the unseen world and other essays-第7部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


stantly　escaping　from　visible　matter　into　invisible　ether。　The　moment　we　ask　how　do　we　know　that　this　energy　is　not　really　wasted；　or　that　it　is　not　put　to　some　use　wholly　undiscoverable　by　human　intelligence；　this　assumption　of　an　organized　ether　is　at　once　seen　to　be　groundless。　It　belongs　not　to　the　region　of　science；　but　to　that　of　pure　mythology。

＇6＇　Babbage；　Ninth　Bridgewater　Treatise；　p。　115；　Jevons；　Principles　of　Science；　Vol。　II。　p。　455。


In　justice　to　our　authors；　however；　it　should　be　remembered　that　this　assumption　is　put　forth　not　as　something　scientifically　probable；　but　as　something　which　for　aught　we　know　to　the　contrary　may　possibly　be　true。　This；　to　be　sure；　we　need　not　deny；　nor　if　we　once　allow　this　prodigious　leap　of　inference；　shall　we　find　much　difficulty　in　reaching　the　famous　conclusion　that　〃thought　conceived　to　affect　the　matter　of　another　universe　simultaneously　with　this　may　explain　a　future　state。〃　This　proposition；　quaintly　couched　in　an　anagram；　like　the　discoveries　of　old　astronomers；　was　published　last　year　in　〃Nature；〃　as　containing　the　gist　of　the　forthcoming　book。　On　the　negative…image　hypothesis　it　is　not　hard　to　see　how　thought　is　conceived　to　affect　the　seen　and　the　unseen　worlds　simultaneously。　Every　act　of　consciousness　is　accompanied　by　molecular　displacements　in　the　brain；　and　these　are　of　course　responded　to　by　movements　in　the　ethereal　world。　Thus　as　a　series　of　conscious　states　build　up　a　continuous　memory　in　strict　accordance　with　physical　laws　of　motion；＇7＇　so　a　correlative　memory　is　simultaneously　built　up　in　the　ethereal　world　out　of　the　ethereal　correlatives　of　the　molecular　displacements　which　go　on　in　our　brains。　And　as　there　is　a　continual　transfer　of　energy　from　the　visible　world　to　the　ether；　the　extinction　of　vital　energy　which　we　call　death　must　coincide　in　some　way　with　the　awakening　of　vital　energy　in　the　correlative　world；　so　that　the　darkening　of　consciousness　here　is　coincident　with　its　dawning　there。　In　this　way　death　is　for　the　individual　but　a　transfer　from　one　physical　state　of　existence　to　another；　and　so；　on　the　largest　scale；　the　death　or　final　loss　of　energy　by　the　whole　visible　universe　has　its　counterpart　in　the　acquirement　of　a　maximum　of　life　by　the　correlative　unseen　world。

There　seems　to　be　a　certain　sort　of　rigorous　logical　consistency　in　this　daring　speculation；　but　really　the　propositions　of　which　it　consists　are　so　far　from　answering　to　anything　within　the　domain　of　human　experience　that　we　are　unable　to　tell　whether　any　one　of　them　logically　follows　from　its　predecessor　or　not。　It　is　evident　that　we　are　quite　out　of　the　region　of　scientific　tests；　and　to　whatever　view　our　authors　may　urge　we　can　only　languidly　assent　that　it　is　out　of　our　power　to　disprove　it。

