Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:14:35.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Vital Organization and the Psychic Factor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Ralph S. Lillie*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago

Extract

If we may rely for our evidence on simple observation, it would appear that the tendency of random or unguided activity in external nature is opposed to the development of complex organization and favorable to structural simplicity—in the sense of uniformity in the distribution of elements. This anti-organizing trend of purely physical processes is illustrated in ordinary large-scale mixing and stirring operations, as well as in the automatic increase of entropy with time in systems subject to the laws of thermodynamics (material or molecular systems in general). It is common experience that complex systems which are the seat of physical activity tend to become simpler when left to themselves, i.e., they lose organization. Recently Eddington has given the whole matter an admirably clear expression: “Entropy may most conveniently be described as the measure of disorganization of a system. ... We can see chance creeping in where formerly it was excluded.” Unless counteracted by directive action the casual or random element in nature tends to increase. If things are left to chance, not only does organization of any high degree of complexity fail to develop, but what organization there is tends to lapse or disappear. Hence in those cases, such as living organisms, where the existence and activity of the system depend on a special and complex organization, it appears necessary to assume the continued operation of a stable directive influence or factor which pervades the whole system and excludes or compensates casual factors as far as possible. The presence of this factor is what makes possible the development and maintenance of the organization required for vital activity.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association 1944

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “New Pathways in Science” (Macmillans, 1935), p. 55.

2 Cf. my recent paper, “Living and Non-living Systems”, this Journal, Vol. 9, 1942, p. 307; especially pages 308–10.

3 For example, Jacques Loeb considers living organisms as “chemical machines, consisting essentially of colloidal material, which possess the peculiarities of automatically developing, preserving and reproducing themselves” (The Dynamics of Living Matter, Columbia University Press, 1906, p. 1.)

4 The term “field” is used both in physics and biology in the sense of an area or volume pervaded by a single persistent influence of some definite kind (gravitational, magnetic, electrical, inductive, developmental, etc.), and it is used here in a similar general sense.

5 I.e., experimental evidence of such influence is lacking. If the existence of Lamarckian influence is admitted at all by the modern geneticist, it is in a highly modified form.

6 The evidence for this general statement is familiar to all observers of family traits. Galton's book on Hereditary Genius gives many examples from biography and history.

7 Cf. my recent paper. “The Psychic Factor in Living Organisms”, Philosophy of Science, 1943, Vol. 10, p. 262.

8 We may note that this conclusion is in agreement with the philosophical doctrine that reality is not completely contained in history. In Professor Boodin's recent paper on “Analysis and Wholism” in this Journal (Vol. 10, p. 213) he makes brief allusion to this doctrine (p. 228).

9 I say “chief” here, because chance factors can never be entirely ruled out in natural events, and may themselves at times lead to novel conjunctions.