Rensselaer Union, Volume 7, Number 38, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 June 1875 — Is the Brain the Sole Organ of the Hind?. [ARTICLE]

Is the Brain the Sole Organ of the Hind?.

Where the mind resides in the body’ has been the subject of investigation long before Dr. Hammond delivered his Interesting lecture on the subject before the Neurological Society. Some of the ancients imagined it to be seated in the stomach, and the old theory that the heart is the home of tender emotions has been impressed upon language and upon poetic literature especially. “ Bowels of compassion" was once more than a figurative expression. But modern science has always regarded the brain as the organ of the mind, and the other portions of the body as the instruments of the brain, possessing automatic motion, as the heart, but incapable of conscious action. The interesting Question is now presented by Dr. Hammond as to whether the brain is exclusively the organ of the mind, and he is of the opinion that it is not. Experiments upon lower forms of animals have been made by removing the brain, and yet sensation and thought seem to have survived the operation. Shakespeare puts into Macbeth’s mouth the scientific remark that “ the times have been that when the brains were out the man would die;” but this is not the case with frogs. A frog deprived of his brain will swim, scratch himself when tickled, will turn over when placed upon its back; the headless rattlesnake wijl coil and strike when it is annoyed; the decapitated alligator will show similar signs of consciousness. Hence Dr. Hammond argues that whereever there is gray nerve tissue there is also mind. Children born without brains sometimes act like other children, and breathe, cry, suck and eat. This is certainly evidence in favor of the theory that “ the spinal cord is something more than a mere center for reflex action and a conductor of impressions to and from the brain,” and is a center of perception and volition. We cannot altogether agree, however, that other instances of unconscious action quoted by Dr. Hammond must be referred to the spinal cord. It is true that persons playing on the piano and conversing are unconscious of the movements of their hands, just as it is true that in the action of writing the brain seems to give no direction to the pen. The mind of the astronomer may be wandering in the z.odiac while his hand unconsciously records his thoughts. But too little is known of the brain to say absolutely that these strange manifestations are outside of cerebral consciousness. There are depths of consciousness which we seldom sound, and others which are actually inaccessible to the reasoning powers. They are so infinitely remote from the ordinary processes of thought that they cannot be examined. It seems arbitrary to say that these fathomless gulfs of mental consciousness.reside only in the spinal cord. The memory of the brain is still a mystery. No complexity, probably, is so great as the web of associations into which memory is woven and through which it acts so swiftly that no man can detect the process by which he remembers even the slightest action. We need not accept the theories of phrenology to believe that each of the great divisions of the braih has a memory of its own, and that these memories are rarely, and perhaps never, united in one instant flash of consciousness. Our criticism upon Dr. Hammond’s theory, if we should presume to criticise it, would be that he makes his division' between the organs too absolute, that he defines too narrowly the separate functions of the brain and spinal cord. The dark abysses of conscious thought and of automatic action of the mind will probably baffle experiment forever, as they have forever defied introspection. Yet the conclusion of Dr. Hammond, that “ perception and volition are seated in the spinalcord as well as in the central ganglia,” seems to be justified by innumerable experiments of his own and other eminent scientists, and if this be true of the lower animals it is probably true of man. We must then give our backbones a higher place than they have held in our esteem when the cranium was considered the sole seat of the mind. It is an interesting question, and one of which we should like much to know the opinion of the Darwinians, for it has certainly profound relations with their theory. They once examined the origin of language in reference to the light it throws upon the origin of species, and may mow find the “ missing link” in investigating the organs of the mind from the lowest to the highest forms of life. — New York Herald.