Materialistic Physiology
THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE AND MENTAL PATHOLOGY. Art. I.? :Author: J. M. WINN, M.D., M.R.C.P., &c.
Tiie unpliilosophical and extravagant dogma, that matter can think, is now so loudly and confidently asserted, and so widely spread by a numerous class of medical men and physiologists, both in this country and abroad, that the time has arrived when a doctrine so fallacious, and so fraught with danger to the best interests of society, should be fairly and carefully scrutinised. It is not by mere assertion, or the use of obscure and pedantic language, that such a theory can be established ; and if it can be shown that the arguments on which it is based are shallow and speculative, words can scarcely be found too strong to censure the recklessness and folly of those who promulgate views so subversive of all morality and religion. The physicists have utterly failed to establish their posi- tion. They were asked to prove by inductive reasoning the truth of their theory, that the universe is the mere outcome of molecular force, and their defence has been clearly proved to be of the most evasive and inconclusive character. Physiology has now, therefore, become the only battlefield on which scien- tific atheists can assail us.
Materialistic physiology is the most subtle and dangerous form of scientific atheism, because the knowledge required to confute it, is confined to a limited number of enquirers. The Reverend Canon Birks, in his admirable annual address on ” The Uncertainties of Modern Physical Science,” delivered before the Victoria Institute, May 29, 1876, gave the finishing stroke to the preposterous hypothesis of those physicists who substitute atomic force for an omnipotent Creator. But, whilst bearing willing testimony to his masterly arguments, I feel compelled to take exception to the title of his address. Admitting to
Substanco of an Address delivered before the “Victoria Institute, or Philo-
sophical Society of Great Britain,” January 8, 1877.
the fullest extent, the uncertainties of modern scientific theories, it is but justice to real workers to allow that there is no uncer- tainty about the invaluable discoveries of Davy, Faraday, Brewster, Lionel Beale, Fraunhofer, and others. There is no uncertainty about the marvellous facts revealed to us by the spectroscope or the wonderful working of the electric tele- graph. In like manner, whilst emphatically denouncing the a surd dogma that mind, with all its marvellous attributes, is the result of molecular changes in the brain, and that men are merely automata, without responsibility or a will of their own the slaves of brute instinct?we must not, I say, forget to recognise the useful additions which modern physiology has made to our knowledge of the nervous system.
. doctrines of the modern school of materialistic phy- siology are permeating all classes of society, and are most conspicuous among the younger members of the medical profession; which is to be expected, when so many of the influential teachers holding high rank in our medical schools have unhesitatingly and recklessly done their utmost to imbue the minds of the rising generation of students with the notion that all our time-honoured creeds are the assumptions of cre- dulity and folly. The students are taught to look down upon them with contempt, and to substitute speculative opinions, which cannot be of the slightest practical value, but must inevitably, sooner or later, make shipwreck of the highest hopes and noblest aspirations of our nature.
In confirmation of the truth of what I have stated, I will quote the following extracts from Professor Maudsley’s intro- ductory address, delivered before a numerous audience in the lecture-room of the University College, London, in October 1876. He says : ” In pursuing resolutely the course of scien- tific enquiry which I have indicated, it must needs be that offences sometimes occur, for we can hardly fail to come into collision with some of the prejudices and traditions of mankind. I do not know how it is possible, for instance, to prosecute the physiological investigation of mind to its furthest reach with- out shaking the foundations of the metaphysical notions which have been held concerning it and its functions; and with the tall of these notions, long cherished of mankind, other notions that are bound up with them may totter to their fall.” Dr. Maudsley being one of the most strenuous supporters of the materialistic school of physiology, there can be no doubt as to what he means by collision with the prejudices and traditions of mankind, and the tottering condition of the foundations of metaphysical notions. But statements like these are worthless unless supported by physiological facts; and I hope to show, in the course of this enquiry, that recent discoveries, on which Dr Maudsley has so hastily generalised, with an undue appre- ciation of their importance, have left the question of mind and matter precisely where it was more than two thousand years ago.
Dr Maudsley goes on to observe that ” If this [the destruction of our faith] must be, we shall do well to acknow- ledge it more in sorrow than in anger.” If the subject were not too serious, the bathos of this remark might excite a smile. He prays us meekly to accept the startling announcement: we may mourn over the uncomfortable truth, but we must not be angry. Like good children, we had better kiss the rod that chastens us.
