CHAPTER II

CONSCIOUSNESS AS A FORM OF ENERGY

I

IF, then, the science of psychology, on its introspective and experimental sides, has reached what appear to be definite limits, or has come within sight of them, it is evident that a new method is desirable, not to say necessary-one that will enable us to approach the problem of mind from another point of view, and to approach it in the scientific spirit. Such a method is that of conceiving mind as a form of energy having more than a few analogies with physical energy. The study of psychology on this basis has already begun,1 and, although its early results have, in some instances, the extravagances which one expects to see in the work of enthusiasts, the proved remainder is sufficiently encouraging to justify further efforts.

We are familiar with the law of the conservation of energy, and there is no need to enlarge upon it here, or to take into account its modern developments-e.g. the dissipation of energy. The bent bow, when released, transfers its force to the arrow, and the powder in the cartridge is transmuted into the trajectory of the bullet. These are stock illustrations. But when an attempt is made to establish an identity between physical and mental energy, not so much in essence as in mode of operation, a cry of alarm is raised. Theologians and idealists are afraid of materialism, and some of the materialists are afraid they will be charged with bad science. It is all a part of the eternal quarrel between

1 We look upon M'Dougall's conception of psychology-i.e. mental behaviour as one that is not only sound but progressive in the best It is not a static mind that he analyses, but mind in action. And is there any other kind of mind?

sense.

Mind and Matter. Ostwald states the position neatly in these words:

"If, in the other pair of ideas, Mind-Matter, we substitute energy for the second member, then there results the pair mind energy. In what relation do these two things stand to each other; do they form an irreconcilable opposition or may they be unified? This question has already been asked several times in other connections; it has usually been determined in the negative sense. A careful consideration of all the arguments known to me, both pro and contra, has led me to conclude that it may be answered in the affirmative. I deem it possible to subordinate to the idea of energy the totality of psychical phenomena."

II

It is curious to note in what ways and for what reasons some thinkers object to the notion of the conservation of mental energy, and equally curious to observe how other thinkers appear to welcome the idea. Dr H. Wildon Carr affirms that "Energy in physical science is the conception of something that is measurable, something that undergoes change of form with quantitative identity. To apply such a conception to mental activity is plainly impossible, and to apply it metaphorically is only confusing. In what sense, for instance, is the memory that forms part of my subconscious psychical life a latent energy, and what is this energy converted into when some association brings it to consciousness? "3 This ought not to be a difficult question for a

1 Article on "The Philosophical Meaning of Energy," in The International Quarterly (Sept. 1903).

Mr W. R. Boyce Gibson has offered a keen criticism of this alleged ability to measure physical energy. See Personal Idealism, PP. 151-154.

Mind, July, 1914. See also Sidis (Foundations of Normal and Abnormal Psychology, p. 21), Lloyd Morgan (Comparative Psychology, p. 330), and Binet (The Mind and the Brain, p. 7). Binet, after saying that "Thought is not a movement and has nothing in common with

disciple of Bergson and his philosophy of change. But let us begin at the beginning. Mental energy, manifested in the varied activities of the mind as we know it, is the one kind of energy of which we are most assured; we are infinitely more certain about its conservation and dissipation, from the dawn of consciousness to the approach of death, than we are of the energy in Nature, the existence of which is an inference, not a personal experience in the primary subjective sense. Indeed, it is only by mental energy that we become aware of the existence of energy in the natural world. That being so, why should it be impossible to seek some analogy between the two energies-if they are two-and where does the confusion come in? Are not analogies helpful in the interpretation of facts that on the surface may seem to belong to different worlds? Professor Jung is of this opinion and even suggests that mental energy, in the sense of original desire, is the same as Bergson's elan vital.1 But older psychologists than Jung have found no contradiction in the idea of mental energy working on lines analogous to that of Nature; and although Herbert Spencer is now regarded as somewhat out of date his deeply philosophic mind found its true work in the building up of comprehensive theories, consequently his views on such a problem are worthy of respect. He says: "Each manifestation of force can be interpreted only as the effect of some antecedent force; no matter whether it be an organic action, an animal movement, a thought, or a feeling. Either bodily or mental energies, as well as inorganic ones are quantitatively correlated to certain energies expended in their production, and to certain other energies which they imitate; or else nothing must become something a movement," affirms (p. 175) that " Psychology is a science of matter-the science of a part of matter which has the property of pre-adaptation"!

