II. ON THE NATURE OF MIND. 



IN the section commencing on page 117, I have briefly re- 

 counted some of the objections which seem to me fatal to 

 the acceptance- of the views concerning the nature of mind 

 which are now believed in by many, if not by most, scientific 

 authorities having physical tendencies. That many thoughtful 

 persons, among whom I must admit are to be reckoned 

 some distinguished anatomists and physiologists, should have 

 committed themselves to the doctrine that consciousness, 

 intellect, and will, are products of the action of certain 

 tissues, and should have allowed these notions to be taught 

 for so long without careful examination of the facts and 

 arguments upon which they are supposed to be based, seems 

 almost incredible. 



Facts have been freely accepted, and arguments that 

 were always worthless, have been repeated over and over 

 again, although the details have never been once carefully 

 examined. Nor has the real bearing of the generalization, 

 and the manner in which it affects or would be affected by 

 facts discovered, and conclusions arrived at, in other depart- 

 ments of physiological science, been properly considered Is 

 it not very wonderful that great reasoners should never have 

 gone over the reasoning supposed to establish the truth of 

 propositions based upon the supposed analogy between the 

 action of the brain and the action of liver, mind and bile 

 being respectively regarded as products of action of the 

 two organs ? But the argument is fallacious and the con- 



