278 On the process of Memory. 
Arr. olen —On the process of Memory; by Isaac Orr. tes 
mre 
TO THE EDITOR. 
~ Dear Sir.—The following suggestions are probably new, and not 
altogether unimportant, since if they are correct they throw at least 
some light on the subject of Intellectual Philosophy. 
In every primary intellectual operation, there are two things to be 
especially noted. st. The impression or influence on the organ or 
faculty of the mind, from the object of perception or observation; 2d, 
The perception of that object by the mind, or the attention of the 
mind directed toward it. The former of these, as far as impressions 
from without are concerned, Dugald Stewart has distinguished by the 
name of sensation, though it is questionable whether it does not often 
take place when the organ is entirely forpid. The latter he calls 
perception. The process is simply the following. The light f from an 
object strikes upon the retina. If the mind is sufficiently unoccupied 
and awake, it perceives or observes the impulse. This is a fe 
tary or involuntary act of the mind ; and may be in part both. It re- j 
quires but a moment’s reflection, to understand fully, that it is me rely 
the repetition of this very act, which afterwards constitutes the rec - 
lection or memory of that object. Again, the air vibrates upon tt the 
ear, from some one of the various causes, to which sound is ascri- 
bed. The mind perceives or observes the vibration. This also is a 
mental act: and memory of the sound in question, is plainly a mere 
repetition of this very act, or otherwise the power of repeating it 
In the same manner impressions are made on the organs of smell, taste 
and touch ; the mind perceives or observes the impressions 5 > and the 
memory at all the objects by which the impressions are made, is 1 
evidently mere repetitions of the primary act, that is, the act of pe Ve: 
ception. One answer, then, to the question, what is memory ! 35s 
that it is a part of the very act of observation or perception. 42° 
only difference is, that the impression is not made on the organs 
The act of the mind itself, is the-very same in kind, and can differ 
in no respect, unless it is in the degree*of vividness. 
“Ttis doubtful, even, whether the mind has not the power of prod 
cing on the organs of sense, just such impressions as are mac 
external objects. This power is at least indicated by the elect 
light,* which appears to exist in the eye, so scarcely latent, or sligh i 
* May not this perception of light, (we know of nothing to prove that itis lee 
tric,) arise, merely, from the impulse on the optic nerve ?—Ed. 
