42. Closer comparison of the phenomena detected various irreconcilable6 differences, which, if they proved nothing else, proved that nerve-action took place under conditions190 so special as to demand a special designation. Electricity itself is so little understood, that until its nature is more precisely7 known, we cannot confidently say more than that nerve-action resembles electrical-action; meanwhile the speciality of neural8 conditions renders all deduction9 illusory which is based on electrical-action as observed under other conditions. In presence of these difficulties, cautious physiologists10 content themselves with assigning the observed phenomena to the observed and inferred conditions, condensing these in the convenient symbol “nerve-force,” without pretending to any specification11 of the nature of that force. It may be a wave of molecular12 movement dependent on isometric change or on metamorphic change. It may be the liberation of molecular tension resembling electricity; it may be electricity itself. But whatever the nature of the change, it is an activity of the tissue, and as such comes under the general dynamic conception of Force or Energy.
43. In this sense the term has nothing equivocal or obscure. It is a shorthand expression symbolizing14 certain well-defined observations. Nevertheless, it is a term which we shall do well to avoid when possible, and to replace by another having less danger of misinterpretation; the reason being that Force has become a sort of shibboleth16, and a will-o’-wisp to speculative17 minds. All that we know of Force is Motion. But this is too meagre for metempirical thinkers, who disdain18 the familiar experiences expressed in the term Motion, and demand a transcendent cause “to account” for what is observed. They seek an entity19 to account for the fact. Motion is a very definite conception, expressing precise experiences; we know what it means, and know that the laws of moving bodies admit of the nicest calculation. A similar precision belongs to Force when understood as “mass acceleration,” or M V2. But this does not content those191 metaphysicians who understand by Force “the unknown reality behind the phenomena”—the cause of Motion. This cause they refuse to recognize in some antecedent motion (what I have termed a “differential pressure”), but demand for it a physical or metaphysical agent: the physical agent being a subtle fluid of the nature of Ether, or a nerve atmosphere surrounding the molecules20; the metaphysical agent being a Spirit or aggregate21 of Soul-atoms. The second alternative we may decline here to discuss. The first alternative is not only a pure fiction, but one which is inconsistent with the demonstrable velocity22 of the neural process, which is not greater than the pace of a greyhound, whereas the velocities23 of light and electricity are enormously beyond this. It is inconsistent also with the observation that a much feebler current of electricity is requisite24 for the stimulation25 of a muscle through its nerve than when directly applied26 to the muscle: a proof that the nerve does not act solely27 by transmission of electricity—unless we gratuitously28 assume that the nerve is a multiplicator.
When it is said that the living nerve is incessantly29 liberating31 Force which can be communicated to other tissues, the statement is acceptable only if we reject the metaphysical conceptions it will too generally suggest—the conceptions of Force as an entity, and of its being passed from one object to another like an arrow shot from a bow. The physical interpretation15 simply says that the molecules of the nerve are incessantly vibrating, and with varying sweep; these vibrations32, when of a certain energy, will set going vibrations in another substance by disturbing the tension of its molecules, as the vibrations of heat will disturb the tension of the gunpowder33 molecules, and set them sweeping34 with greater energy: this is the communication of the force. Just as we say that a magnet communicates magnetic force to a bit of iron,192 though all we mean is that the magnet has so altered the molecular condition of the iron as to have given it the movements called magnetism—in short, has excited in the iron the dormant35 property of becoming magnetic—so we say the nerve communicates its force to the muscle, exciting in the muscle its dormant property of contraction36. But in truth nothing has passed from magnet to iron, or from nerve to muscle.
44. Do what we will, however, there is always, in the present condition of philosophical37 chaos38, the danger of being misunderstood when we employ the term Nerve-force; and I have proposed the term Neurility as an escape from the misleading suggestions. It is a symbol expressing the general property of nerve-tissue. For reasons presently to be stated, I restrict Neurility to the peripheral39 system, employing Sensibility for the central system. The excited muscle manifests its special property of Contractility; the excited nerve manifests its special property of Neurility; the excited centre manifests its special property of Sensibility.96 The terms are193 simply descriptive, and carry with them no hypothesis as to what Neurility is in its hidden process, nor how Sensibility arises in a nerve-centre, and not elsewhere. We know that a stimulated41 muscle contracts, and we express the fact by assigning to muscular tissue the property of Contractility. We know that a stimulated nerve translates an impulse from one point to another, and excites the muscle to contract; and we express the fact by assigning to nerve-tissue the property of transmitting stimulation, which is further specified42, as unlike other transmissions, by the term Neurility.
