THE NATURE OF MIND.
Since this subject is being discussed by our most distinguished scientists, we will conclude this chapter with an extract from a lecture delivered by Prof. Burt G. Wilder, at the American Institute:
"There now remains to be disposed of, in some way, the question as to the nature and reality of mind, which was rather evaded at the commencement of the lecture. The reason was, that I am forced to differ widely from the two great physiologists whom I have so often quoted this evening. Most people, following in part early instruction, in part revelation, in part spiritual manifestations, and in part trusting to their own consciousness, hold that the human mind is a spiritual substance which is associated with the body during the life of the latter in this world, and which remains in existence after the death of the body, and forms the spiritual clothing or embodiment of the immortal soul; and that the individual, therefore, lives after death as a spirit in the human form; that of this spiritual man, the soul is the essential being, of which may be predicted a good or evil nature, while the mind, which clothes it as a body, consists of the spiritual substances, affections, and thoughts, which were cherished and formed during the natural life.
Together with the above convictions respecting themselves, most people, when thinking independently of theological sublimations, feel willing to admit that animals have, in common with man, fewer or more natural affections and thoughts which make up their minds, but that the inner and immortal soul, which would retain them as part of an individual after death of the body, is not possessed by the beasts that perish. In short, the vast majority of mankind, when thinking quietly, and especially in seasons of bereavement, feel well assured of the real and substantial existence of the human mind, independently of its temporary association with the perishable body.
But in antagonism to this simple and comforting faith, stand theological incomprehensibilities on the one hand, and scientific skepticism on the other. The former would have us believe that the soul is a mere vapor, a cloud of something ethereal, of which can be expected nothing more useful than 'loafing around the Throne,' while the latter asks us to recognize the existence of nothing which the eyes cannot see and fingers touch; to cease imagining that there is a soul, and to regard the mind as merely the product of the brain; secreted thereby as the liver secretes bile. Let us hear what the two leading nervous physiologists, of this country, have to say upon this point:
'The brain is not, strictly speaking, the organ of the mind, for this statement would imply that the mind exists as a force, independent of the brain; but the mind is produced by the brain substance; and intellectual force, if we may term the intellect a force, can be produced only by the transmutation of a certain amount of matter; there can be no intelligence without brain substance.'—FLINT.
'The mind may be regarded as a force, the result of nervous action, and characterized by the ability to perceive sensations, to be conscious, to understand, to experience emotions, and to will in accordance therewith. Of these qualities, consciousness resides exclusively in the brain, but the others, as is clearly shown by observation and experiment, cannot be restricted to that organ, but are developed with more or less intensity, in other parts of the nervous system.'—HAMMOND.
Thus do the two extremes of theology and science meet upon a common ground of dreamy emptiness, and we who confess our comparative ignorance are comforted by the thought that some other things have been 'hid from the wise and prudent and revealed unto babes.' Yet, while feeling thus, it must be admitted that the existence of spirit and of a Creator do not yet seem capable of logical demonstration. The denial of their existence is not incompatible with a profound acquaintance with material forms and their operations; and, on the other hand, the belief in their existence and substantial nature, and in their powers as first causes, have never interfered with the recognition of the so-called material forces, and of the organisms through which they are manifested. At present, at least, these are purely matters of faith; but although the Spiritualist (using the term in its broadest sense as indicating a belief in spirits), may feel that his faith discloses a beauty and perfection in the union, otherwise imperceptible by him, there is no reason why this difference in faith should make him despise or quarrel with his materialist co-worker, for the latter may do as good service to science, may be as true a man, and live as holy a life, although from other motives.
The differences between religious sects are mainly of faith, not of works, and the wise of all denominations are gradually coming to the conviction that they will all do God more service by toleration and co-operation than by animosity and disunion. And so I hold that, until the spiritualist feels himself able to demonstrate to the unbeliever the existence of spirit and of God, as convincingly as a mathematical proposition, there should be no hard words or feelings upon these points. For the present they are immaterial in every sense of the word; and so long as he bows to the facts and the laws of Nature, and deals with his fellow men as he would be done by, so long will I work with him, side by side, knowing, even though I cannot tell him so, that whether or not he joins me in this world, we shall meet in the other world to come, where his eyes will be opened, and where his lips will at least acquit me of bigotry and intolerance."