In the preceding part of this address the professor pro- pounds to the admiring class of students the hackneyed hypothesis of evolution, as if it were an established truth. He says : ” Admitting, as I see not how we can help doing scientifically, that a process of evolution has gone on in nature, and that man, as he now is, is a product of the past, carrying on this process in his progress to a higher purpose in the future, it is a natural conclusion that he must, as a part of the order of nature, be studied by the same method as the rest of nature. We have to search back and find out how he came to be what he is, by looking to the historical evolution of the race from its earliest known conditions, and by tracing, in the development of his organism, the operation of laws which we discover at work under less complex conditions in the rest of nature. When we do that we find the best reason to believe that the highest faculties of his mind?his intellect and his moral feelings?have not been implanted ready-made in his nature at any period of its history, but have been the slowly- won results of the accumulated experience of the race trans- mitted by hereditary action.” If this be true the conclusion is inevitable, that the intellectual and moral faculties of man have been steadily developing since the days of Solomon, Socrates, and all the sages of old, till, in this present nine- teenth century, they have culminated in the genius of a Huxley, a Herbert Spencer, and a Maudsley.
These extravagant notions might have been passed over in silence, had not the Lancet?the most widely circulated of all the medical journals, not only among the medical profession but also amongst the general public?thought fit to hold them up for the admiration of all medical students. This journal, in a leading article, last October, whilst commenting on the differ- ent introductory lectures delivered this session at the medical schools, has the following passage: ” The average of preceding years is well sustained, and one or two of them stand out con- spicuously for the rare ability or practical wisdom which they display. For the former characteristic the palm must certainly be awarded to the address of Professor Maudsley at University College.”
The materialistic physiologists who illogically style them- selves physiological psychologists?they might as reasonably assume the name of physical metaphysicians?assert that mind, which, ever since the world began, has been recognised as an entity, totally different from matter, is a bodily function?that its properties are the result of some molecular or other incom- prehensible changes in the brain. Having made this statement, the onus jprobandi rests with them. I trust I shall succeed in proving the fallacy of the arguments which they have hitherto adduced in support of their theory.
No one doubts the mysterious relation between mind and body, and the wonderful manner in which they act and react upon each other; but no one, not even the physical psychologists, have yet been able to explain the mysterious connection between them. As I previously stated in an article in the Journal of Psychological Medicine, two years ago, ” they speak as confi- dently of their speculative opinions as if they were acknowledged facts, and as if recent researches had thrown a flood of light on the functions of the brain and spinal cord;” but I would again challenge them, as I did then, to show that ” any one really great fact has been elicited since the discoveries of Sir Charles Bell and Marshall Hall. The nerve-fibres of sensation and motion have been traced a little 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 per- ceived and volition exercised.”
Nothing can be more conflicting and inconclusive than the boasted experiments of the cerebral physiologists; and, as I further remarked in the article referred to, ” many of the so- called discoveries of the most painstaking cerebral physiologists are at variance with each other. Some assert positively that memory is intimately connected with the left-frontal convolution of the brain; others as positively deny it. It had been for a long time believed that the optic thalami were closely connected with the upper extremities as motor centres ; I find, however, by an article in the Lancet of January 23, 1875, that recent experiments by Nothangel completely dislocate our ideas on the point, for he found that, after destroying the whole of the optic thalami, rabbits were able to leap about. These facts show that physiologists should pause before asserting that the highest mental manifestations are only emanations from particular por- tions of the brain, when they have not yet been able to deter- mine the centres of motion and sensation?questions which lie, as it were, on the threshold of the enquiry.”
Dr Ferrier, Professor of Forensic Medicine in King’s College, London, has just published an elaborate work on the functions of the brain, containing an account of the most recent researches on the subject. In the introductory chapter to this work (published fifteen months later than my treatise on Materialism*) lie has the following passage, which confirms my opinion quoted above : ” The discovery of the electric excitability of the brain by Fritsch and Hitzig has given a fresh impetus to researches on the functions of the brain, and thrown a new light on many obscure points in cerebral physiology and psychology. Much, however, still remains to be done. We are still only on the threshold of the inquiiy, and it may be questioned whether the time has even yet arrived for an attempt to explain the mechanism of the brain and its functions.” But a still higher authority than Dr Ferrier?Dr Brown-Sequard, whose original researches in cerebral physiology stand pre-eminent?admitted, in his lectures delivered before the College of Physicians in 1876, that he had been in error in supposing that he could localise the functions of the brain, which he now believes acts as a whole, and not in separate parts or organs.