45. What is the meaning attached to the term Property, and how it is distinguished43 from Function, has been already expounded44 in Problem 1, §§ 81–6. There also was laid down the principle of identity of structure implying identity of property. Inasmuch as observation reveals a fundamental similarity in the structure of the nervous tissue throughout the animal kingdom, we must conclude the existence of a fundamental similarity in the property of that tissue: a conclusion confirmed by observation. There is a corresponding agreement in the organs and functions; so that, within certain limits, the experiments performed on an insect may be verified on a mammal. Everywhere nerve-tissue has certain characters in common, accompanied by variations in the degree and mode of manifestation45 corresponding with variations in structure and connection. Obvious as the fact is, we must emphasize the great variety which accompanies the underlying46 uniformity, for this is recognizable both in the individual organism and in the animal kingdom at large.194 Even such seemingly individual terms as nerve-cell and nerve-fibre are in truth generic47; and the description which accurately48 represents one cell or fibre needs modifying for others.
Properties are generalized expressions; they result from the composition, the structure, and the texture49 of a substance. Thus one bar of iron may differ from another of equal bulk in being more or less crystalline in structure, though having the same composition and the same texture. This difference will modify the mode of manifestation of the iron-properties. Cast-iron pillars, for example, will support, as a roof, a weight which would break them if suspended; wrought50-iron pillars of similar bulk will bear a weight suspended which would crush them as a roof. Yet both cast and wrought iron pillars have the same properties, because they have the same composition and similar structure; the variation of structure only producing a difference in the modes. Texture may also vary. The bar of iron may be beaten into a plate, rolled into a cylinder51, or split into wire-work, without any change in its properties, but with marked differences in its modes of manifestation, and in the uses to which it may be applied. These uses are of course dependent on the connections established between the iron and other things. In Physiology52, uses are called functions.
46. Nerve-tissue must be understood as having everywhere the same general Property. In one animal and in another, in one part and in another, Neurility is the same in kind, but not everywhere manifesting the same degree, nor applied to the same Function. The composition of nerve-tissue varies, but not more than the composition of all other organized substances; the structure is variable, but only within a small range; the texture also; while the connections are very various. Hence, whatever the variations195 in composition or structure, the nerve-fibre has everywhere one fundamental property, which in connection with a muscle has the functional53 activity of exciting contraction; in connection with a gland54 of exciting secretion55; and in connection with a centre of exciting reflexion.97
47. Had a clear idea of Function as dependent on connexion been present to their minds certain physiologists would hardly have raised the mirage56 of “Nerve-force,” a mysterious entity endowed with “specific energies,” and capable of producing vital and psychical57 phenomena by an occult process; nor would others have been led to the monstrous58 hypothesis of particular nerve-cells being endowed with thought, instinct, and volition59. They would have sought an explanation of functions in the combined properties of the co-operant organs and tissues. They would not have endowed one nerve with Sensibility, and another nerve of identical structure with Motility;98 one nerve with a motor property, and another with the opposite property of inhibition. They would have seen that all nerves have the same property, but different uses when in different connexions.
48. Throughout the animal kingdom we see movement following on stimulation. Stimulation may be defined the change of molecular equilibrium60. The stimulation of a muscle is produced indirectly61 through a change in196 the nerve, or directly through a change in the muscle itself. In the simplest organisms there is no trace of nerve-tissue; but their substance manifests Irritability62 (or as it is often called Sensibility); and a stimulus63 to one part is propagated throughout—the whole body moves when touched. Even in Polypes, where there is the beginning of a differentiation64, the motion is slowly propagated from one part to the rest. A single tentacle65 retracts66 when touched; but the movement rarely ends there; it is slowly communicated from one tentacle to the other, and from them to the whole mass. Touching67 the body, however, will not, if the touch be slight, cause the tentacles68 to move; so that we see here a beginning of that principle of specialization which is so manifest in the higher organisms: the tentacles have become the specially69 sensitive parts. Ascending70 higher in the scale of organisms we find those which habitually71 move particular parts without at the same time necessarily moving the rest; and this independence of parts, accompanying a more perfect consensus72, we find to be developed pari passu with a nervous system. An immense variety of part-movements, with varying combinations of such movements, is the physiological73 expression of the more complex nervous system.
