REASON. 335 



be caused by the intricacy or the novelty of the nervous pro- 

 cess which is accompanied by consciousness;"* but seeing that 

 in ourselves, as just observed, highly intricate and very infre- 

 quent nervous processes may take place mechanically, I do 

 not think we are justified in concluding that complexity and 

 in frequency of ganglionic action are the only factors in deter- 

 mining the rise of consciousness. But even supposing, for 

 the sake of argument, that they are, still it would not follow 

 that the only road to Eeason lies through Instinct. Percep- 

 tion being the element common both to Instinct and to 

 Eeason, it may very well happen (and indeed I think 

 actually does happen) that Eeason arises directly out of those 

 automatic inferences which, as we have seen, are given in 

 Perception, and which, as we have also seen, furnish the con- 

 ditions to the origin of Instinct. 



From this statement, however, I hope it will be manifest 

 that I do not dispute that Eeason may, and probably does in 

 many cases arise out of Instinct, in that the perceptive basis 

 of Instinct is so apt to yield material for the higher percep- 

 tions of Eeason. I merely object to the doctrine that Eeason 

 can arise in no other way. And, as further showing the 

 untruth of this doctrine, I may in conclusion point to the 

 numberless instances given in my chapters on Instinct of the 

 reciprocal action between Instinct and Eeason — the develop- 

 ment of the former sometimes leading to the higher develop- 

 ment of the latter, and sometimes, as in all cases of the 

 formation of Instinct by lapsing intelligence, the development 

 of the latter Leading to the higher development of the former. 

 Such reciprocal action could not take place were it true that 

 Instinct is always and necessarily the precursor of Eeason. 



I nmst not take leave of this discussion on Eeason with- 

 out briefly alluding to the very prevalent view— with which of 

 course I do not agree — that the faculty in question is the 

 Bpecial prerogative of Man. As the most enlightened and 

 i est informed writer who "f late years has espoused this 

 doctrine is Mr. Mivart, I shall bake him as its exponent, ami 

 in examining his arguments on the subject I shall consider 

 that 1 am examining tin- besl arguments which can be 

 adduced in support of tie- view in question. 



Mr. Darwin, in his " Descenl OX Man," gives the foUow- 



• Sec p. 1 10. 