The physiological psychologists, who are conspicuous for jumping at conclusions regardless of the rules of inductive philosophy, think that the doctrine of a correlation of force can be applied to the elucidation of the phenomena of nerve force. This is to be deplored, as Herbert Spencer, Tyndall, Gk H. Lewis, and many of the modern school of thought, not being themselves physiologists, are naturally supposed to take their opinions from Dr Carpenter and others who, in spite of their high attainments in their own special branch of study, are not. safe guides on purely psychological questions. This fact has a special bearing on the arguments of those who think that the doctrine of a correlation of force proves that mental, vital, and physical force are all identical. In my treatise to which I have already referred I showed that in no instance has mental or nerve force been found interchangeable with physical force, and that before a correlation of forces can be admitted it is neces- sary to prove a mutual convertibility?a seesaw sort of action.f * “Materialism” (originally published in the Journal of Psychological Mcdicinc), with Appendix. Hard wick and Bogue, 192 Piccadilly, London. t Sir James Paget, in the Hunterian oration which he delivered before tlio Collcgo of Surgeons in February 1877, decidedly opposes the infidelity of the day. He says: ” The firm and self-guiding belief in a supernatural will and knowledge,
The phenomena of insanity are quoted by the physiological psychologists as positive proof that the mind is only a bodily organ. They refer to those particular cases of mental derange- ment in which marked signs of brain disease have been dis- covered after death. They also regard the beneficial effects which often result from physical remedies, as confirming this view. That bodily disorders will affect the mind is unques- tioned, but the converse is equally true, that mental causes will produce derangement of the bodily organs; and the physiological psychologists are asked to explain how it happens that in many cases of acute mania, ending rapidly in death, a post-mortem examination cannot detect any change in the substance of the brain. The decided influence of the mind on the body is, however, patent to the most superficial observer. Is there any cordial like hope to the poor sufferer prostrated by nervous depression from domestic or other mental anxiety ? Or, will not some moral shock, such as the sudden announcement of misfortune or bereavement, shattering all hope of worldly prosperity or home happiness, convert a healthy man into a raving lunatic ?
Not only may mental derangement exist without detectable lesion of the brain, but there may even be considerable amount of intelligence, in spite of extensive organic disease of the brain. In support of these views I am glad to have the testimony of Dr W. A. F. Browne, ex-Commissioner in Lunacy for Scotland, who has kindly allowed me to mention his name in quoting the following extract from a paper entitled ” Problems for Pathologists,” which he published anonymously in the Journal of Psychological Medicine for October 1876: “All medical men, conversant with the progress of insanity, when under observation in public hospitals, all who have lived long with the insane, must have noticed how perfectly compatible grave lesions of the nervous system are with longevity, usefulness, aud even enjoyment; and likewise, how compatible the phe- nomena of the gravest forms of mental derangement are with the retention and exercise of a large amount of intelligence, even of fancy, and of the acquirements and accomplishments which adorn the sane.” Dr Browne proceeds to ask the rests on tho basis of tho whole and manifold evidences of the Christian faith. This may seem often opposed to what we believe to be true in science. Then let us wait. Time? or, if not time, eternity?will prove that science and Christian theology are but two sides of truth.” This is gratifying, but I cannot agree with his preceding remarks on the mutual convertibility of vital and physical force, lie observes: “If the vital and physical forces are mutually convertible,” &c., and discusses tho question as to which appeared first in our planet. If they are interchangeable, then, according to Grove’s doctrine of a correlation of force (which he has only applied to physical force), they must be identical, and there could be no priority of origin. This view of the subject must lead to materialism. Happily it is otherwise. pathologist to explain on purely physical grounds the following instances of mental disease?he calls them conundrums. The first relates to those rare and remarkable cases which are technically termed mania transitoria, two of which occurred in his own practice : ” Many years ago I met with two striking illustrations in lads of fourteen and seventeen, of vivid imagination and nervous temperament, but who were at the time in excellent bodily health, and have not manifested either then or since any species of alienation. In one the attack ceased in the course of twelve hours, in the other it con- tinued several days. “What, then, are the relations between our physical and psychical natures under such circumstances ? If the cells in the cortical substance be engorged, or in any way degenerated, in what manner can the cause, or the removal, or the operation of this fugacious state be explained? Is the mental organism independent of physical causes, concomitants^ or other circumstances ? “