48 a. Deferring74 what has to be said of Sensibility till the next chapter, we may here touch on its relation to Irritability, which is often used as its synonym75. Objectively it cannot be distinguished from Irritability, nor indeed from the most general phenomenon of reaction under stimulation; in this it is an universal property. But subjectively76 it is distinguishable as a peculiar mode of reaction, only known in nerve-tissues. While all tissues are irritable77, and react on being stimulated, each tissue has its special mode of reaction. The secreting78-cell reacts differently from the muscle-cell. The reaction of197 the nerve is the innervation of a centre or a muscle; the reaction of an innervated centre is sensation; of a muscle, contraction. There are three aspects of neural reaction: excitation, propagation of the disturbance79, and innervation. The first is expressed by irritability, the second by conductibility, the third by sensibility; but these are only artificial distinctions in the general phenomenon of transmitted excitation. The nerve substance is specially distinguished by its instability of molecular equilibrium; it undergoes chemical change with a readiness comparable to that of explosive substances. Hence its facility of propagation of disturbance. There is irritability and propagation of disturbance in muscular tissue, notably80 evident in the continuous tissue of the heart, intestines81, and ureter; but the propagation is slow and diffusive83; whereas in the nerve it is rapid, and restricted along a definite path. By this rapidity and restriction84 the force of the impact is increased; and thus a slight stimulus applied to the nerve is capable of disturbing the state of the muscle.
49. Thus while molecular movement is a fundamental condition of Vitality85, and is incessant30 throughout organized substance, the massive movements of the organism, and the movements of particular parts, are the directed quantities of this molecular agitation86. They are due to stimulation. We distinguish this from mechanical impulsion. It is a vital process involving molecular change; it is not simply the communication of motion from without, but the excitation of motion within. It is not like the blow which merely displaces an object, but like the blow which disturbs its molecular equilibrium. The effect, therefore, depends on this molecular condition: the blow which scatters88 a heap of gunpowder will explode a fulminating salt, and this, in exploding, will excite the gunpowder to explode. The stimulus which is too feeble198 to excite contraction in a muscle will be powerful enough to excite the neurility of a nerve, and that will excite the contractility of the muscle. The nerve-force is simply neural stimulus. It acts upon the other tissues as the nitrogenous salt upon the gunpowder.
Although it is now common to speak of nerves as transmitting waves of molecular motion, and to regard nerves as the passive medium for the “transference of force,” whereby the force is thus made an abstract entity, we must always remember that such phrases are metaphors89, and that the truer expression will be not “transference of force,” but the “propagation of excitation.” I mean that it is not the force of the impact nor its energy which a nerve transmits, it is the vibratory change produced in the nerve by the impact, which excites another change in the organ to which the nerve goes. We know by accurate measurements that the excitation of a nerve lasts much longer than the stimulus, a momentary90 impact producing an enduring agitation. We know also that the excitation of a centre lasts longer than the muscular contraction it has initiated91. We know, moreover, that a nerve may be totally incapable92 of conducting an external stimulus, yet quite capable of conducting a central stimulus; were it a passive conductor like a wire this would not be so.99
50. The nerve is essentially93 an exciter of change, and thereby94 a regulator. A muscle in action does not appreciably95 determine action in any other (except in the comparatively rare cases of anastomosing muscles); a secreting cell does not propagate its excitation to others. The nerve, on the contrary, not only propagates its excitation,199 and awakens96 the activity of the muscle or gland with which it is connected, but through the centre affects the whole organism—
“Ein Schlag tausend Verbindungen schl?gt.”
Thus it is that stimulation which in the simpler organisms was diffused97 throughout the protoplasm, has in the complex organisms become the specialized98 property of a particular tissue.
51. Two general facts of supreme99 importance must now be stated: One is the law of stimulation—every excitation pursues the path of least resistance. The second is the condition of stimulation—unlike mechanical impulsion, it acts only at insensible distances.
52. This means that although a nerve may be excited by any stimulus external to it which changes its molecular condition, no propagation of that change (i. e. no stimulation through the nerve) is possible except through continuity of substance. Mere87 physical contact suffices to excite the nerve; but if there be an interruption of continuity in the nerve itself, no stimulus-wave passes across that line. Cut a nerve, and bring the divided surfaces once more into close contact, there will still be such a solution of continuity as to arrest the stimulus-wave, mere physical contact not sufficing for the propagation. Whereas across the cut ends of a divided nerve, even visibly separated, the electric current easily passes. This necessity for the vital continuity of tissue in the propagation of stimulation must always be borne in mind. The presence of a membrane100, however delicate, or of any tissue having a different molecular constitution, suffices to arrest or divert the wave. I conceive, therefore, that it is absolutely indispensable that a nerve should terminate in and blend with a muscle or a centre, otherwise no stimulation of muscle or centre will take place through the nerve.
