708 The American Naturalist. [September, 
But, seriously, there are a few things that we must conclude 
regarding Mr. Baldwin’s “ New Factor,” if we are to pay to it 
any logical regard whatever: (1) The work assumed of it is 
not one of simple heightening and restricting, but one of 
absolute interruption, transformation and reversal of natural 
consequences. (2) These interruptions, transformations and 
reversals proceed by no known axioms or measurements of 
science, and as little so in their articulations with the motor 
apparatus as with the disseminated benefits and detriments 
from the external forces. (3) There are no central neural pro- 
cesses correspondent to these alleged activities of pain and 
pleasure. There are no facts which suggest them; no physical 
activities could behave in such disregard of physical laws; and 
to assert them as acting by such laws would either duplicate 
the “ New Factor” as an efficient cause, or else reduce pain and 
pleasure to ordinary non-interfering parallelism ; which is a 
flat contradiction to Mr. Baldwin’s entire proposition. (4) Itis 
absurb to locate this New Factor as “central.” For a factor 
that transends all physical laws of space, time and intensity 
cannot be located in this physical world. (5) And, finally, if 
such a “New Factor” existed, any exact determination in 
physiology and in psychology would be futile. Whereas the 
psychic factor of Prof. James is a wee and comparatively in- 
offensive affair, which only tips a molecule here or turns a 
current there, just a little, and when absolutely needed—and 
apparently from the remainder of his system is never needed— 
on the contrary, this Factor of Mr. Baldwin’s is the dominant 
therefore it is something beside the mere intensity of these currents which deter- 
mines whether the result shall be expansion or restriction. And if it is something 
different from the intensity of these nerve-currents, then also must it be different 
from the ordinary intensity of the central neural activity which gives rise to 
these currents. In which case it is nonsense to talk of “ heightening and restrict- 
ing” precisely as if they were performed by ordinary central activities. 
Unmistakably it is no “ ordinary ” activity that either destroys ordinary intensity 
regardlessly of all opposing parallelograms of forces, or that upsets the laws of 
conservation of energy. True, we do not yet understand Inhibition; yet, no 
scientist thinks of explaining it, except within ‘‘ ordinary ” scientific lawe 
any force which transforms any incoming sensory nerve-current, however detri- 
mental, into flat quiescence without emin of other physical energy in oppo- 
sition to it, certainly does not act within ordinary scientific laws. 
