DR. ODLIN&S VIEWS 



these heads are physical or mechanical, it is superfluous 

 and unnecessary to speak of them as vital unless something 

 very different from ordinary physical and mechanical change 

 is implied. But we have been already assured that vital 

 actions are physical. If, as many do not hesitate to assert, 

 animated beings do not essentially differ from machines, 

 their actions should not be termed vital at all. If. how- 

 ever, it is said that a vital machine differs in essential 

 characteristics from a non-vital machine, we ought to be 

 accurately instructed concerning the difference between the 

 two kinds of machines. To use the term vital, and at the 

 same time to assert that a vital action is after all only a 

 form of mechanical action is certain to mislead. The action 

 of the mind, it has been asserted, depends upon physical 

 and chemical changes only, but it is idle on the part of 

 physical philosophers to attempt to force such a dogma 

 upon the mind, since it is obvious to every one that be- 

 tween mental action and any known physical or chemical 

 change there is no true analogy ; while no one has suc- 

 ceeded in effecting any physical or chemical action in any 

 way comparable with any form of mental action, or with 

 the results of mental action. 



I shall be severely censured by some for criticising 

 the conclusions of fellow-workers, but as I feel convinced 

 it is to the advantage of science, and by no means dis- 

 respectful to a scientific opponent to examine his conclu- 

 sions and comment upon his views, I shall not be deterred 

 by the fear of anonymous attacks from offering some remarks 

 upon views which have been and are popular. 



In this place I shall reply to my friend, Prof. Odling, 



