176 



TRE AUTHOR'S REPLY. 



April, 1898. 

 I have to thank ruy critics for the lenient way in which they 

 have dealt with the novel positions advanced, in my paper ; and 

 would not say more were it not that, to me, some of their 

 arguments seem equally novel. Professor Calderwood says in hisi 

 most able and instructive letter (para. 8), " nerve energy 

 accomplishes purposive action, independently of mind, that is not 

 purposed," and "mind accomplishes purposive action, inde- 

 pendently of nerve energy." Also "experience shows that a 

 lai'ge amount of work cau be consciously done in sleep " (last 

 para.). Here are three novel and to me dubious propositions : — 

 1. tbat a "purposive" action is not purposed; 2. that mind acts 

 independently of "nerve energy"; and 3. that the "mind" is 

 "conscious" while "we" are unconscious. Dr. Sansom, with 

 regard to this last, adduces sleep as an instance of " the un- 

 conscious mind" and dreams as instances of the sub-conscious! 

 At the close of his lucid sketch of the relation of the circulation 

 to degrees of consciousness, he says that the stipra-conscious mind 

 " or the sphere of the spirit life " has " no relation with mental 

 powers or logical faculties." Surely this also is a novel position. 

 That it is not dependent on these, is true ; but, undoubtedly, it 

 has many and obvious " relations" with them. Of course further 

 researches may modify some of the positions taken up. 