200
53. The difference between excitation from contact and stimulation from continuity may be thus illustrated102. In Fig. 13 we see the legs of a frog attached to the spine103 by the lumbar nerves (l), and lying on the muscles (m) of one leg is the nerve (c) of another frog’s leg. Applying the electrodes to (l), the muscles (m) are violently contracted; not only so, but their contraction excites the other nerve (c), and the leg attached to this nerve is thereby thrown into contraction. This “secondary contraction,” as Dubois Reymond calls it, might be supposed to be due to a diffusion104 of the electrical current; but that it is due to a change in the muscles (m) is proved by delicate experiments showing that the movements in the detached leg are of precisely the same kind as those in the legs directly stimulated. If there is only a muscular shock in the one case, there is only a muscular shock in the other; if there is tetanus in the one, there is tetanus201 in the other; if the muscles of the first leg are fatigued105 and respond slowly and feebly, the response of the second is slow and feeble. Moreover, the secondary contraction may be produced by chemical or mechanical stimulus, as well as by the electrical.
54. Although the contraction of a muscle is thus seen to be capable of exciting a nerve in contact with it, the reverse is not true: we can produce no contraction in a muscle by exciting a nerve simply in contact with the muscle, and not penetrating106 its tissue and terminating there. Accordingly we always find a nerve when about to enter a muscle or a centre losing its protecting envelopes; it gradually becomes identified as a protoplasmic thread with the protoplasm of the muscle or the centre.
55. Neurility, then, is the propagation of molecular change. Two offices are subserved by the nervous system, which may respectively be called Excitation—the disturbance of molecular tension in tissues, and consequent liberation of their energies; and Co-ordination—the direction of these several energies into combined actions. Thus, when the muscle is in a given state of molecular tension, the stimulation of its nerve will change that state, causing it to contract if it be in repose107. But this stimulation, which will thus cause a contraction, will be arrested, if at the same time a more powerful stimulation reaches the antagonist108 muscle, or some distant centre: then the muscle only tends to contract.
ORIGIN OF NERVE-FORCE.
56. After this brief account of Neurility we may pass to the consideration of its origin. Are we to understand that this property belongs to the nerves themselves in the sense in which Contractility belongs to the muscles? or are we to accept the teaching which assigns the origin of202 “nerve-force” to the ganglia, and regards the nerves simply as passive conductors of a force developed in the cells?
57. It is now many years since I ventured to criticise109 the reigning110 doctrine111, and to urge the necessity Of consistently carrying out the distinction between Property and Function. I called attention to the positive evidence which contradicted the idea of passive conduction; and pointed112 out the illusory nature of the favorite analogy, in which ganglia were likened to batteries, and nerves to the conducting wires. But the old image still exerts its empire; and writers are still found speaking of the brain as a telegraphic bureau, the ganglia as stations, and the nerves as wires. In the cells of the gray substance they place a constantly renewing reservoir of nerve-force. There the force is elaborated, stored up, and from thence directed along the nerves. The sensory113 nerve “transmits an impression to the brain”—as the wire transmits a message to the bureau. The motor nerve, in turn, “transmits the mandates of the will”—and all is clear! Clear, until we come to translate metaphors into visible facts, or try to conjure114 up some mental image of the process. For myself, I can only conceive nerve-force as the activity of the nerve, and not of something else. This becomes still more evident when I find that the activity is equally manifest after its imaginary source has been removed. Transmitting impressions, or messages, implies as a preliminary that there should be an impressible agent, or a message-sender, at the periphery115. No one supposes that simply touching one end of a wire would send an “impression” or a “message” to the battery; or that without the battery this touch would evolve a current. The battery is indispensable; in it is evolved the current which the wire transmits. Not so the ganglion, or brain. Remove the wire from its connection with the battery,203 and it is a bit of wire, nothing more. But remove a nerve from its connection with a ganglion, and it is still active as nerve, still displays its Neurility when excited, still moves the muscle as before. The amputated limb will move when its nerves are stimulated, just as when a reflex from its centre moved it. Every one knew the fact; it was staring them in the face, yet they disregarded it. Even the old anatomist, Willis, had recorded experiments which ought to have opened their eyes. He tied the phrenic nerve, and found that, when he irritated it below the ligature, the diaphragm moved; but when he irritated it above the ligature, no movement followed. Since his days, thousands of experiments have shown that the presence of a ganglion is not necessary to the action of a nerve.100