1" All psychological phenomena can be considered as manifestations of energy, in the same way as all physical phenomena are already understood as energetic manifestations since Robert Mayer discovered the law of the conservation of energy (which). can be understood as vital energy in general, or as Bergson's elan vital."—Analytical Psychology, p. 231. See also Gore's Art of Discovery, pp. 127–128.

and something must become nothing." 1 Such an argument cannot be evaded and evasion is never attempted except in the interests of a particular philosophic system.

But Dr Wildon Carr seems to lay stress upon the fact that physical energy can be measured, whereas mental energy cannot be measured. True-in part-but the admission is not so damaging as it looks; indeed the impossibility of measuring psychical energy may be some testimony to its essential superiority as a causative agency. The impressive fact is that psychical energy exists. Dr Carr asks us what a subconscious memory is converted into when some association brings it to consciousness. Beyond saying that it is, for the moment, changed from a hidden to a revealed fact we are unable to answer, just as we are unable to say, in natural science, how a cause gives rise to an effect. As to the subconscious being a form of latent energy, it is already a conviction on the part of some writers, notably Ribot, who says: "L'Inconscient est un accumulateur d'energie; il amasse pour que la conscience puisse dépenser." "

III

Mental energy, contrasted with physical energy, is of a finer and much more subtle form; indeed it is this difference which is responsible for the unwillingness to admit any suggestion of identity, or even to allow that there exists a true analogy of action. Light and heat, as modes of motion have a counterpart in thought as a species of vibration: but a thought is the last word in refinement, compared with which a ray of light and a concentration of heat are crudities of the lowest order. Let us take a thought and an action for

1 First Principles, p. 205. Boutroux says that the law of conservation [! seems pre-supposed in every enquiry that tends to explain the states of consciousness, considered by themselves, in the way in which the physical phenomena are explained; it is implied in every attempt of positive psychology."-The Contingency of the Laws of Nature, p. 136.

• La Vie Inconsciente et les Mouvements, p. 77. See also Bergson's Creative Evolution, pp. 4-8.

analysis. A man says: "My watch has begun to play tricks with me, and soon it will be like that of our commissionnaire when the hands point to a quarter past three he knows it is half-past eight! I think I ought to take my watch to the watchmaker, and I decide to do so. I therefore get my stick and hat, and off I go." Now the actions here referred to are, of course, physical, but their origin is mental; consequently mental energy precedes physical energy; indeed these two energies are bound together in a partnership of being and doing that cannot be dissolved without bringing both to grief; apart they cannot exist as separate energies. We can have no mind without a body; and yet the mind is always the senior partner and managing director.1 When Goethe read Shakespeare he said: "I stood like one who blind from birth finds himself suddenly blest with sight by a beneficent Providence." Here is psychical energy working on an exalted plane. What caused it? Outwardly, the factors were the printed page and the organs of vision inwardly, there was profound activity among the brain cells resulting in an enlargement of the sphere of consciousness. But the primary agent was the printed page, and without it this infinite expansion of feeling could not have taken place. Who, then, will venture to dogmatise about this processsome to state that all energies are one energy, and that although a book placed before the eyes of a dead man can produce no result, the result that was forthcoming in the case of Goethe is explainable by the mind's power of translating symbols into the realities of feeling-the very thing that calls for explanation; some to state that the exaltation referred to was merely the mind's use of a simple phenomenon -thus overlooking the question as to whether physical or psychical energy was the prior power; and some to state that Goethe's language was hyperbolical, expansion being a term totally inapplicable to mind as an entity-thereby forgetting that invisible things must be stated in the terms of the visible?

1 The arguments brought forward by Prof. D. F. Harris, in his article on Consciousness as a Cause of Neural Activity," seem to us unanswerable.-Hibbert Journal, January, 1913.