14 The American Naturalist. [January, 
the risk of ignoring the evolutionary influences of “mind” 
throughout the major bulk of our nervous system, and of 
introducing false and misleading analogies along the whole 
line of Comparative Biology. For Neurologist, Physiologist 
and Biologist, then, to fall into the habit of considering neural 
processes generally as “unconscious” is nearly certain to 
end in their losing sight of the problem of mind altogether. 
How important is the rôle of “ mind,” even though one adopt, 
strictly, the doctrine Parallelism, I have all too scantily out- 
lined in this paper. And in view of this I now sincerely trust 
that the evils, which I here emphasize as natural to false 
notions of unconscious processes, may not seem exaggerated. 
Turning from false paths to true ones, we are finally brought 
to consider, in a few brief words, those lines of investigation 
which promise a sure advance upon our desired goal. Itisa 
prevailing sentiment among modern scientists, that the funda- 
mental relation of mind to body lies, at present, beyond the 
limits of profitable investigation. We are led in this paper to 
think otherwise. We are not likely to solve the whole problem 
in a leap, yet unmistakeably the time has come when we may 
enlarge our conceptions of it widely, both within the fields of 
Biology and of Psychology ; and may do this without aband- 
ing any of the ususal severities of Science. 
In our summary we reduced our general problem to eight 
remaining possibilites, among which we are unable to choose at 
present. This number immediately reduces to four upon reach- 
ing a decision upon the Weismann-Lamarck Controversy ; and 
no one conceives that this decision lies beyond profitable 
inquiry, or doubts that it will soon be reached. The remain- 
ing four uncertainties will be reduced to two by determining 
whether end-organ processes are “ immediate,” or complex ; and 
our brain. And, finally, in those cases where such subcortical activities do reach- 
up to influence the cortex, there is reason to assume that, then, their correspondent 
consciousness does form a part of our personality. It would appear, then, that to 
determine if our subcortical processes are “ conscious ” or not, we must be driven 
back upon the same grounds as for deciding whether any separate animal is con- 
scious. And all simple and direc: tests, must, therefore be henveforth abandoned, 
if great resultant harm from false conclusions, ey Science, is to be 
avoided. 