The second relates to cases of general paralysis. Dr Browne asks whether ” we are entitled to hold that the resumption of apparently healthy mental action is compatible and coexis- tent with persistent structural degeneration ? “
The third has reference to lucid intervals. He says: ” It is not my intention to insist here upon the origin or nature of lucid intervals, as the subject is of too wide a compass. There are, however, occasionally brief periods in the history of de- ments, chiefly connected with excitement, during which the long dormant or dead faculties or feelings are awakened, revivify and present a store of memories and a strength of reason- ing altogether unexpected and inconsistent with long-established feebleness and fatuity, and which pass away with the same inexplicable rapidity which marks the development. Dr. King Earle presents the interesting picture of a juvenile de- ment who, during one hour, but no longer, was roused from his apathy and taciturnity, displayed such marvellous humour and joyousness, as to excite the fun and frolic of his wondering companions, and then subsided into his former silence and stupidity. Pain has produced a similar resuscitation, and in dements, as well as other lunatics, there is sometimes a eutha- nasia, a wakening or lighting up before death, which is very difficult to reconcile with chronic disease, prostration, and impending dissolution. With what cerebral condition, then, can these sudden flashes of restored intellectual light, after a darkness created and maintained for years, by the presence of brain-wasting hypertrophy, or consolidation of tissues, connec- tive or otherwise, be identified, it is for the pathologist to say.”
An attempt has lately been made to frame a classification of mental diseases on a material basis, without taking the psychical element into consideration. The new nomenclature has been scattered to the winds by an able and exhaustive article in the Journal of Psychological Medicine for October 1876. It would be out of place here to give all the patho- logical or other facts by which the writer of this paper de- molishes the arguments of his opponent. I cannot, however, refrain from quoting one forcible passage. He truly observes : ” Subjective states and objective states are both existents, and no one can shut his eyes to either the one or the ?then Every physician’s first question, ” Where do you feel pain. is an appeal to self-consciousness, and an invitation to introspec- tion ; and the very terms which an asylum physician must use daily?to wit, feelings, ideas, memories, volitions, sensations, emotions?have acquired their several meanings throug se - analysis. And yet Skae and his school pretend to discar no only subjective but all psychology.”
Again, striking the keynote of my argument tha ma er cannot think, and that the materialists have not overthrown is fact?I will proceed to consider the psychological bearing o a remarkable case of congenital malformation of ^he ram, unattended with any marked impairment of the intellec ua faculties. The case was reported in the Psychiatriches tralblatt, Vienna, about two years since : it came under e notice of Professor Malinverni Grerinano, of Turin. ^ A su jec was brought to the anatomical rooms for dissection, an on examining the brain the corpus callosum was found to e ^an ing. The man had served as a soldier for eight years, and sub- sequently had gained his livelihood as a labourer m the e s. He had always been considered a steady, industrious, an fairly intelligent man, and no mental deficiency had ever een observed during his life. The great commissure of t e ram which was discovered to be wanting in this individua as always been looked on as an important part of the cere ra organisation in the higher animals. It does not exis m e marsupial quadrupeds, nor in birds, and its absence m man is considered by Dr Carpenter to be a frequent cause ot de cien intellectual power. If the mind is nothing more an a cerebral function, how did it happen in the above case that 1 was not impaired, when the great connecting link between its two hemispheres was found wanting?