58. Of course an explanation was ready. The nerve was said to have been “endowed with force” from its ganglion during their vital connection; and this force, stored up in the nerve, was disposable for some time after separation from the ganglion. We need not pause to criticise this misty116 conception of one part “endowing” another with force; the plain facts afford the best answer. There seemed, indeed, a confirmation117 of the hypothesis in the fact that although the nerve separated from its ganglion was capable of excitation, yet after a few excitations it was exhausted118, and ceased to stimulate40 the muscle. It seemed like the piece of magnetized iron which would act as a temporary magnet, though quickly losing this borrowed power. But the whole fabric119 fell—or ought to have fallen—when extended observation discovered that204 this exhausted nerve would, if left in repose, recover its lost power. A nerve preserves its excitability as long as it preserves its structural120 integrity, and recovers its power in recovering that integrity. The length of time varies.101 Gratiolet found the muscles in the leg of a tortoise, which had been amputated a week before, contract when the nerves were irritated; and Schiff found the divided nerve of a winter frog excitable at the end of three weeks. Even after all excitability has disappeared, it will reappear if arterial blood be injected; just as muscles which have already begun to assume cadaveric121 rigidity122 recover their contractility after transfusion123. Nor is this all. The separated nerve finally degenerates124, and loses all its structural characters and physiological properties; yet under favorable conditions it will regenerate—recover its structures and properties; and this even apart from a centre, as Vulpian showed. Very noticeable is the fact that the force said to be produced in the centre, and only “conveyed” by the nerve, vanishes gradually from the centre to the periphery, and recovers from the periphery to the centre—the part of the nerve which is farthest from the centre being excitable when the part nearest the centre is still inexcitable. Again, when a nerve is pinched, contraction in the muscle follows; but the pinch has for a time so disturbed the structural integrity of the nerve (at that spot) that no irritant applied to the spot, or between it and the centre, will be followed by contraction, whereas below the spot an irritation125 takes effect. This is another form of the experiment of Willis. Even in its normal state, the nerve has different degrees of excitability in different parts of its course,—a fact discovered by Pflüger which is quite irreconcilable with the hypothesis of passive conduction. Doubts have been thrown on205 Pflüger’s interpretation,102 namely, that there is an avalanche-like accumulation of energy proportionate to the length of the stimulated portion; but the fact remains126, that one and the same irritant applied successively to two different points of a nerve does not irritate the muscle in the same degree. Munk also finds the velocity of transmission in a motor nerve increases as it approaches its termination in the muscle.103
59. Nothing can be more unlike the conduction of an electric current than this excitation of Neurility; nothing more accordant with the idea of it as a vital property of the tissue. The notion of its being derived127 from a centre is on a par5 with the notion first successfully combated by Haller,104 that the muscle derived its Contractility from the nerves; or the analogous128 notion that the electric organ in fishes derived its property from the brain. Indeed, it was in support of the hypothesis that the brain was a battery, and nerves the conductors, that the phenomena observed in electrical fishes were frequently cited. The electric organ was seen to be connected with the brain; its discharges were under the control of the animal, and were destroyed on one side when the brain on the corresponding side was destroyed. But Charles Robin129 long ago suggested, what indeed ought never to have been doubted, that the brain was not the source of the electricity; but that the tissue of the electric organ itself had this special property, which the nerve merely called into activity. The suggestion has been experimentally verified by M. Moreau, who divided all the nerves supplying the electric organ on one side, and, having thus cut off all206 communication with the brain, produced electrical discharges by irritating the nerves; precisely as the muscles are made to contract when the divided nerves are irritated. Had the experiment ceased here, it might have been interpreted on the old hypothesis: the electric organ might be supposed to have a certain amount of electric force condensed in it, stored up there, as it is said to be in the nerves, and discharged when the organ is irritated. But experiment has decided130 this point also. Electric fishes notoriously exhaust their power by a few discharges, and recover it after repose. When M. Moreau had exhausted his mutilated fishes, he replaced them in the water, and allowed them repose. On again irritating the divided nerves, the discharges were again produced.105
60. On all sides the idea of nerves deriving131 their power from another source than their own substance is seen to be untenable. A priori this might have been concluded. Neurility is the vital property of nerve-tissue. “Nerve-force” is nerve-action—molecular changes in the nerve itself, not in some remote substance. That nerve and centre are vitally connected is true; and what their physiological relations are will hereafter be examined; but we must dismiss the idea of nerves having the relation to centres that electrodes have to batteries.
