MATERIALISM AND MIND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 238, 8 October 1935, Page 14

MATERIALISM AND MIND.

There is. this measure of agreement between Air. P. B. Fitzherbert and myself, that we both accept the rule of mechanism in inanimate and animate nature, but differ as to its extended operation in the realm of mind. I have already stressed the collective nature of tlie term "mind," which covers mentalphenomena and is no more to bo apprehended as an entity than, say, "intellect." Your correspondent doubtless accepts biological evolution. If so, his position ii> a puzzling one, for lie says: "Moreover, the human being differs from the animal, and the difference is to be found in the region of the mind." On these premises both bodies and minds of animals are the product of mechanistic evolution, as also the body of man, but the mind of man is placed in a category apart, a spiritual entity. r lhe issue is further confused by the admission that man's mind is dependent upon the brain and bodily states. The wireless analogy does not hold, since while a message may be distorted by inefficient mechanism it will not be changed into another message, as can be done by interference with the brain and many bodily functions. McCabe, in "The Riddle of the Universe To-day," says: "It is worth noting that while most philosophers and all religious believers regard the spirituality of the mind as so luminous a truth that the materialist may be treated as the village idiot . . .

the issue 011 which the experts are least in agreement is the nature of the mind.

. . . To-day tlie mind is. hardly mentioned in new scientific 0 manuals." The chief point between us appears to be this —has science discovered anything favouring the view that the human mind is due to "something" added to the simian mind not accountable by evolutionary processes? If the answer is in the affirmative we would also require to know at what stage in evolution the spiritual ingredients were introduced. Actually prehistoric experts would smile at the idea that spiritual agencies had to lift man in succession to ■ the PreChellan, Chellan, etc., to the Magdalesian stage of culture. From then onwards continuous development is clear, and if we work backwards surely no such powers had to be summoned to turn an ape into an ape-man, or the latter into a Piltdown or Heidelberg man, and from this point to the cultures mentioned the abundance of tools and weapons gives an accurate measure of intellectual advance. Professor Elliot Smith, in "Evolution of Man," traces the development of mind from fish to man. "In its highest manifestation," he says, "the making of the mind was due to manual dexterity, the exploration of space with hand and eye, and the integration of the world acquired by vision with the intimate personal experience of the movement of our joints." Every discovery for 30 years favours the materialistic view that man's mind evolved from the ape's mind. I do not agree with your correspondent that because there are many residual mysteries it is reasonable to invoke an eternal and living force to explain them. "Spirituality" and "vitalism" as explanations have been routed from domain after domain before the advance of scientific knowledge. They are the symbolism of ignorance, and I am content to withhold judgment where the way is not clear, confident that, given time, science will expel mysticism and obscurantism from its last stronghold— the human "mind." ACE.