Phrenologists have argued that the mind is dual, from a fact as old as Hippocrates that the brain is composed ot two symmetrical halves. The late Dr Wigan, thirty-three years ago, wrote an ingenious work to prove the duali y of the mind. Though it excited considerable attention a the time, he failed to substantiate his theory. The mind is a first principle, an essence, an entity which cannot be divided. A writer on the duality of the mind has the following eloquent passage in an article in the first volume of the Journal of Psychological Medicine published in 1848: “Far more transcendent than all these glories [of the universe] i3 the mind of man,?encased within its bony tabernacle for a brief and hurried season,?confined to this small spot of earth, and from beneath the penthouse of its eyelid peering forth on the broad daylight of this fair world, aDd glancing with almost angel’s ken from heaven to earth, and from earth to heaven. Mind is indeed an enigma, the solution of which is apparently beyond the reach of this very mind, itself the problem, the demonstrator, the demonstration, and the de- monstrand. The mental operation is introverted: the eye must view itself?the thought must think on thought?and the mind must understand and explain the mind. 0 wondrous work! who shall penetrate its inmost recesses and visit the varied chambers of its imagery ? What tongue shall tell the legends of its lore? or what pen describe the mazes of its endless labyrinth of ideas ? Pass on, thou slow-footed herald, Time! and guide us to that golden mansion (domus aurea) where the hidden things of earth shall be refulgent with truth, and the failing things of age glow with the splendours of an everlasting knowledge.”
The memory is confidently believed (even by many a cerebral physiologist who feels impelled to acknowledge, malgre lui, the existence of consciousness as an immaterial principle) to be a bodily function; it is therefore especially necessary to make a few remarks on this marvellous faculty of the mind, and I think it can be shown that its mysterious phenomena cannot be explained on merely physical grounds.
It is impossible to account on any physical principle for the wonderful manner in which thoughts are retained in the mind during a long lifetime. Dr Lionel Beale, one of the highest authorities on the great question of matter and life, in his Lumleian Lectures, delivered before the Royal College of Physicians, observed that nerve-matter is produced by bioplasm at every period of life, although he thinks that there are many forms of tissue in which little or no change takes place during life. However, it has not yet been shown that the cells of the brain are exempt from that law of constant renewal which generally obtains in the soft tissues of the body. The probability is, from its delicate texture, that it is con- stantly in need of renovation. Its fragility is conspicuous after death, for it is a fact familiar to every student of anatomy that it is one of the very first parts of the body that decom- poses. If, then, the brain be of such a perishable nature, it is incredible that images or ideas impressed by any merely phy- sical process on the cells of the brain could be vividly re- called after a long period of time, when the matter of the very cells which were supposed to have received them had been replaced by new matter. On asking a medical friend of mine, one of the most accomplished naturalists of the day, how it was possible that the new nerve-cells could acquire the learning of their predecessors, he suggested that the old perishing cells, before they became quite effete, communicated their intelli- gence to their successors. This notion resembles the hypothesis of Leibnitz?that monads had perception and appetite.*
Several cases are on record in which languages have been acquired and supposed to be utterly forgotten, but have revived in the person’s mind during illness. These cases strengthen the opinion that ideas once received into the mind are never forgotten, and I never heard that the microscope had detected the symbols of any language impressed on the cells of the brain. The most remarkable among those that have been noticed is the well-known one referred to by Coleridge, who held that memory is imperishable. It is deeply inte- resting, and adds additional strength to the arguments of those who are opposed to the materialistic view of the question. The case occurred at Gottingen a year or two before Coleridge arrived there, and created a great sensation in Germany. It is published at length in his Biographica Literciria. The subject of it was a young servant-girl, twenty-five years of age, who could neither read nor write. During an attack of fever she talked Latin, Greek, and Hebrew incessantly, in very pompous tones, and with distinct enunciation. The priests and monks supposed that she was possessed by the devil. Sheets full of her ravings were taken down. The mystery was at last solved by a young physician, who discovered that she had been taken care of, when nine years of age, by an old Protestant priest * Through the kindness of Mr. Alfred Eugenius Roche (a surgeon in the army) I have lately learned the particulars of a most interesting case of brain disease, which came under his observation when he was at St. Mary’s Hospital. Through the courtesy of Mr. Spencer Smith, who had the care of the patient,^ and Mr. Juller, the Medical Registrar, I had access to the journal of the hospital, and saw the particulars of the post-mortem examination. The cause of death was softening of the brain, the result of syphilitic disease of the frontal bones. Mr. Roche, who- ?watched the case closely, assures me that during the week that the patient was in. the hospital his mental faculties -were not impaired, though it was found that the anterior lobes of both hemispheres -were entirely disorganised. Several cases are recorded in which extensive disease of one hemisphere of the brain has existed without the mind being affected, but here we have an experimentum cruris, which completely refutes the theory that memory is located in either of the anterior lobes of the brain.
with whom she lived many years. Whilst in his house he was in the habit of walking up and down a passage opening into the kitchen and reading aloud out of his favourite books. A considerable number of these books were in the possession of a relative of his, and among them were found a collection of Rabbinical writings and several of the Greek and Latin fathers. The young physician found so many passages in them corresponding exactly with those taken down at the young woman’s bedside, as to leave no doubt as to their origin. I would seriously ask the physiological psychologists whether they can explain the mental phenomena in this case entirely on physical principles ? So much for memory.