61. In proposing the term Neurility, I not only wished to get rid of the ambiguities132 which hovered133 round “nerve-force” and “nerve-current,” but to recall the physiological principle that properties are dependent on structures; and therefore that the special property of nerve-tissue is conditioned by its structure. Neurility is, of course, an abstraction; but so is the nerve an abstraction. The concrete manifestations134 are the several nerve-actions. These we classify and specify135. One class we call sensory, another class motor; not because the nerve-action itself207 is different, but because it is in each class in a different functional relation to other parts. In classing men as governors and governed, employers and employed, we do not suppose anthropological136 distinctions, but only differences in their social functions.
62. This is the modification137 of the Law of Bell to which reference was made in § 26. It replaces the idea of two different kinds of nerve, sensory and motor, by that of two different anatomical connections. I need not reproduce here the argument with which I formerly138 criticised the supposed distinction between sensory and motor nerves; because the old idea is rapidly falling into discredit, and physiologists so eminent139 as Vulpian and Wundt have explicitly140 announced their adhesion to the principle of identity,—a principle which, as Vulpian truly remarks, dominates the whole physiology of the nervous system.106
THE HYPOTHESIS OF SPECIFIC ENERGIES.
63. One development of the theory of Bell, respecting the different kinds of nerve, has been the still accredited141 hypothesis that each nerve has a “specific energy,” or quality, in virtue142 of which it acts and reacts only in one way. The optic nerve, no matter how stimulated, only responds by a sensation of color, the auditory nerve only by a sensation of sound; and so on. This hypothesis, which (as I learn from a correspondent)107 was originally propounded143 by Bell himself, was developed and made an European doctrine by Johannes Müller, first in his remarkable144 treatise145, über die phantastischen Gesichtserscheinungen (1826),208 and afterwards in his Physiology. Like all good hypotheses, it has been fruitful; and Helmholtz still holds it to be of extraordinary importance for the theory of perception. Although combated by a few physiologists, it has kept its place firm in the general acceptance; no doubt because it forms a ready explanation of the facts. But, as I often have to remark, explanation is not demonstration146.108
64. The first criticism to be made on the hypothesis is that it commits the error of confounding function with property, assigning as a specific quality of the nerve the reaction of the organ innervated. Thus Müller speaks of the specific energy as “the essential condition of the nerves in virtue of which they see light and hear sound.” But the optic nerve no more sees, than the liver-nerve secretes147 bile. That the optic nerve is one element in the mechanism148 on which vision depends, is all that we can say, Müller declares that it is not sufficient to assume each nerve to be so constituted that it has a susceptibility to certain stimuli149 rather than to others; but that “with Aristotle we must ascribe to each a peculiar energy as its vital quality. Sensation,” he adds, “consists in the sensorium receiving through the medium of the nerves a knowledge of certain qualities,—a condition, not of the external bodies, but of the nerves themselves,”—and these qualities are different in different nerves. In other words, he assumes a special substance for each special energy. The sensation of color depends on the special Visual substance (Sehsinnsubstanz); the sensation of sound on the Auditory substance (H?rsinnsubstanz); and so on.
65. We have here an hypothesis analogous to that of Innate150 Ideas, or a priori Forms of Thought. It is, in fact, only a reproduction of that conception carried into the209 sphere of Sense. No one thinks of assigning specific energies to the several muscles, yet a movement of prehension is as different from a movement of extension, a peristaltic movement is as different from a movement of occlusion, as a sensation of sound is from a sensation of color. If movement is common to both of the one class, feeling is common to both of the other: the forms and mechanism are different and specific. Muscles have the common property of contracting under stimulation; whatever be the nature of the stimulus, each muscle has its own particular response, or mode of reaction: the flexor always bending, never extending the limb; the sphincter always closing, never opening the orifice. The movements of the heart are not the same as those of the eye; both are unlike the movements of the intestine82. There are muscles which respond to some stimuli, and not to others. