INTERACTION BETWEEN MENTAL AND MATERIAL ASPECTS 191 



§ 32. Interaction between the Mental and the Material Aspects of Things. 



Tills is the title of a paper recently published by Sir OUver Lodge {Nature, April 3, 1903), and as it has an 

 important bearing on the foregoing section I cannot do better than give a digest of it. 



Sir Ohver is an aclmowledged authority in physics, especially electricity, and an interesting writer on the 

 border line which divides the real and tangible from the unseen and spiritual. He sets out by giving definitions 

 of science, faith, prayer, and God. He observes : " All these ambiguous terms are liable to enter into our present 

 discussion, which concerns, I take it, fundamentally the inter-communion and interaction between the divine and 

 the human, chiefly in the regions of volition and of action on the physical world. The influence of the divine on 

 the human has been variously conceived in different ages, and various forms of difficulty have been at different 

 times felt and suggested ; but always some sort of analogy between human action and divine action has had per- 

 force to be drawn in order to make the latter in the least intelligible to our conception. The latest form of diffi- 

 culty is pecuharly deep-seated, and is a natural outcome of an age of physical science. It consists in denying 

 the possibiUty of guidance or of control, not only on the part of a Deity, but on the part of every one of his 

 creatures. It consists in pressing the laws of physics to what seems their logical and ultimate conclusion, in 

 applying the conservation of energy without ruth or hesitation, and so excluding, as it has seemed, the possi- 

 bility of free-will action, of guidance, of the self-determined action of mind or Uving things upon matter altogether. 

 The appearance of control has been considered illusory, and has been replaced by a doctrine of pure mechanism, 

 enveloping hving things as well as inorganic nature. 



" And those who for any reason have felt disinchned or unable to acquiesce in this exclusion of non-mechanical 

 agencies, whether it be by reason of faith and instinct, or by reason of direct experience and sensation to the con- 

 trary, have thought it necessary of late years to seek to undermine the foundations of physics, and to show that 

 its much-vaunted laws rest upon a hollow foundation, that their exactitude is illusory, that the conservation of 

 energy, for instance, has been too rapid an induction, that there may be ways of eluding many physical laws and 

 of avoiding submission to their sovereign sway. 



" By this sacrifice it has been thought that the eliminated guidance and control can philosophically be 

 reintroduced. 



" This, I gather, may have been the chief motive of an attack on physics led by an American, J. B. Stallo, in a 

 httle book called the ' Concepts of Physics,' which has at various times attracted some attention. But the worst 

 of that book was that Stallo was not really famihar with the teachings of the great physicists. 



" The armoury pressed into the service of Professor James Ward's attack is of weightier cahbre, and his criticism 

 cannot in general be ignored as based upon inadequate acquaintance with the principles under discussion ; but 

 still his Gifford lectures raise an antithesis or antagonism between the fundamental laws of mechanics and the 

 possibility of any intervention, whether human or divine. 



" If this antagonism is substantial it is serious ; for natural philosophers will not be willing to concede funda- 

 mental inaccuracy or uncertainty about their recognised and long-established laws of motion, nor will they be 

 prepared to tolerate any, even the least, departure from the law of the conservation of energy. Hence, if guidance 

 and control can be admitted into the scheme by no means short of refuting or modifying those laws, there may be 

 every expectation that the attitude of scientific men will be perennially hostile to the idea of guidance or control, 

 and so to the efficacy of prayer, and to many another practical outcome of reUgious belief. It becomes therefore 

 an important question to consider whether it is true that life or mind is incompetent to disarrange or interfere with 

 matter at all, except as an automatic part of the machine — or rather, except as an ornamental appendage or 

 dependent accessory of its working parts. 



" Now experience — the same kind of experience as gave us our scheme of mechanics — shows us that to all 

 appearance live animals certainly can direct and control mechanical energies to bring about desired and pre-con- 

 ceived results — for example, the Forth Bridge. Undoubtedly our body is material, and can act on other matter, and 

 its energy is derived from food, like any other self-propelled and fuel-fed mechanism : the question is whether our 

 will or mind or life can direct our body's energy along certain channels to attain desired ends ; or whether direction, 

 as well as amount, of activity is wholly determined by mechanical causes. 



" Answers that might be given are : — 



" (a) That life is a form of energy, and achieves its results by imparting to matter energy that would not other- 

 wise be in existence, in which case hfe is a part of the machine, and as truly mechanical as all the rest. I hold 

 that this is false ; because the essence of energy is that it can transform itself into other forms, remaining constant 

 in quantity, whereas life does not transmute itself into any form of energy, nor does death affect the sum of energy 

 in any known way. 



