266 General Notes. 
NOTE. 
The only comment which I have to make on Dr. Montgomery’s 
_ argument is this: that, while denying that conspicuousness can con- 
trol energy (matter), he admits that matter controls consciousness. 
ese two positions are logically inconsistent. the affirmative is 
true of consciousness it is true of matter, and vice versa. On other 
points I can agree fully with Dr. Montgomery.—E. D. Cope. 
III. CONCLUSIONES. 
1. The function of control and construction displayed by the 
energy of evolution (bathmism) leads us to infer that this type of 
energy can control its conditions sufficiently to enable it to have a 
wide distribution in space and time in the universe. 
Since the originating and controlling element of this special 
type of energy is consciousness, it is inferred that consciousness has 
existed prior to any given special inorganic type of energy. 
. As the condition of consciousness is the unspecialized or 
uncreated condition of energy, it is inferred that consciousness is a 
property of matter in an unspecialized or generalized condition in 
some respect. 
4, Since protoplasm is not in all respects the most generalized 
conceivable condition of matter, it is inferred that there are physi- 
cal bases of consciousness other than protoplasm. ; 
5. It is inferred from the preceding considerations that the exist- 
ence of primitive consciousness in primitive forms of matter is not 
only possible but probable, and this consciousness constitutes 
primitive person or Deity.—E. D. Cope. : 
Summary of the Controversy between Professor Cope and Myself. 
—Professor Cope maintains that mind is the active agent in the 
- organization of living beings. I maintain, on the contrary, that 
the mind of living beings is itself only a product or outcome of 
their organization. eee 
Professor Cope’s view leads him to assume as original building- 
material an entirely “ unspecialized” kind of matter, and as builder 
or organizer a supreme mind or Deity inherent in such matter. 
In this connection I had to point out the great dilemma of 
modern philosophy ; the impossibility, namely, of conceiving any- 
thing mental imparting motion or direction to anything material. 
Leading thinkers, of almost every school, when seriously contem- 
plating the apparent occurrence of an intercommunication between 
mind and matter, have declared it scientifically impossible and phi- 
losophically inconceivable. Yet, Professor Cope’s entire theory of 
organization through mental agency rests on the flat assertion of its 
being a self-evident proposition, that our mind moves our body. 
I further pointed out that to escape from this distracting dilemma 
of having on the one side a mind incapable of naturally acting 
upon matter, and on the other side matter incapable of naturally - 
