and from many points of view, but 

 the essential object of the question is 

 always the same, to ask whether conscious- 

 ness is a function of living matter, or some- 

 thing discrete and not physical or material. 



Throughout this address consciousness 

 has been viewed as a device to regulate 

 the actions of the organisms so as to ac- 

 complish purposes which on the whole are 

 useful to the organisms, and accordingly 

 we have termed its function teleological. 

 If this view is correct it accounts for the 

 limitations of consciousness, its mechanical 

 mode of work, its precision and definite- 

 ness of action, for of course, unless con- 

 sciousness is orderly and obeys laws, it 

 cannot be of use to the organism, but, on 



