44 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. I. No. 2. 



rather than one — hence the categorical im- 

 perative of Kant. The sanest minds are at 

 times divided into two or m.ore selves, as 

 much as are the most extreme cases of hj'j)- 

 notic or pathological double-consciousness. 

 Prof. Ladd's paper is included in his forth- 

 coming work on Psj'chology, in the press of 

 Charles Scribner's Sons. It excited much 

 discussion and some criticism. 



The remainder of the session was taken 

 up by a paper on A Preliminary Report and 

 Observations on a Research into the Psychology 

 of Imitation by Professor Eoyce, of Harvard 

 University. He began by noting the diffi- 

 culty of defining imitation from other men- 

 tal functions. He then described experi- 

 ments now in progress in the psychologi- 

 cal laboratory of Harvard UniversitJ^ An 

 observer listens to a rhythmic series of 

 taps which are later repeated or imitated 

 \>y movements. The record was taken on a 

 kymograph, and the impressions of the ob- 

 servers were noted and studied. The objec- 

 tive records have not been collated, but 

 Professor Eoyce reported the subjective 

 state as described by the observer, and its 

 variations with different rhythms. In fur- 

 ther discussion of the subject Professor 

 Eoyce considered different kinds of imita- 

 tion, and their relation to the rest of mental 

 life and to the physical organism. The 

 subject of imitation has recently become 

 prominent and is evidently of the utmost 

 importance in social psychology — ^not only 

 the development of the child but also the 

 thoughts, feelings and actions of men de- 

 pend largely, if not chiefly, on imitation, 

 and our theoretical knowledge has impor- 

 tant practical applications. 



The address of the President, Professor 

 James, of Harvard University, occupied 

 the evening session. The subject, 37te Unity 

 of Consciousness, was treated with the speak- 

 er's unvarying clearness and literarj^ skill. 

 Professor James once said that meta- 

 physics in a natm-al scieuce ' spoils two 



good things,' but no natural science, be it 

 physics or psychologj^, can draw a sharp 

 line between its facts and its philosophy. 

 It is also worth noting that what the phy- 

 sicist considers part of his science may be 

 regarded as metaphj'^sics by the psycholo- 

 gist, and conversely. The question of the 

 unity of consciousness is, perhaps, as much 

 a part of scientific psychology as the doc- 

 trine of the conservation of enery is a part 

 of the science of physics. Professor James' 

 address was largely made up of a review of 

 the various theories proposed to account for 

 the prmciple of union in the mind when 

 many objects, susceptible upon occasion of 

 being known separately, are brought to- 

 gether in the mind and knowm all at once. 

 The Associationists say that the ' ideas ' 

 of several objects 'combine.' The Anti- 

 Associationists say that such a process of 

 self-compounding of ideas is incomprehen- 

 sible, and that they mu.st be combined by a 

 higher synthetic principle, the Soul, the 

 Ego, or what not. The speaker expressed 

 dissatisfaction witli the both these views. 

 He said that his own aversion to the doc- 

 trine of the ' Soul ' rested on an ancient 

 prejudice, of which he could give no fully 

 satisfactorjf account to himself, and he com- 

 plimented Professor Ladd, of Yale, for his 

 continued loyaltj^ to this unpoijular princi- 

 ple. Even Professor Ladd in his book pre- 

 fers to speak of ' Soul ' by some paraphrase 

 such as ' real spiritual being.' Within the 

 bounds of the psychological professor the 

 ' Soul ' is not popular to-day. Professor 

 James conceived liis problem as that of how 

 we can ' know things together,' and in the 

 first half of his address he incidentally said 

 a good deal about knowledge. To the jjop- 

 ular mind all knowledge involves a sort of 

 mutual presence or absence as regards the 

 object and the mind, which is treated as 

 very mysterious. Professor James expelled 

 this mystery from most cases of knowledge. 

 He found the mystery of presence or ab- 



