2 
TRANSACTIONS OF THE TEXAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 
the paralysis of those parts of the brain employed in the higher intel¬ 
lectual operations, thus leaving the body a mere automaton to move 
only in response to outward agencies. Such, in brief, is his theory of 
the “ inhibition of the activity of the ganglion cells of the cerebral cor¬ 
tex.” So brilliant were the experiments of this professor of physiology, 
and so satisfactory was it to thus find a scientific basis for the phenomena, 
that his views were at one time generally accepted by scientific men. 
Against this theory, however, certain objections have been brought 
that appear unanswerable. Among many of this nature we notice the 
following. The supposition being that “inhibition” extends to the higher 
psychic operations and that all acts are merely of an imitative order, why 
does the subject obey, as a rule, only the operator; and how can he, if 
such be his mental condition, carry out commands involving the per¬ 
formance of many separate and orderly acts ? In many instances it is so 
apparent that the subject retains consciousness, memory and all other 
mental powers save the single one of determining his activities, that 
Heidenhain’s theory of “cortical inhibition” is declared by many com¬ 
petent observers to be utterly at variance with facts. 
Abandoning all attempts to account for the phenomena on purely phy¬ 
siological grounds, the investigators have constructed theories out of 
psychic factors. Dr. Carpenter relied chiefly on “ reverie and sugges¬ 
tion;” others have stressed the importance of the “dominant idea,” 
“ expectant attention,” “ imagination,” “ belief,” “ tonic cramp of the 
attention,” etc. 
Against all of these, Mr. Gurney, writing in Mind , vol. IX. has with 
much ability urged the objection that not one of them furnishes an an¬ 
swer to such questions as the following: Why is the operator alone 
obeyed ? Why can he alone terminate this state ? What is the connec¬ 
tion between the manipulation employed and its effects ? Why can not 
all hypnotize? Above all, what is the law for the production of this 
state ? By such questions Mr. Gurney has clearly set forth the real dif¬ 
ficulties presented by the phenomena of hypnotism. Declaring that these 
questions, “lying on the very threshold of the subject, * * * have 
scarcely been recognized, much less answered,” he clearly intimates the 
belief that our only recourse is to return to the old hypothesis of “ occult 
powers” and “specific influences.” 
Many have done this in substance if not in form. Designating their 
theories by various names and formulating their views in terms of mod¬ 
ern science, they advocate the old theory of the possession of unique 
powers by a favored few. They declare that he who does not possess 
these is no more justified by this lack in denying their possession by 
others than would the individual afflicted with Daltonism be justified, 
from his own inability, in declaring that no one can tell by its color 
