In presenting this paper for the Festschrift in honor of my long time friend, Charles Hartshorne, I should state at once that I am writing as a biologist, specifically a geneticist, interested in the philosophical implications of his subject, but with only a superficial knowledge of philosophy in general. My justification for writing on this topic is the belief that the philosophy of science is necessarily a joint venture since it is obvious that advances in science provide data on the (...) nature of existence which must be taken into account in philosophical consideration of this subject. This is most obvious in connection with the drastic revision of the basic concepts of physics since 1900, the impact of which on philosophy has recently been brilliantly developed by Čapek. There have also been great advances in biology. The resulting concepts do not strike at the very categories of thought and defy expression in language as do those of modern physics. Nevertheless they have a special importance from the facts that the only direct knowledge of mind that any one possesses is associated with a certain living organism, himself, and that in general, indications of the presence of mind are restricted to living organisms. The fact that while such indications are universally accepted in the case of other human beings but become progressively less convincing as we pass to animals closely similar to man, and from these to such forms as fishes, insects, clams, worms and protozoa, raises difficulties. Few see any indication of mind in plants. (shrink)