The Pascagoula democrat-star. (Pascagoula, Miss.) 1878-1920, 1886-04-16
MIND NOT


Tue recent lectures which "a
have had on The subject OF phrenol
ogy have been quite interesting
yet, in justice to true science. VI,
must say that they were sOmewha.
faulty. While l do not claim an,
great amount of Psychologist.
knowledge, yet L can set through
a milestone if there is a hole through
Il.
The points OF difference are, first,
that this pbren0l0giSt claims that
The mind or soul i a material SUB
sIauce or, IN other words, that mind
is matter. | claim that mind is im-
material. lie claims that mind is
tue organ OF the bFain. | claim
that brain is the organ through
which the minds act upon the ply
steal senses.
W. receive a knowledge of ma
terial things through the medium
of sensation, aud We receive q
knowledge Of iIumateIial things
/ through the medium of conscious
hess. Consciousness is to the mind
/ hat ~srusatiOH Is 10 the body. AYE
eau see. feel. smell, taste or hear
all material things. These are The
OrgausO OF sensation. Material snb
stances have properties such as
magnitude, inpenetrability, devisi-
billy, pOrOsity, etc, aud these pro
perties are inherent and not fas tile
Professor OF phreuol0gy would have
you believel 10 the ~posSeSsiye case
like a man who Owls a horse or a
COW. There eau be no material
substances unless they have at least
some OF these properties inherent,
because IT you take away the thing
itsai, it would be a nouenity,
so far as material substance is con,
cerned. 1 think that it is clear that
anything without some OF these
properties cdnnot be material, ac-
cordius TO the foundation principles
OF natural philosophy.
Now, If MUD possesses these
properties, | ask what is its shape
Is it a circle, a square. "A triangle OF I
a parallelogram 1T mind is mat
ter, how long is iti How thick is
It'll Ii mind is matter can YOU take
d square foot OF it aud divide il
into a thousand parts What color
Is i'll Is it IA liquid or ii solid mat
teri 1t mud is matter all these
pertinent questions.
Now, 1t 1t he proven that The
mind possesses a siUgle material
property in common With other
matter, either animate or inanimatr,
will yield aud confess my error
and let tue true science OF tue mind
| now believe it to bel be rele.
gated with tue ''cobwebs" of the
lark ages.
As mind IS 10; material because
t does not possess any material
properties, the question may be
.sked what is it, thenf | answer
t is u substantial entity. That it
5 an entity is proven from the fact ,
hat it has immateral properties or |
iculties, such as intellect, sensibil. '
y and will, and these form Il com '
lete immaterial organic constitu. c
on.
Material organism is developed I
nd supported by material substan |
rs. Mental organism Is developed d
nd supported by immatrriallh things. ;
his, OF itself. is sufficient proof q
lat the mind is i%mmaterial. This Il
lateriallStic theory is nothing new, =
$ it was taught and believed by c
lany before the Christian era, and
been accepted but by IA fen a
theistie scientists Of the middle u
ges aud of modern times. 1t has
ften been exploded, but like many
Their absurd theories it still has II 4
w advocates who would insult
)mmOn With their modern
as they call it, which they
~ is neU, aud is going to change
most the very laws OF nature. d
hen we examine it we find il is a
lie same old sI0p warmed over. IN
The second pUIut OF difference 81
hIch / propose to mention, is, that @
re braiu is the organ of the mind. ID
bis is proven by the tact that mind d
superior to matter. Sir William S
amiltOn says: "There is nothing n
'eat in the world but man. and Of
great in man but mind"
mind is superior, is il not absurd, ia
the highest degree, 10 claim that d
is a mere organ of the inferior ? OF
claim, on the other hand, that b.
is what may be termed tue fC
nOnarch,7 who sits upon his tt
rome in the brain, and all the b,
notions of the body are subserv- 1!
ut to his will. Respectfully, "a
InuUTT fr