PROFESSOR TYNDALL'S ADDRESS.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1983, 13 May 1875, Page 3

PROFESSOR TYNDALL'S ADDRESS.

Address delivered before the British Association, assembled at Belfast, with additions, by John Tyndall, F.R.S., President. London: J ONCUUNS, Gbeeh". abd Co.,i ' 1874. -, , [COHTIKUED.] " : At the outset of this "Address it was stated ttbat physical.:theories; which lie. 'Beyond exporienco are derived by~ a procoss of abstraction from experience. It J is instructive to note from this point of view the successive introduction of newconceplions. The idea of the attraction! of graT|tatiqffi|ii;|,pr?ceded by the, pbseit-[ Tatibh'-'of l«i*attfactib'ii bfironf by Ja| magnet, and of light bodies by rubbed! j amber. The polarity of magnetism and! | ejectricity appealed to the senses; and; thus became the, substratum of the conception that atoms and molecules -are endowed with definite, attractive,"; .and repellent "poles, by the play of" which, definite forms of crystalline architecture are produced. Thus molecular force becomes structural. It required no great boldness df thought to extend its play] into organic^ nature, and to *recognize.-in' molecular force the agency by which both 1 'plants and animals are built up. In this way out of experience arise conceptions, which are wholly ultra-experiential.* None of the atomists of antiquity had any notion of this plajr of molecular polar', force, but they, had experience?,of gravity as mani'esteav.by falling" bodies. ' Abstracting from this, they permitted their, atoms to fall eternally through empty, space. Democritus - assumed that the larger atoms moved more rapidly than, 15 the smaller ones, which they therefore could overtake, and. with which' .they could combine. Epicurus, holding that empty space could offer no resistance to motion, ascribed to- nil the atoms the same velocity; but he seems to have overlooked tlio consequence that under * sntb circumstances the atoms conld never 5 combine. Lucretius cut the knot (by quitting th«;.domain of physics altogether* and causing4J»**toms^ v to"-move together by a kind of volition. '"'" Was the instinct utterly at fault which, caused Lucretius thus to swerve from his own principles? Diminishing gradually the number of'progenitors, Mr Darwin comes at length to one * primordial form ;' but he does.not say. as far as I remember, how he supposes this form to have been introduced. He quotes with satisfaction tho ; words of a celebrated author and divine who had ' gradually learnt to see

that it is just as noble a conception of 'the Deity to .-'believe He created a few original forms, capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to lupply the voids caused by the action ©f • His laws.' What Mr Darwin thinks ,of this view of the introduction of life I do not know. But the anthropomorphism, which it seemed his object to set aside, is as firmly associated' with the " creation 'of a few forms as with the .'creation of a multitude. Wo need clearneisjand thoroughness here. Two courses i :»nd two only, are ' possible. Either let us open our doors freely to the conception .'ij^f/oireMive acts, or, abandoning them, let us radically change our notions of Matter. • If'we. look at matter as pictured by Democritus, and as defined for generations - in "our scientific text-books, the notion of

any form of life whatever coming out of .- it is utterly unimaginable. The argument placed in^ the mouth of Bishop Butler .'suffices, r!n my opinion, to crush all such, materialism as this. But those who framed these definitions of matter were not biologists but mathematicians, whose ' labours referred only to such accidents and properties of matter as could be " • expressed in their formula. The very intentness with which they pursued mechanical science turned their thoughts aside from the science of life. May not " their imperfect definitions be the real causo of our present dread ? Let us reverently,' but honestly, look the . question in the face. Divorced from matter, where is life to be found ?' Whatever our faith may say, our knowledge ' shows them to be indissolubly Ijoinedt Every meal we eafc, and every cup we ' drink, illustrates the mysterious control of Mind by Matter. \ Trace the line of life backwards, and

see it approaching more and more to what we call the purely physical condition. , We come at-length to those organisms which I have compared to drops of oil suspended in a mixture of alcohol and water.' We reach the -protogenes of "Haeckel, in which we have 'a type distinguishable from a " fragment of albumen only, by its finely granular character/ Can we pause here ? We break a magnet and find two poles in each of its fragments. We continue the process of breaking, but, however small the parts, each carries with it, though - enfeebled, the polarity of the whole. And when Jwe can break no longer, we prolong the intellectual vision to the polar molecules. Are we not urged to do something similar in the case of life ? Is : f there not a temptation to close to some '•extent with Lucretius, when ho affirms that 'nature is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without the meddling of the gods ?' or with Bruno, when he declares that Matter is not •■ ( that mere empty capacity which philosophers have pictured her to be, but the universal mother who brings forth all things as the fruifc of her own womb ?' Believing as I do in the continuity of Nature, I cannot stop abruptly where our ; microscopes cease to be of use. Here the vision of the mind authoritatively supplements the vision of the eye. By an intellectual necessity I cross the boundary of the experimental evidence, and discern in that Matter which we, in our ignorance of its latent powers, and notwithstanding our professed reverence for its Creator, have hitherto covered with opprobrium, tho promise and potency of all terrestrial Life.