I will now make some observations on the subject of un- conscious cerebration?a materialistic and unproved doctrine, lately broached by Dr Carpenter. The theory was eagerly ” adopted by the physiological psychologists, who accepted it as an established fact?the long-looked-for discovery which was to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that mind is simply a function of the brain. One writer of this class speaks of it as ” the very pith of his paper.” Unconscious cerebration (a most unphilosopliical term, since it is not yet settled that brain and mind are identical) would be a very comfortable creed for those who dislike mental labour, as it is supposed to do a great deal of our thinking without any trouble to ourselves, like the work- ing of a steam-engine.
As Newton was led to infer the existence of the law of gravi- tation by watching the falling of an apple to the ground, in like manner Dr Carpenter was led to the discovery of the grand truth of unconscious cerebration by noticing that a child, after overcoming its first difficulties in its efforts to walk, was able to co-ordinate the muscles of its lower extremities in an automatic manner; volition only being required to set them a-going. He mentions as another fact in confirmation of his theory the ex- traordinary way in which a skilled pianist performs the most complicated co-ordinate muscular movements in an instinctive sort of manner, without any apparent consciousness on his own part.
Dr Carpenter next proceeds to apply the same views to thought, which he calls cerebration, and he thinks that the fol- lowing fact can be accounted for in the same way, viz., the instantaneous manner in which a forgotten word, which we have tried in vain to recall, and at last have given up in despair, will suddenly flash across the mind without any conscious exercise of volition. Suffice it to say that Dr Carpenter would reduce man to a mere automaton.
The above facts, however, are capable of bearing another explanation than that given by Dr Carpenter; one that need not drive us into the belief that we have no freewill, or that we are the helpless victims of a materialistic necessity. With respect to walking, it is quite possible that when a command over the limbs has been obtained the amount of attention given to the direction of the movements is so small, and the conscious recognition of it so faint, as to escape the memory. The same argument applies to the rapid movements of the musician’s fingers. Probably he conceives each passage as rapidly as he executes it.
The singular process by which the mind suddenly recalls in an instant a word or thought that seemed to have passed into oblivion, has been explained by Dr Carpenter on physiological grounds. We venture, however, to think that it can be more satisfactorily accounted for, metaphysically, by the laws of asso- ciation. Sir William Hamilton, who brought forward the theory of latent mental action, gives a rationale of this mys- terious mental process. He considers that the forgotten thought is actually recalled by the law of association, and that the in- termediate link which brought back the lost idea to the mind was so transitory that the consciousness of the impression was lost.
The late Sir Henry Holland, in his ” Fragmentary Papers on Science and other Subjects,” speaking of mental operations, and the power of the mind to change and control them, makes the following pertinent remarks on unconscious cerebration :? ” Here, again, we are met and entangled by the new doctrine of unconscious cerebration?that succession of mental states, partly governed by the will, partly automatic from habit, or the in- fluence of the external senses. This hypothesis supposes intel- lectual operations in which consciousness has no part, but which nevertheless evolve true logical results. Here we are called on to recognise an exclusion of mind from the highest functions of mind.”
In selecting dreaming as an example of automatic action, Dr Carpenter has been singularly infelicitous. What can be less material than “the stuff that dreams are made of”? In dreams, when the mind is uninfluenced by external impressions, it is left to wander fancy free among the images and memo- ries of the past. Consciousness and memory are not lost; the emotions and imagination are in full force, whilst judgment and comparison are in abeyance. One of the chief features in dreaming is an inability to perceive the incongruity of the illu- sions conjured up by the imagination, and another is a want of controlling power over the thoughts. In attempting to unravel the mysteries of dreaming we are brought in contact with some of the most difficult and profound problems of mental philo- sophy. One of the most obscure is that which .relates to the state of the mind in what is called dreamless sleep. Some sup- pose that in deep sleep there is a complete absence of images and trains of thought; others, as it seems to me with more pro- bability, think that no sleep, however profound, is quite un- attended with dreams, though they may be so utterly forgotten that it seems to us as if they had never existed.
