wer, or to its outflow
in the form of work done." My theory of the relation of body and bodily
energy is, in fact, an extension of James' "transmission theory" of
consciousness to the _whole_ of our life and vital energy. And I believe
the one is as defensible as the other.

But, I shall be asked, is there any evidence for such a theory? There is
much evidence, there are many facts, which I have adduced in full
elsewhere.[16] This is not the place to discuss the physiological
intricacies involved, and I can only refer those interested to the work
in question. At present, I shall assume its accuracy--or at least its
validity--and proceed to show in few words why it is that this theory is
not contrary to any known facts, but is capable of explaining them just
as fully as the generally accepted theory, and other (disputed) facts
far more readily.

The facts upon which the current theory is founded are well known, and,
apparently, thoroughly established. Briefly, they are these: So much
food, oxidised or burned outside the body, can be shown to yield so much
heat and energy. The same foods, oxidised within the body, yield
approximately the same amount of energy. Further, the energy which the
body expends (in conscious and unconscious muscular activity, thought,
emotion, and as heat, etc.) is, it is contended, practically equivalent
to the energy which is thus supplied. There is, therefore, an
equivalence, a balance, between income and outgo of energy: so that the
recently conducted experiments in calorimetry are held to prove beyond
question the causation of vital energy by food.

I shall not in this place stop to question the accuracy of the figures
obtained--to point out that the results do not always tally; that far
too little allowance has been made for mental and emotional states, etc.
I shall assume that the figures are accurate and prove all that they are
held to prove. The question then arises: Do the figures prove the
causation of vital energy by food? Apparently they do, no doubt, and
they are held to do so by the majority of experimental physiologists;
but I do not believe that this is at all the case. Admitting the facts,
admitting far greater accuracy than the figures really show, we have to
consider the question of their _interpretation_. And this brings us back
to the remarks made at the beginning of this paper--that coincidence
does not prove causation; and that the same set of facts may often be
interpre