LIFE FROM THE BIOLOGISTS STANDPOINT 185 



Nature is through and through infinite in her forms and processes, so 

 it seems from the experiential knowledge thus far gained. 



In just what ways science is being driven to the conclusion that 

 nature is thus constituted is too long and hard a story to tell here. 

 We can only glance at a few of its specially striking features. The 

 atomic theory of modern chemistry contains several of these. By 

 modern chemistry is meant chemistry since Dalton, Lavoisier and 

 Avogadro; and especially since Lorentz and the electron idea came 

 into it. 



The special thing about the atomic theory that I call your atten- 

 tion to in this connection is the conception of change of valence of 

 atoms now being discussed by some of the foremost chemists. Ac- 

 cording to this conception;, the same atom may have different com- 

 bining values under different circumstances. Do you not see without 

 further comment what this suggests as to unrevealed potentialities of 

 atoms? If the known facts of carbon-chemistry are such as to drive 

 the chemist to suppose the atom of carbon changes from bivalency to 

 quadrivalency and vice versa, what sober chemist will venture to place 

 any limitation on the possibilities for further change of like nature 

 not only in this but in other atoms ? 



Since we know absolutely nothing about the relation of the atoms 

 in living substance, would it not be a reasonable hypothesis to say that 

 the nature of that marvelous process called metabolism is due to just 

 the fact that the atoms of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., are 

 undergoing perpetual change of valence? I see no reason why we 

 may not legitimately imagine even consciousness due to such a process. 



Were such a hypothesis to be seriously taken, it would seem to follow 

 that consciousness would have its roots wherever metabolism is going 

 on. What an excellent starting point this would make for dealing 

 with the perennial puzzle of how it is that the " mind influences the 

 body " ! The mind would then be part of the body. 5 



Another fruitful idea recently introduced into chemistry, and sig- 

 nificant for the present point, is what is known as mass action. The 

 essence of this, as my colleague Professor F. W. Cottrell expresses it, 



effect will recognize that at this point I part company with the keen-minded 

 Scotchman. It is not necessary, however, to go into the matter here. 



5 Since preparing this essay my attention has been called to the writings of 

 Henri Bergson. From what I gather by reading a number of reviews of his 

 works and from a glance through his " Matiere et M6moire," it seems certain 

 that many of my positions are close akin to his, though our starting points 

 have been so very different. Among other things, this suggestion as to the 

 chemical foundation of consciousness would seem to fall in admirably with the 

 views held not only by M. Bergson but also by Avenarius, that not the brain 

 alone but the whole body is the seat of conscious life. (See " Subjectivism and 

 Realism in Modern Philosophy," by Norman Smith, The Philosophical Review, 

 Vol. 17, 1908, p. 138.) 