I will now briefly recapitulate the chief facts and arguments which have been adduced in order to prove that mental phe- nomena are wholly distinct from matter, and are not to be accounted for on physical grounds.
1. I made it evident that no great discovery, as regards the functions of the brain and nervous system, has been made since the days of Sir Charles Bell and Marshall Hall. 2. That in no instance has it been found that vital and physical force are interchangeable. The doctrine, therefore, of a correlation of force could not be applied to the elucidation of vital or mental phenomena.
3. That respecting the nature of insanity, there are ques- tions which cannot be answered by materialistic physiology, and that a recent attempt to frame a classification of mental diseases, without taking the psychical element into considera- tion, had proved an utter failure.
4. That memory, which it had been so confidently asserted was a bodily function, could not be localised in any part of the brain.
5. That the doctrine of unconscious cerebration, of which we have lately heard so much, and which, if true, would reduce man to a mere automaton, admits of an explanation that does not require us to recognise the exclusion of mind from the highest faculties of mind.
6. That the mysterious phenomena of dreaming involve some of the most difficult problems in mental philosophy, and offer no support to the theory of the materialistic physiologists. The consideration of the above leading points of my argu- ment will, I hope, tend to calm the fears of those whose faith has been shaken by the dogmatic teaching of the modern school, and help to assure them that the time has not yet arrived?and we believe never will?when the broad distinctions between mind and matter are to be obliterated, and man is to find him- self the creature of a blind necessity. The physiologists have not proved that the highest mental manifestations are emana- tions from particular parts of the brain. It is illogical to believe that the special attributes of mind, such as perception, memory, will, reason, imagination, as well as all moral attri- butes, can belong to matter, the qualities of which are extension, divisibility, impenetrability, &c.
The confusion caused by confounding the faculties of mind with the functions of the body has led to ” a confusion worse confounded,” by the scientific jargon, such as ideation, cerebra- tion, &c., which has been introduced, in the vain attempt to explain the crude notions which pseudo-science has engendered. The pedantic phraseology of the materialistic school is per- meating every branch of literature. It is even infesting the style of one of our most charming novelists. The last work of George Eliot stands out in painful contrast to the early writings of the author. We find in ” Daniel Deronda” such expressions as ” dynamic glances,” and ” systole and diastole of blissful companion ship.”
To confirm my statement that materialistic physiology is spreading its baneful influence in all directions, and that I have not exaggerated the fact, I will now refer to the new quarterly journal called Mind, the first number of which made its ap- pearance in January 1876, under the editorship of Mr. George Croom Robertson. One writer in Mind, the Rector of Lincoln College, in an article entitled ” Philosophy at Oxford,” laments over what he considers the decay of philosophy at Oxford; he says that ” the leaders of thought in England are outside of us,” and points with admiration to ” Mill, Herbert Spencer, Bain, Lewes, Jevons, H. Sedgwick, the English translator of 6 Comte,’ &c.” To the speculative philosophy of this class of writers, he remarks that Oxford has made no contribution. Heaven forbid that she should! I would ask, in the name of common sense, What have these writers done morally or intellectually for the cause of truth? Every year some new system of philosophy starts up, to be forgotten and speedily followed by some fresh speculation, differing on no essential point from its predecessor. As a matter of course, physiological psychology?which, by the way, is in truth but a revival of the pseudo-science of phrenology in a new garb?forms a conspicuous topic in the pages of Mind. There is a long article on the Physiological Psychology of Germany, of which Wilhelm Wundt is the great leader. We are gravely told, as if for the first time, that the new science is to unveil all the mysteries of the human mind, and place metaphysics on a solid material basis. I will quote two passages from this paper: ” That physiologists have thus gradually encroached on the region of psychology is a fact which should excite no wonder ; for, in a certain sense, physi- ology may be said to include the whole of empirical psychology. If every mental act is a function of some part of the nervous system, then a complete account of this system would imply a complete explanation of mental processes which are its func- tions.” ” Of course physiological science is even now far from that point at which she could supply, from the objective side, a full interpretation of all known mental phenomena. The exceedingly subtle acts of volition, for example, still await their physiological explanation?an explanation which, when it arrives, will serve to dispel from the subject a good deal of metaphysical haze.” Yea, verily, when that time arrives, we shall become converted to their opinion. But enough of these dry and dreary speculations. Well may the editor of The World, in a brief notice of Mind, exclaim Caveat emptor.
