Mechanism, Life and Personality

Answers

• Q07LIFE

  Does living activity require a principle beyond physical and chemical processes?

  Neither. mechanism fails, but no added vital force. The mechanistic theory cannot account for the way an organism maintains and reproduces its own structure, but vitalism is no better; biology needs the organism as its own basic concept.

  In the first lecture I stated as clearly as I could the arguments in favour of the mechanistic theory of life, and the fatal objections which may be urged against vitalism or animism. The second lecture was devoted to criticism of the mechanistic theory. I endeavoured to show that the experimental evidence which has been brought forward in support of this theory will not bear critical examination, and that the popular idea that the progress of physiology is in the direction of confirming or supporting the mechanical conception of life is a complete illusion. I then proceeded to discuss, in the light of biological facts, whether by any possibility the mechanistic theory may not still be correct. The result of this discussion was that there is no such possibility. The physical and chemical conception of the world breaks down absolutely and hopelessly in connection with the phenomena of life, however useful it actually is in connection with inorganic phenomena. It is, therefore, nothing but a working hjrpothesis of limited useful application. … It was then shown that we do actually employ the funda- mental working conception of living organisms as such, and that with the help of this con- ception we can bring order and intelligibi- lity into biological investigation, and we are provided with a working hypothesis which is of the utmost practical value in biological work.

  Lecture I, 'The Mechanistic Theory of Life' (on vitalism) and Lecture II, 'Criticism of the Mechanistic Theory' · Downloaded archive.org copy (Dutton, 1914 US edition); contents list four lectures; first published by John Murray, 1913.

• Q08LIFE

  Does an organism's ability to repair itself distinguish it fundamentally from a machine?

  This answer is hidden while the authors build this question’s position key.

• Q09LIFE

  Can the development of an organism from an egg be explained as the operation of a machine?

  No. the organism is not a machine. Criticizes the mechanistic theory of life, arguing that the self-maintaining and self-reproducing organization of the organism cannot be explained as the working of a machine.

  The living body and its physiological environment form an organic whole, the parts of which cannot be under- stood in separation from one another. Our ordinary language as applied to life corresponds with these characteristics. We naturally speak of a living organism as an autonomous active whole, and think of it as such. The idea of its being a mechanism made up of separable parts, and actuated by external causes, is wholly unnatural to us, and becomes more and more unnatural the more we know about organisms. The concept we are using is radically different from any physical concept : for in conceiving what is living we do not separate between matter or structure and its activity. The structure itself is conceived as active — as alive. But the objection may be raised that this is only a loose and inaccurate mode of thinking and expression : for we know that the living substance consists of nothing but matter, though we do not yet know in what exact form the atoms or molecules are combined. This, it must be pointed out clearly, is simply to beg the whole question. It was the com- plete and hopeless failure of the material conception of a living organism that led to our present inquiry.

  London: J. Murray 1913; sections include 'The mechanistic theory of life' and 'Criticism of the mechanistic theory' (Internet Archive listing, Science review 1915).