The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1899-04-22
IMMORTALITY.
Continued from page one.

community OF nature. The distinC
- ton between psychical and materia
phenomena is absolute, and differeD
from any other distinction known t
philosophy. Science has not bridge
over the chasm between Mind an
Matter; it has on the other hand re
, yealed an absolutely impossible gull
i is this much that phlIosoph,
= has to oppose TO the arguments O
. matcrialism, and no future advanc
in molecular physics can dislodge j
from the position it holds. II ma,
have been shown that the sun derivct
energy of motion latent in the fooC
We eat and yariously mctamorphosct
within the human organism ultimat
ely produces motion Of nerve mole
culcs in the brain, but it has never
been shown how this motion o.
nerve molecules can produce Il state
of consciousness or u thought. The
passage from the physics of the
brain to the corresponding facts OF
consciousness has not only not been
shown to be possible, but it is UNI
! thinkable, for we possess not even
! the rudimcnt IAN intellectual organ
that would enable Ous to pass by a
process of reasoning from one to the
other.
Now If physical energy, or chemi-
cal energy, or energy Of whatever
nature derived from the physical
world cannot only not be proved,
but not even conceived to be trans
muted into psychic energy, or en-
ergy Of mind, what are we to con-
clude but that Mind - an entity in
itself, a something, IA noumcnon, -
in its essential properties and ma
ture utterly alien to matter, but
certainly as real? And if we con
tlude thus, that Mind, or Soul, is an
entity, a real existence, by what
reason, we ask, can its existence be
conceived TO be conditioned by either
matter or physical energy? How
can one entity condition another
unless the first is Il creator of that
other? Matter is passive, it cannot
act; physical energy can act only
upon matter; we have shown before
that such action can never result in
producing Mind; they, then, are not
the creators OF Mind, and how can
taey condition its existence, since
only that can condition the exist
ence Of an entity which gives it eX-
istencc?
Philosophy must admit that II has
no theory as TO how Mind could con
tinue TO exist without the material
tissue, but as to the possibility of
such an existence the issue of our.
contention has at least secured for
us the right of speculation The
path before may be dark, but it is
open. And further, if once we adj
nit the possibility Of Mind S exist
ing independent OF its material en-
vironment, as it seems we must, we
have admitted the possibility OF
spiritual world. We have now TO
lsk if there is any positive evidence
n support of the hypothesis Of a
spiritual world; and again, whether,
f all such evidence fail, it would
aisc a negative presumption against
he hypothesis,
In answer to She first of these |
uestions we are forced to admit |
hat every appeal to experience has
tceived but one invariable answer.
uch a hypothesis is not only ut
erly unsupported by any evidence
hat can be gathered from the world
which we have experience, but it
utterly and hopelessly inconcciv-
bic. il is inconceivable because by
ne very limitations OF the mind we
re debarrcd from knowing anything
scept that which has foundation
our experience. We may defend
l our hypothesis as much as we
Se, we may vituperate those who
, not see their way clear to accept
but the fact nevertheless remains
lat no single atom of evidence has
Ter been elected from the world OF
nsc in its behalf.
Now, as to the other question,
ow much is all this to signify? In
wv far does it bear upon the valid
y of our hypothesis? 1t is true
at we usually consider worthy
acceptance statement that is
supported by any Testimony
latever from the world of expert
ce. This we feel to be just, for
every such case the testimony is
her directly or Indirectly obtain