＇7＇　See　my　Outlines　of　Cosmic　Philosophy；　Vol。　II。　pp。　142…148。


The　essential　weakness　of　such　a　theory　as　this　lies　in　the　fact　that　it　is　thoroughly　materialistic　in　character。　It　is　currently　assumed　that　the　doctrine　of　a　life　after　death　cannot　be　defended　on　materialistic　grounds；　but　this　is　altogether　too　hasty　an　assumption。　Our　authors；　indeed；　are　not　philosophical　materialists；　like　Dr。　Priestley；who　nevertheless　believed　in　a　future　life；but　one　of　the　primary　doctrines　of　materialism　lies　at　the　bottom　of　their　argument。　Materialism　holds　for　one　thing　that　consciousness　is　a　product　of　a　peculiar　organization　of　matter；　and　for　another　thing　that　consciousness　cannot　survive　the　disorganization　of　the　material　body　with　which　it　is　associated。　As　held　by　philosophical　materialists；　like　Buchner　and　Moleschott；　these　two　opinions　are　strictly　consistent　with　each　other；　nay；　the　latter　seems　to　be　the　inevitable　inference　from　the　former；　though　Priestley　did　not　so　regard　it。　Now　our　authors　very　properly　refuse　to　commit　themselves　to　the　opinion　that　mind　is　the　product　of　matter；　but　their　argument　nevertheless　implies　that　some　sort　of　material　vehicle　is　necessary　for　the　continuance　of　mind　in　a　future　state　of　existence。　This　material　vehicle　they　seek　to　supply　in　the　theory　which　connects　by　invisible　bonds　of　transmitted　energy　the　perishable　material　body　with　its　counterpart　in　the　world　of　ether。　The　materialism　of　the　argument　is　indeed　partly　veiled　by　the　terminology　in　which　this　counterpart　is　called　a　〃spiritual　body；〃　but　in　this　novel　use　or　abuse　of　scriptural　language　there　seems　to　me　to　be　a　strange　confusion　of　ideas。　Bear　in　mind　that　the　〃invisible　universe〃　into　which　energy　is　constantly　passing　is　simply　the　luminiferous　ether；　which　our　authors；　to　suit　the　requirements　of　their　hypothesis；　have　gratuitously　endowed　with　a　complexity　and　variety　of　structure　analogous　to　that　of　the　visible　world　of　matter。　Their　language　is　not　always　quite　so　precise　as　one　could　desire；　for　while　they　sometimes　speak　of　the　ether　itself　as　the　〃unseen　universe；〃　they　sometimes　allude　to　a　primordial　medium　yet　subtler　in　constitution　and　presumably　more　immaterial。　Herein　lies　the　confusion。　Why　should　the　luminiferous　ether；　or　any　primordial　medium　in　which　it　may　have　been　generated；　be　regarded　as　in　any　way　〃spiritual〃？　Great　physicists；　like　less　trained　thinkers；　are　sometimes　liable　to　be　unconsciously　influenced　by　old　associations　of　ideas　which；　ostensibly　repudiated；　still　lurk　under　cover　of　the　words　we　use。　I　fear　that　the　old　associations　which　led　the　ancients　to　describe　the　soul　as　a　breath　or　a　shadow；　and　which　account　for　the　etymologies　of　such　words　as　〃ghost〃　and　〃spirit；〃　have　had　something　to　do　with　this　spiritualization　of　the　interstellar　ether。　Some　share　may　also　have　been　contributed　by　the　Platonic　notion　of　the　〃grossness〃　or　〃bruteness〃　of　tangible　matter；a　notion　which　has　survived　in　Christian　theology；　and　which　educated　men　of　the　present　day　have　by　no　means　universally　outgrown。　Save　for　some　such　old　associations　as　these；　why　should　it　be　supposed　that　matter　becomes　〃spriritualized〃　as　it　diminishes　in　apparent　substantiality？　Why　should　matter　be　pronounced　respectable　in　the　inverse　ratio　of　its　density　or　ponderability？　Why　is　a　diamond　any　more　chargeable　with　〃grossness〃　than　a　cubic　centimetre　of　hydrogen？　Obviously　such　fancies　are　purely　of　mythologic　parentage。　Now　the　luminiferous　ether；　upon　which　our　authors　make　such　extensive　demands；　may　be　physically　〃ethereal〃　enough；　in　spite　of　the　enormous　elasticity　which　leads　Professor　Jevons　to　characterize　it　as　〃adamantine〃；　but　most　assuredly　we　have　not　the　slightest　reason　for　speaking　of　it　as　〃immaterial〃　or　〃spiritual。〃　Though　we　are　unable　to　weigh　it　in　the　balance；　we　at　least　know　it　as　a　transmitter　of　undulatory　movements；　the　size　and　shape　of　which　we　can　accurately　measure。　Its　force…relations　with　ponderable　matter　are　not　only　universally　and　incessantly　maintained；　but　they　have　that　precisely　quantitative　character　which　implies　an　essential　identity　between　the　innermost　natures　of　the　two　substances。　We　have　seen　reason　for　thinking　it　probable　that　ether　and　ordinary　matter　are　alike　composed　of　vortex…rings　in　a　quasi…frictionless　fluid；　but　whatever　be　the　fate　of　this　subtle　hypothesis；　we　may　be　sure　that　no　theory　will　ever　be　entertained　in　which　the　analysis　of　ether　shall　require　different　symbols　from　that　of　ordinary　matter。　In　our　authors'　theory；　therefore；　the　putting　on　of　immortality　is　in　no　wise　the　passage　from　a　material　to　a　spiritual　state。　It　is　the　passage　from　one　kind　of　materially　conditioned　state　to　another。　The　theory　thus　appeals　directly　to　our　experiences　of　the　behaviour　of　matter；　and　in　deriving　so　little　support　as　it　does　from　these　experiences；　it　remains　an　essentially　weak　speculation；　whatever　we　may　think　of　its　ingenuity。　For　so　long　as　we　are　asked　to　accept　conclusions　drawn　from　our　experiences　of　the　material　world；　we　are　justified　in　demanding　something　more　than　mere　unconditioned　possibility。　We　require　some　positive　evidence；　be　it　ever　so　little　in　amount；　and　no　theory　which　cannot　furnish　such　positive　evidence　is　likely　to　carry　to　our　minds　much　practical　conviction。

