254 A. T. schofii:li>, ksq.^ m.d., k'ic, on 



(which is partly based upon a theological assumption of its being 

 uecessaiy to the possession of a "soul," and insepai-.able from 

 moral responsibility) will take long to break down ; but 

 pb^'siology is doing much for this, and experimental psychology 

 will do moi-e, and presently it will be seen that the integrity 

 of the Ego is no more essential to faith than creation by fiat, oi- 

 the geocentric theory of the universe. 



From Professor Cleland, M.D., D.Sc, LL.D., F.R.S. (Professor 

 of Anatomy in Glasgow University) : — 



Were it not that the kind request of the President and Council 

 is not lig'htly to be refused, I should hesitate, in the few sentences 

 allowable in commenting on a paper which is not very long, to 

 trench on so grave and intricate a subject as that which is involved 

 in Dr. Schofield's communication. 



I am probably not the only one who has not gathered from the 

 title the object which Dr. Schotield has had. in view. " The Scope of 

 Mind" may be considered as including God and the whole universe, 

 God being provably the source of all being. That is to say that 

 even matter, although changeless when subjected to experiment, 

 affords indication of an Intelligent Originator. It is not eternal, 

 even though Milton (according to Macaulay) thought it was. 

 Such questions, however, scarcely belong to Dr. Schofield's theme. 

 His desire has been to point out that " of the sum of the psychic 

 forceswhich we may call mental, and Avhich constitiite mind, only a 

 very small portion are fitfully illuminated by what we call conscious- 

 ness." In a great deal I cordially agree, as every scientific man 

 will, with Dr. Schofield's contentions. We are much too liable to 

 imagine that our whole mental constitution lies open to intro- 

 spection, while in reality it is very far from doing so. Our own 

 consciousness, so far as we can submit it to observation, is but 

 the superficial stratum of something far deeper. Put 1 do n(-t 

 consider that there is anything which can properly be called 

 mind apart from consciousness. To apply the term mind to 

 aught which is devoid of consciousness is to alter the meaning of 

 the word. 



So far as I can see, there are two faults of analysis leading to 

 the confused notion of unconscious spirit — first, insufficient 

 attention to the distinction between consciousness and self- 

 consciousness, aiul, secondly, failure to distinguish between a 

 conscious factor, however existent, and our own consciousness. 



