74: Wisconsi7i Academy of Sciences^ Arts, and Letters. 



2. If the objection states a fact, it means only that self-free- 

 dom is moral and rational, logical and orderly, and so ego freely 

 assents to and follows its own laws. If we knew the order, and 

 could look forward through the aims and intentions, i. e., if we 

 were the very individual in question, we could predict his course, 

 presuming him to be as rational as ourself. How this resembles 

 the prediction of an eclipse, where the phenomena are objective, 

 are before the eyes of all, I fail to see. 



3. Lastly, it may be said that, after all, the problem is not 

 solved. I do not say that from the metaphysical standpoint, con- 

 sciousness spans the gulf between mind and matter; between sub- 

 ject and object. It is sufficient for my purpose, in pointing out 

 the limits of the sciences of nature, that those sciences being 

 purely inductive from phenomena, whether of external sense, or 

 ■of internal sensibility, must regulate these critical questions to 

 philosophy as being out of their sphere. The moment we regard 

 the results of will in our own limits, we have passed into the 

 sphere of nature and the sciences ; we are to search for the invari- 

 able antecedents of the lifting of our arm, and may, possibly have 

 a regret ad inf. in the transmutations of energy. We find no pro- 

 duction ; action and reaction are equal. Perhaps a molecular vi- 

 bration in the brain is transmitted into motion in the fingers, 

 which vibration has also its antecedent, loosely called, its cause. 

 But what we know in the mental spheres, is pure and true activ- 

 ity. We not only desired to move our arm for rational ends, we 

 willed it. Experience only has shown its result in the outward 

 sphere, etc., that the arm moved. We might have willed and no 

 such result have followed. But, the antecedents being there, we 

 expect the consequent, and even introduce that strange word 

 necessity, the consequents must follow, which surely the experi- 

 ence does not contain. 



Consciousness does not span this gulf; the objection is ad- 

 mitted ; yet as a known fact, the free self directs its act towards 

 this other phenomenal world, even in examining it, classifying its 

 phenomena, and reasoning upon them. How, then, can he who 

 explores the heavens, ignore the existence of his telescope? In 

 other words, how can the devotee of nature ignore his own men- 



