Intelligence

The progress of intelligence has throughout been dual. Though it has not seemed so to those who made it, every step in advance has been a step towards both the natural and the supernatural. The better interpretation of each phenomenon has been, on the one hand, the rejection of a cause that was relatively conceivable in its nature but unknown in the order of its actions, and, on the other hand, the adoption of a cause that was known in the order of its actions but relatively inconceivable in its nature. The first advance out of universal fetishism, manifestly involved the conception of agencies less assimilable to the familiar agencies of men and animals, and therefore less understood; while, at the same time, such newly-conceived agencies in so far as they were distinguished by their uniform effects, were better understood than those they replaced. All subsequent advances display the same double result. Every deeper and more general power arrived at as a cause of phenomena, has been at once less comprehensible than the special ones it superseded, in the sense of being less definitely representable in thought; while it has been more comprehensible in the sense that its actions have been more completely predicable. The progress has thus been as much towards the establishment of a positively unknown as towards the establishment of a positively known. Though as knowledge approaches its culmination, every unaccountable and seemingly supernatural fact, is brought into the category of facts that are accountable or natural; yet, at the same time, all accountable or natural facts are proved to be in their ultimate genesis unaccountable and supernatural. And so there arise two antithetical states of mind, answering to the opposite sides of that existence about which we think. While our consciousness of Nature under the one aspect constitutes Science, our consciousness of it under the other aspect constitutes Religion.

Evidence that in the course of psychial development, there is a change from the vague to the distinct, may be seen in every nursery. The confusion of the infant’s perceptions is shown by its inability to distinguish persons. The dimness of its ideas of direction and distance, may be inferred from the ill-guided movements of its hands, and from its endeavours to grasp objects far out of reach. Only by degrees does the sense of equilibrium, needful for safe standing and moving, gain the requisite precision. Through the insensible steps that end in comprehensible speech, we may trace an increase in the accuracy with which sounds are discriminated and in the nicety with which they are imitated. And similarly during education, the change is towards the establishment of internal relations more perfectly corresponding to external ones—to exactness in calculations, to a better representation of objects drawn, to a more correct spelling, to a completer conformity to the rules of speech, to clearer ideas respecting the affairs of life. How in the further progress to maturity the law still holds, needs not here be pointed out; more especially as it will presently be shown in treating of the evolution of intelligence during the advance of civilization. The only further fact calling for remark, is, that this increase of mental definiteness is, in some ways, manifested even during the advance from maturity to old age. The habits of life grow more and more fixed; the character becomes less capable of change; the quantity of knowledge previously acquired ceases to have its limits alterable by additions; and the opinions upon every point admit of no modification.

This general conclusion it now remains to interpret specifically, in its application to each of our ultimate scientific ideas. * * * * * § 62.[11] We think in relations. This is truly the form of all thought; and if there are any other forms, they must be derived from this. We have seen (Chap. iii. Part I.) that the several ultimate modes of being cannot be known or conceived as they exist in themselves; that is, out of _relation_ to our consciousness. We have seen, by analyzing the product of thought, (§ 23,) that it always consists of _relations_; and cannot include anything beyond the most general of these. On analyzing the process of thought, we found that cognition of the Absolute was impossible, because it presented neither _relation_, nor its elements—difference and likeness. Further, we found that not only Intelligence but Life itself, consists in the establishment of internal _relations_ in correspondence with external relations. And lastly, it was shown that though by the relativity of our thought we are eternally debarred from knowing or conceiving Absolute Being; yet that this very _relativity_ of our thought, necessitates that vague consciousness of Absolute Being which no mental effort can suppress. That _relation_ is the universal form of thought, is thus a truth which all kinds of demonstration unite in proving.

* * * * * § 113. Among mental phenomena it is difficult to establish the alleged law without an analysis too extensive for the occasion. To show satisfactorily how states of consciousness, originally homogeneous, become heterogeneous through differences in the changes wrought by different forces, would require us carefully to trace out the organization of early experiences. Were this done it would become manifest that the development of intelligence, is, under one of its chief aspects, a dividing into separate classes, the unlike things previously confounded together in one class—a formation of sub-classes and sub-sub-classes, until the once confused aggregate of objects known, is resolved into an aggregate which unites extreme heterogeneity among its multiplied groups, with complete homogeneity among the members of each group. If, for example, we followed, through ascending grades of creatures, the genesis of that vast structure of knowledge acquired by sight, we should find that in the first stage, where eyes suffice for nothing beyond the discrimination of light from darkness, the only possible classifications of objects seen, must be those based on the manner in which light is obstructed, and the degree in which it is obstructed.

