est manifestation of mental life. The mind throughout its whole developmental career has been reaching toward it and longing for it. All progress is and always has been in its direction. The gentle mother of all sings to us its lullaby, and our nervous systems are steadily being attuned to the refrain.

The following apostrophe was written many years ago, but has not before been published. It accords with the line of thought which properly terminates my discussion of this topic.

Thrill on, O mystic neural threads !

Your sympathetic pulse is heaven
When wave with wave enraptured weds
And hearts attractive bonds are given.

Attuned to God's divinest notes,

Yon stars such symphonies are sounding;
And atom unto atom quotes

This rhythmic cadence when rebounding.

Your quivering structures tell of love,-
The highest, purest, grandest motion;
Your psychic transports soar above
Into the great supernal ocean.

Yes, throb in unison with all,
To form a perfect diapason,

That echoing concords may recall
Thy tender, sanctified sensation.

ABSTRACT OF THE DISCUSSION.

DR. LEWIS G. JANES :

By its careful attention this audience has manifested deep interest in Dr. Eccles' essay. As a treatment of the psychological aspects of the subject the paper seems to me to be one of an exceedingly high order, manifesting careful and accurate study and able and independent thought. I confess, however, to a certain measure of disappointment in that the lecturer has devoted so much time to clearing the way, and has not indicated in greater detail the successive steps in mental evolution, from monera to man. There were times during the delivery of the essay when it appeared to me that the Doctor's science and his metaphysics were engaged in a "struggle for existence," the outcome of which seemed a little dubious. I find myself wholly in agreement, however, with what I conceive to be his fundamental position. Matter and Mind are, as Goethe affirmed, "eternal double-ingredients of the universe." The Reality manifested in all phenomena must be regarded as a double-faced unity, revealing itself as matter to the senses, as mind in the operations of thought. I cannot quite accept the speaker's technical terminology, which appeared to me to confound consciousness with mind. I regard it, however, as only a phase or condition of mind, in which it is directly related to a somewhat external to itself. Consciousness, Dr. Eccles assumes, is not absent in coma, diverted attention, or profound sleep it is merely concentrated upon a single dominant thought. I do not think that he will find the weight of scientific authority to support this view. How will he account for the condition frequently resulting from fracture of the skull, when consciousness is apparently extinguished by the pressure of the bone upon the brain? A person in this state could not be aroused by repeated calling, as in the instances the speaker has adduced. Only one thing could restore consciousness-a surgical operation relieving the pressure. In such cases consciousness appears to "pick up its ravelled threads" at the exact point where it was interrupted by the injury. No one supposes, however, that the mind has been destroyed and re-created. Mill has defined matter as “the permanent possibility of sensation." In like manner I would define Mind as "the permanent possibility of consciousness." Every act

of consciousness is subjecto-objective—a reflection of Self upon Not-self; or, in self-consciousness, it involves a differentiation of Self from Not-self. In its lowest, undifferentiated form, consciousness is mere sentience; it apprehends the external world through the primitive undifferentiated sense of feeling.* Its inferences are crude and misleading on account of the limitations of its scope- though the knowledge which it actually gives is true knowledge. The evolution of mind proceeds pari-passu with that of the organism, by interaction with environing conditions. As higher stages in the evolution of life are reached, the revelations of the simpler forms of consciousness are not contradicted; they are simply added to, and thus the crude inferences of the simpler consciousness are corrected. The creation of either mind or matter is inconceivable from the standpoint of Evolution. All science assumes a realistic philosophical foundation. All knowledge is therefore real knowledge of a real universe; it is real knowledge, though not complete knowledge—a knowledge of real relations in external phenomena, as really related in and to the individual consciousness.

PROFESSOR ALMON G. MERWIN :

While interested in the lecture, I was, in a measure, disappointed. I had hoped to hear how the more complex states of consciousness grew out of the simpler, as manifested in the lower organisms-how the five senses, and a knowledge of the means by which we communicate with the outer world, were developed. Men have tried to change the vibrations causing sound into vibrations causing taste. What is the common substratum of mental substance underlying these different sense-perceptions? In many things I agree with the lecturer, but it seems to me-though I suppose it was unavoidable—that he was largely speculative in his theories and conclusions.

I had hoped that Dr. Eccles would give us more ideas with reference to the evolution of mind from the individual standpoint. Beginning with the single nerve-cell there is a development by the multiplication of cells. The steps in mental development have proceeded along corresponding lines, and must have been preceded or followed by a physical development. Will Dr. Eccles tell us

*I do not mean, of course, our specialized sense of touch, which requires a highly developed nerve-system. Of the special senses there is considerable evidence that sight was the first in order of evolution. Vide Binet, "The Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms."

which, or if they are co-incident? It appears to me that mind did not precede physical development, as the lecturer has assumed, but that mind and matter have evolved in perfect unison-they are co-incident. They are one in ultimate nature and principle, and cannot be separated. We have to think of matter in terms of mind, and of mind in terms of matter. But I think Dr. Eccles assumed the idealistic position. That field had best be given over to metaphysicians - the professors of mental gymnastics.

The theory of evolution is one of the greatest ever offered to the human mind. Everything has existed potentially in the original material of the universe. There is no room for miracle in the passage from inorganic to organic matter. Phenomena are the result of pre-existing phenomena. It seems to me that we are compelled to believe that all force, and all physical and mental phenomena, are manifestations of one material substance.

MR. O. F. BURTON :

The lecture of Dr. Eccles is one of the most masterly presentations of the subject I have ever listened to. I must disagree with Spencer's assertion that mind is unknowable. Millions believe they know mind sufficiently to come to a knowledge of the great Mind-God. I believe that magnetism is the greatest power in the universe. Its action on the brain produces the sensations of taste, smell, etc.

Beginning with the last speaker, let me say that Herbert Spencer has not denied that mind is knowable, but that, on the contrary, he has gone to great trouble to show that both mind and matter are knowable. He has written two large volumes—“The Principles of Psychology"-to show that mind is knowable, and to explain what is known concerning it. Professor Merwin is not satisfied because I do not explain the unknowable. He wants me to explain how sensation is transmuted into consciousness. That is the unknowable. It cannot be explained. Our data are not yet sufficient to make a dissertation along the line suggested by Mr. Gates either profitable or interesting. That is a work that must be left to future investigators. I did not assume the priority of mind to matter, as Mr. Gates inferred, but merely the priority of mental activity to functional and structural development in the organism- - an entirely different thing. As to Dr. Janes' remarks about the illustration of the boy and his falling into unconsciousness, my contention is that consciousness is still there, but, as I

have said, the attention is so powerfully attracted to the seat of pain that it cannot be withdrawn. I admit, however, that as far as the facts are concerned, they are explainable from either point of view. As to taking a lesson from the ants or any of the lower animals on this subject, it is impossible to show the organization of mind among them: we can only show that in them as in man mind is adapted to its environment. Therefore the method which I adopted seems to be the only one practicable in the presentation of this topic.