258 Animal Intelligence 
are the sole laws of modifiability, insist that Mhe thought of 
an act will produce that act only if the act has been con- 
nected with that thought (and without resulting discomfort) 
in the animal’s past) 
“It seems plausible that there should be a peculiar bond 
between the thought of a response | and the response. The 
plausibility is due to two reasons, one of which is sound but 
inadequate, the other being, in my opinion, entirely un- 
sound. The first reason is that, as a mere matter of fac 
the thought of a response does so often produce it. The) 
second is that an idea of a response seems a natural and 
sufficient cause for it to appear. ! The first reason is inade- 
quate to justify any law of the production of a response by 
its image or other representative, since evidence can be 
ound to show that when a response is produced by an idea 
of it, it has been already bound to that idea by repetition or 
satisfaction. The second reason is unsound because, even 
if responses are brought to pass occasionally by their 
ages, that is surely an extremely rare and unnatural 
ethod. 
LIt is certain that in at least nine cases out of ten a re- 
sponse is produced, not by an image or other representation 
of it,.but by a ituation nowise like it or any of its accesso- 
bes unger tha the perception of edible objects, far out- 
eigh ideas of grasping, biting and swallowing, as causes 
of the eating done in the world. | Objects sensed, not im- 
ages of eye-movements, cause a similar overwhelming ma- 
jority of the eye’s responses. We walk, reach and grasp 
on most occasions, not because of anticipatory images of 
how it will feel to do so or verbal descriptions to ourselves 
of what we are to do, but because we are stimulated by the 
perception of some object. 
It is also certain that the idea of a response may be im- 