* * * * * § 120. A sensation does not expend itself in arousing some single state of consciousness; but the state of consciousness aroused is made up of various represented sensations connected by co-existence, or sequence with the presented sensation. And that, in proportion as the grade of intelligence is high, the number of ideas suggested is great, may be readily inferred. Let us, however, look at the proof that here too, each change is the parent of many changes; and that the multiplication increases in proportion as the area affected is complex. Were some hitherto unknown bird, driven say by stress of weather from the remote north, to make its appearance on our shores, it would excite no speculation in the sheep or cattle amid which it alighted: a perception of it as a creature like those constantly flying about, would be the sole interruption of that dull current of consciousness which accompanies grazing and rumination. The cow-herd, by whom we may suppose the exhausted bird to be presently caught, would probably gaze at it with some slight curiosity, as being unlike any he had before seen—would note its most conspicuous markings, and vaguely ponder on the questions, where it came from, and how it came. The village bird-stuffer would have suggested to him by the sight of it, sundry forms to which it bore a little resemblance; would receive from it more numerous and more specific impressions respecting structure and plumage; would be reminded of various instances of birds brought by storms from foreign parts—would tell who found them, who stuffed them, who bought them.

On pourrait encore distinguer et séparer dans l'expérimentateur celui qui prémédite et institue l'expérience de celui qui en réalise l'exécution ou en constate les résultats. Dans le premier cas, c'est l'esprit de l'inventeur scientifique qui agit; dans le second, ce sont les sens qui observent ou constatent. La preuve de ce que j'avance nous est fournie de la manière la plus frappante par l'exemple de Fr. Huber[8]. Ce grand naturaliste, quoique aveugle, nous a laissé d'admirables expériences qu'il concevait et faisait ensuite exécuter par son domestique, qui n'avait pour sa part aucune idée scientifique. Huber était donc l'esprit directeur qui instituait l'expérience; mais il était obligé d'emprunter les sens d'un autre. Le domestique représentait les sens passifs qui obéissent à l'intelligence pour réaliser l'expérience instituée en vue d'une idée préconçue.

Bacon recommande de fuir les hypothèses et les théories[14], nous avons vu cependant que ce sont les auxiliaires de la méthode, indispensables comme les échafaudages sont nécessaires pour construire une maison. Bacon a eu, comme toujours, des admirateurs outrés et des détracteurs. Sans me mettre ni d'un côté ni de l'autre, je dirai que, tout en reconnaissant le génie de Bacon, je ne crois pas plus que J. de Maistre[15], qu'il ait doté l'intelligence humaine d'un nouvel instrument, et il me semble, avec M. de Rémusat[16], que l'induction ne diffère pas du syllogisme. D'ailleurs, je crois que les grands expérimentateurs ont apparu avant les préceptes de l'expérimentation, de même que les grands orateurs ont précédé les traités de rhétorique. Par conséquent, il ne me paraît pas permis de dire, même en parlant de Bacon, qu'il a inventé la méthode expérimentale; méthode que Galilée et Torricelli ont si admirablement pratiquée, et dont Bacon n'a jamais pu se servir. Quand Descartes[17] part du doute universel et répudie l'autorité, il donne des préceptes bien plus pratiques pour l'expérimentateur que ceux que donne Bacon pour l'induction. Nous avons vu, en effet, que c'est le doute seul qui provoque l'expérience; c'est le doute enfin qui détermine la forme du raisonnement expérimental.

Life or consciousness unites what sense and reason disunite. — Sir William Hamilton's curious theory of the causal judg- ment. — He finds the cause of a thing in the thing's own en- trails. — Thus he thinks saltpetre is not merely constituted but caused by K O and N 06. — Cause evoked only to explain some breach of natural order. — We never ask the cause of Things, but only of their mutations. — Sir W. Hamilton stul- tifies intelligence by confounding Finiteness with Phenomenal- ity. — They are as distinct as sense and reason. — Cause is adduced to explain ^cts of phenomenal not of fixed existence. — It is not a sensible but a rational inquest. — Cause is a sci- entific rudiment of the philosophic idea of creation. — The force of the caus,al judgment is in its educating or disciplining the intellect 299 CHAPTER XIX.

22 ^he JntroduSlion. us — He may give them totally new and unex- pected issues in harmony with His own univer- sality of love and providence. In other words, let God reveal Himself to my intelligence as a natural man, as a sympathetic partaker of my own corrupt nature, not with any view as my natural reason alleges to condemn and denounce It, but only to purify and exalt it to the measure of His own infinitude, and I shall necessarily love Him, love Him with such a reality and in- tensity of love as reconciles me even to my past natural animosity, and fills mie moreover with His own unspeakable tenderness towards the possible natural animosity of all mankind.

church is based upon the truth of the divine NATrrRAL, humanity, and hence has no recognition of a deity outside of the conditions of human nature. — The incarnation is a domestication of the divine perfection in human nature, and through that in animal, vegetable, and mineral. — Swedcnborg illustrates tiiis truth rather than argues it. — Distinction between living and dead truth, or truths of conscience which belong to the life, and truths of science which belong to the memory. — Sweden- borg's doctrine of nature — Nature exists only to sense, and has no rational reality. — Thus it is a purely phenomenal or apparitional world, although in the infancy of our intelligence we suppose it to be the only reality, and are incapable of lifting our thought above it. — We suppose creation accordingly to be a physical achievement of God, — a magical ex- hibition of his power in space and time, whereas it is a wholly spiritual operation in the sphere of human affection and thought. — Philosophy de- mands consequently that we allow nature only a subjective force, or re- gard it as strict involution of the human mind. . . . 20-25