This　is　what　I　meant　by　saying　that　the　great　weakness　of　the　hypothesis　here　criticized　lies　in　its　materialistic　character。　In　contrast　with　this　we　shall　presently　see　that　the　assertion　of　a　future　life　which　is　not　materially　conditioned；　though　unsupported　by　any　item　of　experience　whatever；　may　nevertheless　be　an　impregnable　assertion。　But　first　I　would　conclude　the　foregoing　criticism　by　ruling　out　altogether　the　sense　in　which　our　authors　use　the　expression　〃Unseen　Universe。〃　Scientific　inference；　however　remote；　is　connected　by　such　insensible　gradations　with　ordinary　perception；　that　one　may　well　question　the　propriety　of　applying　the　term　〃unseen〃　to　that　which　is　presented　to　〃the　mind's　eye〃　as　inevitable　matter　of　inference。　It　is　true　that　we　cannot　see　the　ocean　of　ether　in　which　visible　matter　floats；　but　there　are　many　other　invisible　things　which　yet　we　do　not　regard　as　part　of　the　〃unseen　world。〃　I　do　not　see　the　air　which　I　am　now　breathing　within　the　four　walls　of　my　study；　yet　its　existence　is　sufficiently　a　matter　of　sense…perception　as　it　fills　my　lungs　and　fans　my　cheek。　The　atoms　which　compose　a　drop　of　water　are　not　only　invisible；　but　cannot　in　any　way　be　made　the　objects　of　sense…perception；　yet　by　proper　inferences　from　their　behaviour　we　can　single　them　out　for　measurement；　so　that　Sir　William　Thomson　can　tell　us　that　if　the　drop　of　water　were　magnified　to　the　size　of　the　earth；　the　constituent　atoms　would　be　larger　than　peas；　but　not　so　large　as　billiard…balls。　If　we　do　not　see　such　atoms　with　our　eyes；　we　have　one　adequate　reason　in　their　tiny　dimensions；　though　there　are　further　reasons　than　this。　It　would　be　hard　to　say　why　the　luminiferous　ether　should　be　relegated　to　the　〃unseen　world〃　any　more　than　the　material　atom。　Whatever　we　know　as　possessing　resistance　and　extension；　whatever　we　can　subject　to　mathematical　processes　of　measurement；　we　also　conceive　as　existing　in　such　shape　that；　with　appropriate　eyes　and　under　proper　visual　conditions；　we　MIGHT　see　it；　and　we　are　not　entitled　to　draw　any　line　of　demarcation　between　such　an　object　of　inference　and　others　which　may