108 
years ago, we are still ‘ hopelessly in the dark ’ in regard to many if not 
most physiological processes. 
“ The points thus made against Professor Tyndall are, therefore, that by 
his own definition of science there is no science of the intricate workings 
within the body, and that he has drawn conclusions in regard to man which 
are not justified by the present state of our knowledge. By failing to 
take into consideration the undoubted power of directing force which resides 
in the nerves, he has also avoided the really difficult and much disputed 
question concerning which materialists are at variance with men who hold 
that the capability of directing the muscles to certain ends, which is so obvi- 
ous in man, does not reside in the matter of which the muscles are made, or 
that the nerves are mere ‘ valve openers ’ to supply the muscles with force. 
The statement that emotions like fear and terror are caused simply by the 
physical impact of light coming from fearful objects upon the retina, is, in 
Dr. Porter’s view, but an assumption, and in joining issue with Professor 
Tyndall, he holds — justly as it seems to us— that emotions arise not from 
external objects, but from the mind of the man who contemplates them. 
Still further, the mind may contemplate itself within its own order, and must 
therefore be conceived of as existing as really as anything, the image of 
which can impress it through the eyes. 
“ Men of science are certainly not to have the whole round of man in- 
closed within the boundaries of physics and physiology without bold opposi- 
tion on the part of people who believe that metaphysics are not sheer moon- 
shine, and outside of metaphysics they have of late received severe blows 
from men who fight merely with the weapons afforded them by logic. What- 
ever may be thought of the ultimate merits of the case on 'other grounds 
than those of logic, it seems that at present Professor Tyndall has decidedly 
the worst of the argument.” 
