No. 62G] 



ADAPTATION 



stratecl none the less. Sherrington has described in 

 some degree the mechanism of inhibition, and has ascer- 

 tained some of the factors which determine which of two 

 simultaneous stinmli shall prove cffedivo in a given re- 

 flex. Do not such data at h'ast In']]) iis to ('(.nceive the 

 possibility of a nervous system wlio.-^c actis iiics may be 

 understood without the aid of an ciitclcchN- to make its 

 decisions for it ? 



1'lie emancipation of the organism from the controlling 

 influence of immediate stimuli is admitted to be one of 

 the salient features in animal evolution. Now, in order 

 that present activities may be directed with reference to 

 future results, the stinmli must become more and more 

 synd)olic, /. e., they must acquire a "meaning." That 

 one thing may "stand for" something else, and call u]) 

 the responses proper to that something else ni;iy rcjidily 

 be understood in terms of association. At least tlim' 

 would seem to be no desperate need t'oi- iiixokinu' "cu- 

 telechy" at this point. If this uTantcd, why shonld 

 we expect any correspondence Ix'twccii the si'iisnons de- 

 ments of the stimulus and the eh'iiien1> of the ivs|ion>e.' 

 The effeet^ of a given " indi vi<lua li/ed Miniuhi^" are de- 

 pendent ratlier u]h.u the agmvuvitr oT a^^oeiativ i-i-oe- 

 essc's whieh this stiiiiulns ealls up. And this au'-i'e-ale 

 is altogether an empirieal one, not a h.uieal ..lie as 

 Drie.sch >uppo>,.v. The cM>niH.eti..ns that bind it to-vther 

 maybe quite ai-hitrary and aceideiital. It is partly the 

 product of individual experienee, partly ot' i-aeial expe- 

 rience- this hist on an> theory of inhei-itaiiee. That 

 several wi(kdy different stimuli, having the same nu'an- 

 ing ('., having certain important associations in eoni- 



wonld seem, .m "he t'aee of it, no more .litlieult to uinler- 

 stand ••nieehanieaily" than that sevei-al veiy differently 

 sha])e(l keys eaii open the same lock. 



The urakiM-. of DrieM-li'^ -third proof of \italiMii" 

 would <vvu\. theivfore. to he twofold. (1) He aiM^'ars 

 to believe tliat an explanatn.n, in order to be mechanical, 



