154 
one really great fact had been elicited since the discoveries of Sir Charles 
Bell and Marshall Hall. The nerve-fibres of sensation and motion have 
been traced further towards the circumference of the brain, but we are as 
ignorant as ever of the properties of the caudate nerve-cells of the cerebral 
convolutions ; we can only surmise that it is through them that sensations 
are perceived and volition exercised. As yet, I have received no answer to 
my challenge. 
“ The centres of motion and sensation are far from being accurately 
determined ; what right then have Dr. Ferrier and other physiological 
psychologists to assume that they can locate the higher faculties of the 
mind in the grey cortex of the brain. A scientific worker like Dr. 
Ferrier may make a thousand experiments without having the good 
fortune to hit on a valuable discovery ; we cannot, therefore, place him in 
the same rank with those who have been able to establish a great and 
general principle. 
“I am happy to have this opportunity of congratulating Dr. Fisher on the 
skill and boldness with which he has insisted on the line of demarcation 
existing between brain and mind, ■which remains as distinct as it was in the 
days of Plato.” 
Mr. J. Foster Palmer, L.R.C.P., writes : — 
“ Dr. Fisher’s view appears to be that b< Professor Ferrier ia ■ 
physiologist, therefore, he does not understand the rules of logic, and because 
he does not understand the rules of logic he is not competent to write on 
mental philosophy. It may be necessary for those whose sole object in 
writing is to impress on others their own views, to hedge their statements 
well round with logical arguments, but the physiologist proceeds on an 
entirely different plan. He sets forth the results to which his own observa- 
tions lead him, in plain language, leaving others to judge for themselves, — 
confirming his statements if they find them true, and refuting them if they 
are based on errors of observation. It has been truly said bv Reid that no 
mental philosopher can delineate anything except the condition of his own 
mind. It is only by comparing the observations of a very large number of 
unprejudiced observers that any general result can be arrived at. 
“ I have a few words to say on Dr. Fisher’s definition of the word ‘organ.’ 
‘ Organ is an instrument constructed by man for some definite purpose, and 
requires man to act upon it.’ The facts in the case are particularly unfortu- 
nate in not agreeing with this definition, c.g., the organs of sense are certainly 
not made by man, and they are not acted upon by man, but by the external 
stimuli (waves of light, sound, &c.), nor can any organ of the body, strictly 
speaking, be acted upon by that of which it forms a part. An organ may 
with more propriety be considered a medium of communication by means of 
which some operation is performed. But if Dr. Ferrier has made an 
arbitrary division in calling the brain the organ of the mind, Dr. Fisher has . 
done the same to a greater degree in including with the brain the entire 
nervous system to the extremities of the nerve-fibres, and at the same time 
excluding the organs of sense, or such portions of them as remain after the 
removal of the nerves. The terminal fibres of the optic nerve, for example, 
constitute the retina, which forms the entire fundus of the eye. If the 
retina and ciliary nerves were taken away there would remain nothing but a 
series of lenses, which could no more be called an organ of sense than could 
a pair of spectacles. Either the organs of sense must be included with the 
brain and nervous system as the organ which connects the mind with the 
external world, or the portions of the nervous system must be differentiated. 
In this case it would be the centres of ideation, or, in more general terms, 
the grey matter, of the brain which is the actual connecting medium, or 
organ, between the mind and the nerve-fibres.” 
