The Evolution of Mind. 199 



which, or if they are co-incident ? It appears to me tliat mind did 

 not precede physical development, as the lecturer has assumed, 

 but that mind and matter have evolved in perfect unison — they 

 are co-incident. They are one in ultimate nature and principle, 

 and cannot be separated. We have to think of matter in terms of 

 mind, and of mind in terms of matter. But I think Dr. Eccles 

 assumed the idealistic position. That field had best be given over 

 to metaphysicians — the professors of mental gymnastics. 



The theory of evolution is one of the greatest ever offered to 

 the human mind. Everything has existed potentially in the orig- 

 inal material of the universe. There is no room for miracle in 

 the passage from inorganic to organic matter. Phenomena are 

 the result of pre-existing phenomena. It seems to me that we 

 are compelled to believe that all force, and all physical and men- 

 tal phenomena, are manifestations of one material substance. 



Mk. O. F. Burton : — 



The lecture of Dr. Eccles is one of the most masterly presenta- 

 tions of the subject I have ever listened to. I must disagree with 

 Spencer's assertion that mind is unknowable. Millions believe 

 they know mind sufficiently to come to a knowledge of the great 

 Mind — God. I believe that magnetism is the greatest power in 

 the universe. Its action on the brain produces the sensations of 

 taste, smell, etc. 



Dr. Ecclks : — 



Beginning with the last speaker, let me say that Herbert Spen- 

 cer has not denied that mind is knowable, but that, on the con- 

 trary, he has gone to great trouble to show that both mind and 

 matter are knowable. He has written two large volumes — "The 

 Principles of Psychology" — to show that mind is knowable, and 

 to explain what is known concerning it. Pi'ofessor Merwin is not 

 satisfied because I do not explain the unknowable. He wants me 

 to explain how sensation is transmuted into consciousness. That 

 is the unknowable. It cannot be explained. Our data are not yet 

 sufficient to make a dissertation along the line suggested by Mr. 

 Gates either profitable or interesting. That is a work that must 

 be left to future investigators. I did not assume the priority of 

 mind to matter, as Mr. Gates inferred, but merely the priority of 

 mental activity to functional and structural development in the 

 organism — an entirely different thing. As to Dr. .lanes' remarks 

 about the illustration of the boy and his falling into unconscious- 

 ness, my contention is that consciousness is still tliere, but, as I 



