FUTURE LIFE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10763, 10 May 1911, Page 2

FUTURE LIFE.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Materialists tell us th.it modern physiological psychology is a bar to the old faith in a life beyond the grave. That now science has proved beyond doubt, not only that thought in general is one of the functions of the brain, but that each special form of thinking is a function of a special portion of the brain. Now that that is proved, belief in a conscious life after death must cease; for Low can the function of conscious thought possibly coutinue when its organ is no more? The argument is very plausible and in some coteries, very popular, but Professor William James, the well-known physiological psychologist of Harvard University, points out its fallacy with great clearness in his Ingersoll lecture on "Human Immortality," and while admitting to the full that "our soul's life (as here revealed to us) may he in literal strictness the function of a brain that perishes," still asserts that "it is not at all impossible, but on the contrary quite possible, that the life may still continue when the brain itself js dead." In no uncertain tones he declares that in his opinion the materialistic argument has "in strict logic no; deterrent power," and that "henceforward we may believe, whether we care to profit by the permission or not." The fallacy of the materialistic argument lies apparent in the assumption that the function of the brain, in relation to consciousness, must he a function of production. That is to say, that if thought be a function of the brain, thought must be produced by, or engendered in the brain, in the same sort of wav as steam is produced by, or engendered in a tea kettle. Now this assumption is false. Thought may be a function of the brain, may be functionally dependent on the existence of the brain, but it by no means follows from this that thought must be produced by or engendered in the brain. There is more than one kind of functional dependence. _ There is the permissive or transmissive, as well as the productive function. The trigger of the cross bow lias a permissive function. It removes the obstacle holding the string and so lets the bow fly back to its natural shape, thus releasing, but not engendering energy. So the keys of an organ open the pipes, letting the wind in the air chest escape in various ways, and the columns of air trembling as they escape constitute the voices ot the pipes. But the air is not engendered in the organ. That is only an instrument for letting loose portions ot air in various shapes. In such a way, fullness of thought may very well exist in another sphere of being and the brain be merely the organ of transmission ot that parf of it which constitutes our present consciousness. Pure science can tell us nothing positively about the relation of the brain to consciousness except that it is one of concomitant variation—that is to sa;y, when consciousness varies, the brain varies concomitantly,—hut as to any theory of either production, transmission or permission, Professor James is emphatic in his statement that "science confesses her imagination to be bankrupt. She has so far not the least glimmer of a conjecture or suggestion." ~.•,. 1 "We are therefore permitted to make our choice between the production and the permissive theory—the latter being no less in accordance with the teachings of science than the former, and consequently the proof that our present consciousness is functionally dependent upon the existence of the brain is no proof that when the brain dies, consciousness must necessarily die with uncertainly the special limited stream ot consciousness which flowed through the brain will vanish from this natural life, but the mother sea of consciousness, which all along existed in another sphere of being may still continue to exist. •_ There are other reasons for the adoption of the transmission theory which I can only touch upon here. Kant and Emerson both seem to favor it. Kant says: "The death of the body may indeed be the end; of the sensational use of our mind, hut onlv the beginning of the intellectual use. The body would thus he not the cause of our thinking, but merely a condition restrictive thereof." And Emerson: "We lie in the lap of immense intelligence which makes us receivers of its truth, and organs of its activity. When we discern justice, when we discern truth, we do nothing of ourselves but allow a passage to its beams."

Further, the transmission theory is entirely in touch with the new psychology, with Myer's idea of a subliminal self, and Fechner's notion of a threshold of consciousness. It, moreover, tends to explain a whole class of experiences and exceptional phenomena (psychic phenomena) which can hardly he accounted for on the other hypothesis.

My principal reason, however, for calling the attention of your readers to Professor James' theory is that (to use his own words) "ft draws the fangs of cerebralistic materialism." —I am, HEBER NEWTON. May 10, 1911.