hat it is a separate force, which physiology,
as taught today, cannot account for. Introspection and experiment seem
to unite in telling us that this energy is none other than the human
Will.

But if it be granted, on the other hand, that the will is a physical
energy, we immediately encounter certain difficulties which must not be
ignored. In the first place, if the will be a physical energy, it is
subject to the law of Conservation, and, consequently, must be included
within the cycle of forces which that law encompasses. Light, heat,
chemical affinity, etc., are supposed to be mutually convertible and
transmutable; and, according to the present hypothesis, Will must also
be included in this series! But every energy we know in the physical
universe is a non-intelligent energy, and, as I have pointed out
elsewhere, if we make the human will thus subject to the law of
Conservation, it seems to form a unique exception to the law. For we
know (if our consciousness tells us anything) that willing is an
intelligent act, and we should consequently have this conscious act or
intent left over in the equation. For we have, in all other cases,
purely physical energy, and in this case physical energy _plus
something_ (conscious intent). The law of Conservation tells us that one
energy is derived from another, and is converted again into another form
of physical energy, when it is expended. But if will, _ex hypothesi_ a
physical energy, is derived from another physical energy (by a process
of combustion, or what you will), we have here a case of the lesser
including the greater--of a thing giving rise to something greater and
more inclusive than itself--which is contrary to all accepted thinking.
The will, therefore, cannot be _entirely_ subject to the law of
Conservation, but appears to draw upon an additional fund or source of
energy, which is infused into it, as it were, from without. This "thing"
which is infused or super-added, this "something" which is the "plus" in
our equation, appears to be the directive element, the life element, the
sentient element--which is thus shown to lie outside the law of
Conservation, as many physicists and philosophers (Lodge, Crookes,
Bergson, etc.) have for some time past contended it must or might lie.

One significant fact, in this connection, is that while the law of
Conservation is doubtless true, so far as it goes, there is also in
operation another law, well known to physicists, called