EDITORIAL. 



PHYSIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY, 



The recognition in daily life as well as in scientific descrip- 

 tion of two classes of reaction, the psychic and the non-psychic, 

 is the basis of the separation of the science of organic functions 

 into physiology and psychology. Without any assumptions as 

 to the relations of consciousness to organic processes we may, 

 and in fact constantly do, deal with the reactions of organisms 

 according to certain characters which are commonly spoken of 

 as indicative of automatism or intelligence. It is true that we 

 can no more draw a sharp line between the psychic and the 

 non-psychic in reaction than we can between the reflex and the 

 instinctive. Certain aspects or relationships of reactions are so 

 prominent as to furnish the basis of types. Modifiability in 

 high degree is said to be a mark of the psychic, yet no one 

 would deny that the non-psychic reaction is also modifiable. 

 There is surely a difference of degree, but by whom and how is 

 the point at which this characteristic passes from an indication 

 of one type to that of the other to be fixed? 



Some physiologists and psychologists have chosen ability 

 to learn as the criterion of the psychic reaction, but 

 this if used alone is evidently of limited and uncertain value, for 

 all reactions, it is safe to assume, change with repetition; organ- 

 isms profit by experience more or less rapidly. Thus far the 

 critical point which those who have implicit faith in the applica- 

 bility of this criterion necessarily posit — the point at which ability 

 to learn appears as a distinctive character of the organism, or in 

 the light of the criterion, the point at which the psychic reaction 

 appears in the animal series — has not been discovered. The 

 important question is. Does such a critical point exist ? 



