Evening star., 1936-04-12
THIS WEEK
Why Believe in Immortality
Continued from pose five

least some thinking possible quite
independently of any corresponding
cerebral process.
On such view it is no longer inn
possible that consciousness may per-
sist after the brain is destroyed.
There is, of course, close correla-
ton between the brains activity and
mental processes. Intoxication, deli
rum, anesthesia. declining mental
powers as old age advances - these
reveal it. Yet they are not identical.
Substantial portions of brains of both
men and animals have been removed
without destroying consciousness or
impairing mental powers.
William James contended - and,
it seems to me, successfully - that
1T has not been proved. and it seems
unprovable, that the actual body is
the adequate cause and not a purely
contingent condition of our spiritual
life"
He held the view that the brain
transmits the thoughts to the body,
where action occurs, the thought itself
originating in the consciousness. He
recognized that during life thought
needs the brain for its organ of ex-
pression but this does not exclude the
existence of thought independent of
the brain.
This concept would set up the brain
as an agent similar to the detecting
tube in a radio receiving set Obvi-
ously. without it no music could be
heard. But does destruction of the
tube imply destruction of the musician
whose song is from afar?
James's view accounts satisfac-
torily for the observed parallelism
between thought and brain, and yet
leaves room for the great diversity
of the thought processes.
Kant thus observes:
THE death of the body may indeed
be the end of the sensational use of our
mind, but only the beginning of the
intellectual use. The body would thus
not be the cause of our thinking, but
merely condition restrictive thereof,
and, although essential to our sem
suous and animal consciousness, it
may be regarded as an impeder of our
pure spiritual life"
Only the mechanistic theory re-
quires the obhteration of conscious
ness with the destruction of the brain.
But by the new physics the mecha-
nistic concept that a definite thought
is the result of an equally definite
physical change in the brain has be-
come difficult to defend. The logical
inference, then, is that thought or
consciousness may continue after
DEATH
BergsOn seems adequately to assert
that there is infinitely more in
human consciousness than in a cor
responding brain; and the mind over
flows the brain on all sides, cerebral
activity corresponding only to very
small part of mental activity" If su-
perior, then why not its continuance?
This leads to consideration of the
objective or purpose of life. If con-
sciousness is but the product of con-
ditions whereby it can serve the
physical organism with which it is
associated, then logically it is of no
value to dead organism, and dies
with it.
But if conscious persons are the
goal toward which nature is working
and organisms but the servant in the
fulhlment of the vast and noble plan
of benevolent Creator, physical
death is but an incident in the process.
As l have indicated in THE Free
dom of Man:
"Our survey of the universe in
dicated that mankind is very possibly
natures best achievement in this
direction. If in the world scheme con-
cciouS life iS Nthe fhinU of r,r;rooru