In an article on ” Automatism and Evolution,” in the Contemporary Review for October 1876, I was surprised to find the following remarks from the pen of Dr Elam: ” Nothing can be more certain than that every man has a perfect right, moral and social, as well as legal, to express before a scientific assembly any opinion that he may hold in science and philosophy. It is therefore worse than unmeaning to complain, as certain critics have done, that Professor Tyndall has 4 abused his position as President of the Association in enunciating views subversive of religion and morality,’ as understood by them. Still more misplaced and illogical is the alarm that has been felt and expressed in no measured terms as to the consequences of these doctrines.” Having sixteen months since published an opinion diametrically opposed to that of Dr Elam, I take this opportunity to protest against his re- marks ; and I feel confident that every earnest lover of truth will agree with me, that the present is not a time for a temporising course, and that it is not by a lukewarm champion like Dr. Elam, that the tide of infidelity is to be stayed. I” would earnestly reiterate that Dr Tyndall had no moral right to take advantage of the position of President of the British Association to air his flimsy hypotheses, which were of no real advantage to science, and which were calculated to undermine the faith of thousands. Materialism, by destroying the idea of a ruling Providence, must be subversive of all moral govern- ment, which in all ages has ever been founded on religious belief. Of course Dr Tyndall had a legal right to declare his opinions, and so has any atheistic communist who proclaims his views in Hyde Park, and whose outspoken infidelity is not half so dangerous as the subtle scientific atheism of Dr. Tyndall. The duty of the President of the British Association is to take a review of the real work done by scientific labourers, not to give utterance to extravagant speculations, materialistic or spiritualistic. In tins respect the plain and practical address of Dr Andrews, at the last meeting of the Association at Glasgow, stands out in striking contrast to the wild flights of the imagination with which Dr Tyndall bewildered the public, and made science ridiculous.
One of the melancholy signs of the spread of infidelity is the establishment of Sunday Lectures at St. George’s Hall, where materialistic doctrines are openly advocated. And with such lessons before us, we are told that we ought to look on calmly whilst scientific teaching is made an excuse for the diffusion of false philosophy, and that we are not to raise our voices to protest against it. It was not by such indifference that the apostles, martyrs, and Christian warriors of old upheld and defended the truths of Christianity. Nevertheless, even in the present day, learned, scientific, skilled, and zealous defenders of the faith have not been found wanting, and their able and intrepid advocacy of the truth has borne good fruit, inasmuch as that we hear little, if anything, just now about the potentiality of atoms. It has, however, been my object in this paper to show that a new and more dangerous form of mate- rialism is now rife : the plausible and subtle doctrine which its advocates paradoxically call Physiological Psychology, but which I have termed Materialistic Physiology. And this is the doctrine, based on the assumption that mind is a mere function of the brain?an assumption that, if true, would reduce man to the level of the beasts that perish?that we are offered as a substi- tute for the belief in the immateriality of the mind. I trust however, that the arguments, drawn from general and well- accredited facts in anatomy and pathology, which I have adduced, have proved that this doctrine cannot be supported on scientific grounds. Happy for us that it is so, for it brings no good tidings?quite the reverse. One of its strong advocates, as I mentioned before, has announced that we are to receive it with sorrow. It has been my lot on more than one occasion to witness the mournful effects of atheistical teaching. Not long since, I was consulted professionally by a gentleman holding a mercantile appointment of trust and importance, who informed me, in the course of conversation, that he had been entirely perverted to atheistical opinions, and that whereas he had once been happy and hopeful, he was now indifferent to existence, as life had lost all its romance. A melancholy example of how wretched this life may become when severed from the hope of immortality. Therefore it is indeed sad, to find a professor in one of our largest medical schools instilling such principles into the minds of those who look up to him for guidance.
But it is not by glib phrases, sophistical arguments, and ad captandum rhetoric, that this new system can be supported; and it may be hoped that ere long ” Materialistic Physiology ” will be consigned to that limbo which has already engulphed so many systems of false philosophy.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.