If you ask me whether there exists the least evidence to prove that any form of clife can be; developed out of matter, without demonstrable antecedent life, my reply is that evidence considered perfectly ponclusive by many has been adduced; and that were some of us who have pon- , dered this question to follow a very common example, and accept testimony because ifc falls in with our belief, we also should eagerly close with the evidence referred to. But there is in the true man of soienoe a wish stronger than the wish to have his beliefs upheld;, namely, the wish to have them true. And this stronger wish causes him to reject the jnosfc plausible support if he has reason to suspect that it is vitiated by error. Those to whom I refer as having studied" this question, believing, the evidenco offered in favor of ' spontaneous generation' to bo thus

vitiated, rannot except it. They know full well that the chemist now prepares from inorganic matter a vast array of substances which were some time ago regarded as the sole products of vitality. They are intimately acquainted with the structural power'of" matter as evidenced in tho phenomena of crystallization. They can justify scientifically their belief in its potency, under tho proper conditions, to produce organisms. But; in reply to your questi-n they will frankly admit their inability to point to: any satisfactory experimental proof that; life ran be developed save from demonstrable antecedent life; As already indicated, they draw the lino from the Jiighest organisms -through, lower ones down to the^ lowest, .and/Hr3^ the prolongation of this lino by the intellect beyond the range of the senses that leads them*to the conclusion which,Bruno so boldly enunciated. (1) The ' materialism ' here professed may be vastly different from what you suppose, and I therefore crave * ypur gracious patience to the end.* '.The,'"qucstion'of an external world,' pays-Mr J. S. Mill, ';is the great battle-ground.of metaphysics/ (2.) Mr Mill - himself reduces external phenomena- to '^possibilities of sensation.' Kant, ,as wo J have seen, made. time, and space ' forms' of- our own intuitions. Fichte, .having first by the inexorable logic>of his proved.himself to be"a mere link" in that chain of eternal causation.which holds so rigidly in Nature, violently broke the chain by making Nature, and all that it inherits, an, reparation. _qf his own mind. (3.) And it is by-no means easy to combat such notion's. . For- when I say I see you, and that' I have not the least doubt about it, the reply is, that what I; am really conscious *of is^an affection of my own retina. And if I urge that I can check„ my sight of you by touching-you, the retort would be that I am equally transgressing,the limit of fact; for what, lam really conscious of is, not that you "are there, but that the jiervcs of my, hand have undergone a change. All wo hear, and see; atrd touehyaticVtaste, and smell, are, it 'would be -urged,- mere variations of our own condition, beyond'which, even to tho extent of a hair's breadth, we cannot go. That anything answering to our impressions exists outside of ourselves is not a fact, but an inference, to which all validity would be denied by an idealist like Berkeley, or by a sceptic like Hume. Mr Spencer takes another line. With him, as with the uneducated man, there is no doubt or question as to the existence of an external world. But he differs from the uneducated, who think that the world really is what consciousness represents it to be. Our states of conscious-; ness are mere symbols of an outside entity, which produces them and determines the order of their succession, but the real nature of which we can never know. (2.) In fact, the whole process of evolution is the manifestation of a Power absolutely inscrutable to, the intellect of man. As; little in our day as in the days of Job can man by searching find this Power out.. Considered fundamentally, then, it is bythe operation of an indissoluble mystery Jihat life on earth is evolved, species differentiated, and mind unfolded from their prepotent elements in the iinmeasu- : rable past. There is, you will observe, no very rank materialism here. i

(1.) Bruiio was a '. Pantheist,' not an 'Atheist' or a ' Materialist.' (2.) Examination of Hamilton, p. 15-1. : (3.^ Bcstimmuug dcs Menschcn. , "■ (4.) In n paper,. at' once .popular and profound, entitled Recent Progress in the Theory of Vision, contained in'the'volume of. Lectures by Helmholtz, published by Longmans, th;s symbolism of our states of consciousness is also dwelt upon. ■ The impressions of sense are the- mere signs of external things. In this paper Helmholtz contends strongly against the view that the consciousness of space is inborn; and he evidently doubts the power of the ohick to pick up grains of corn without preliminary lessons. On this point, he says, further experiments arc needed. Such experiments have been since made by Mr Spalding, aided,- I believe, in 'some of his observations by the accomplished and deeply lamented Lady Amberly; and they seem to prove conclusively that tho chick does not need a single monient's tuition to enable it to stand, run, govern the. muscles of its eyes, and to' ,peck: .Helmholtz, however, is contending against the notion of pre-established harmony; and I am not aware of his views as to the organisation of experiences' of race or breed. . . . ,- (To be continued J

(For remainder of News see Fourth Page.) I I