In researching for my own work, I seek to understand those upon whose shoulders I stand. Not just to understand what they saw, but to see through their eyes.
In this chapter of my own journey, I was exploring Hermann von Helmholtz. The man that, building upon the work of Emil du Bois-Reymond, figured out the speed limit for nerve conduction. A speed that is orders of magnitude too slow to be a form of classical electrical conduction. Coupled with the work of Charles Scott Sherrington, which showed that signals are one-way, these facts make it abundantly clear: nerves are not wires. A critical building block for understanding cognition.
As I read his story, however, something jumped out at me. Something I had not caught in my reading of du Bois-Reymond. The so called Reymond-Brück Oath of 1842. This was a document, a manifesto, that some say was signed in blood. That’s probably an embellishment, but you never know about these kinds of things. The oath goes like this:
“[We pledge] to put in power this truth: no other forces than the common physical [and] chemical ones are active within the organism. In those cases which cannot at the time be explained by these forces, one has either to find a specific way or form of their action by means of the physical-mathematical method, or to assume new forces equal in dignity to the chemical-physical forces inherent in matter, reducible to the force of attraction and repulsion.”
The backstory of this oath is important. It was an act of rebellion. A reaction to the, as they saw it, closed minded adherence to an unnecessary theory of “vitalism” — the idea that there exists some invisible, unknowable “force” that permeates living tissue and gives it life. The “breath of God” if you will. An idea that was, in their eyes, vehemently and excessively espoused by their mentor, Johannes Müller.
As I read about it, I realized: at that age, I probably would have signed that oath, too. Even if it required signing it in blood.
And then, I realized also: now, in my later years, I would not. And the reason is the same as I gave in Ignoramus et Ignorabimus: Because this was a definitive and absolute declaration of fealty to the king that they sought to enthrone above God: reductionist materialism.
You see, in my youth, I was much like them. I would listen to what others said. I would take their words literally. I would see the contradictions, the stupidity, and I would declare: “I know more than you. I am right. You are wrong.”
I was arrogant. They were too.
But somewhere along the lines, I realized something: A lot of those things were never meant to be taken literally. They were metaphors. Or linguistic placeholders. Take the word: spirit.
- Supernatural Being (Ghost or Soul)
Meaning: A non-physical entity, often thought to be the soul of a dead person or a supernatural force.
Example: The old house was rumored to be haunted by a restless spirit.
- Soul or Inner Essence
Meaning: The non-material part of a person regarded as their true self, or the essence of someone.
Example: Though her body was frail, her spirit remained strong.
- Mood, Emotional State, or Morale
Meaning: A person’s emotional state or attitude, often in the plural as “spirits.”
Example: He was in high spirits after receiving the good news.
- Attitude or Disposition
Meaning: A quality of character or temperament.
Example: She tackled the challenge with great spirit and determination.
- Enthusiasm or Liveliness
Meaning: An energetic or vivacious mood or behavior.
Example: The children played with spirit in the schoolyard.
- Team or Group Unity (Camaraderie)
Meaning: A shared sense of purpose, unity, or morale within a group.
Example: Team spirit was high going into the final match.
- Principle or Essence of Something
Meaning: The fundamental nature or true meaning of something, especially a law or rule.
Example: Though he followed the letter of the law, he violated its spirit.
- Alcoholic Beverage (Distilled)
Meaning: A strong distilled liquor, such as whiskey, vodka, or rum.
Example: He ordered a spirit on the rocks at the bar.
- Supernatural Force or Deity (esp. in Religion or Myth)
Meaning: A divine or mystical force; often used in religious contexts (e.g., the Holy Spirit).
Example: The ceremony was meant to honor the spirits of the ancestors.
- Vital Force or Animation (Philosophical or Archaic)
Meaning: The vital or animating force in living beings; often used historically in medicine or philosophy.
Example: In ancient medicine, it was believed that spirits flowed through the body to sustain life.
- Person (Archaic or Literary)
Meaning: A person regarded in terms of their personality or nature (usually in poetic or older literature).
Example: She was a gentle spirit, always caring for others.
- Volatile Substance (Chemistry)
Meaning: A chemical substance that evaporates readily; sometimes used in older chemistry.
Example: Spirit of ammonia was once used in smelling salts.
Look at that! 12 distinctly different meanings. All the same word. That commonality of word choice implies that there is something in common across all of these concepts. And indeed, there is: “The thing you cannot see which is responsible for the things you can see.” That’s what the word means.
Think about that: We have taken a word that is little more than a description, a statement of “we don’t know what it is, we only know that we can’t see it, but we can see that it is real.” We’ve taken that word and applied it to so many things. We think we know what the word means. But by definition, we don’t! We given ourselves a false sense of certainty due to our ability to use the word in context and be able to articulate the things it applies to. But I feel like we have lost sight of the fact that the word itself is a placeholder for an unknown.
This “vitalism” . . . Was it truly and inherently wrong? Or was it another way of saying “the spirit of living tissue.” We don’t know what it is, but we are certain that it must be.
Sure, Müller may have made unreasonable claims about the nature of this vital essence. Like, that it can’t be known. That was arrogance, I’ll admit. And so du Bois-Reymond and his pals decided to replace one form of arrogance with another.
And that’s when it hit me. And this is more for me than for you:
Have I outgrown this arrogance? Or has it just blossomed in my old age into a certainty that I know something nobody else knows? Is my model of consciousness just another form of that self-same principle?
The sad thing is, I won’t be able to know for sure until the model is either disproven or vindicated. And that may not happen in my lifetime.