Different Sorts of Stimuli
To call all mental processes reactions means that it is always in order to ask for the stimulus. Typically, the stimulus is an external force or motion, such as light or sound, striking on a sense organ. There are also the internal stimuli, consisting of changes occurring within the body and acting on the sensory nerves that are distributed to the muscles, bones, lungs, stomach and most of the organs. The sensations of muscular strain and fatigue, and of hunger and thirst, are aroused by internal stimuli, and many reflexes are aroused in the same way.
Such internal stimuli as these are like the better known external stimuli in that they act upon sense organs; but it [{48}] seems necessary to recognize another sort of stimuli which act directly on the nerve centers in the brain. These may be called "central stimuli" and so contrasted with the "peripheral stimuli" that act on any sense organ, external or internal. To do this is to take considerable liberty with the plain meaning of "stimulus", and calls for justification. What is the excuse for thus expanding the notion of a stimulus?
The excuse is found in the frequent occurrence of mental processes that are not directly aroused by any peripheral stimulus, though they are plainly aroused by something else. Anything that arouses a thought or feeling can properly be called its stimulus. Now it often happens that a thought is aroused by another, just preceding thought; and it seems quite in order to call the first thought the stimulus and the second the response. A thought may arouse an emotion, as when the thought of my enemy, suddenly occurring to mind, makes me angry; the thought is then the stimulus arousing this emotional response.
If hearing you speak of Calcutta makes me think of India, your words are the stimulus and my thought the response. Well, then, if I think of Calcutta in the course of a train of thought, and next think of India, what else can we say than that the thought of Calcutta acts as a stimulus to arouse the thought of India as the response? In a long train of thought, where A reminds you of B and B of C and C of D, each of these items is, first, a response to the preceding, and, second, a stimulus to the one following.
There is no special difficulty with the notion of "central stimuli" from the physiological side. We have simply to think of one nerve center arousing another by means of the tract of axons connecting the two. Say the auditory center is aroused by hearing some one mention your friend's name, [{49}] and this promptly calls up a mental picture of your friend; here the auditory center has aroused the visual. What happens in a train of thought is that first one group of neurones is aroused to activity, and then this activity, spreading along the axons that extend from this group of neurones to another, arouses the second group to activity; and so on. The brain process may often be exceedingly complex, but this simple scheme gives the gist of it.
The way nerve currents must go shooting around the brain from one center or group of neurones to another, keeping it up for a long time without requiring any fresh peripheral stimulus, is remarkable. We have evidence of this sort of thing in a dream or fit of abstraction. Likely enough, the series of brain responses would peter out after awhile, in the absence of any fresh peripheral stimulus, and total inactivity ensue. But response of one brain center to nerve currents coming from another brain center, and not directly from any sense organ, must be the rule rather than the exception, since most of the brain neurones are not directly connected with any sense organ, but only with other parts of the brain itself. All the evidence we have would indicate that the brain is not "self-active", but only responsive; but, once thrown into activity at one point, it may successively become active at many other points, so that a long series of mental operations may follow upon a single sensory stimulus.