THE CONCEPTION OF THE GREAT REALITY. 



249 



I agree with Mr. Tuckwell in one respect, that it is a very 

 curious paper. There are many things in it which we can agree 

 with, and many things we cannot agree with. But whatever view 

 you put on it you must remember this, that the human intellect is 

 limited, and that there are things around us to-day with which we 

 are familiar which years ago would have amazed us. 



The Chairman. — Allow me to convey a very hearty vote of 

 thanks to the author for his paper, and for the immense amount of 

 valuable matter which it contains. 



The Secretary (Professor Edward Hull). — I beg to second that. 

 I feel very grateful to the author of the paper for the great pains 

 he has taken, but I must say it is a paper that will require consider- 

 able consideration on the part of the Council. 



The vote of thanks having been duly carried, the Meeting closed. 



Eeniarks by Professor Langhorne Orchard. 



Though this paper contains much that is interesting, suggestive, 

 and ingenious, the reasoning does not appear to be free from fallacy. 

 The argument developed in the paper is surely based on misappre- 

 hension. The velocity with which light travels, and that with 

 which an observer's eye travels, could in no case affect the 

 successiveness in arrival of pictures of scenes enacted at different 

 distances of time or space. Although an omnipresent Being might 

 perceive all past visible scenes in pictures simultaneously present, 

 this is no proof that past events are not really past. Present 

 knowledge of a past event is not knowledge of a past event as a 

 present event. The panorama does not constitute the history it 

 represents. An event is one thing, knowledge of it is another. 



Another curious fallacy occurs in connection with the Author's 

 theory of Creation, where an " instantaneous thought " is called an 

 "instantaneous creation," as though a "thought" was the same as 

 a creation. The origin of a concept is, however, not a creation of the 

 object. It is noticeable, also, that the Author admits a succession of 

 such origins. May I suggest that the word " Externalization " 

 should be substituted for " materialisation " 1 The fact that Past and 

 Future are as real as Present is indicated by all three being elements 

 in the sacred name Jehovah. It is also witnessed to by our 

 intuitions, which cannot have been given in order to deceive us. 



R 2 



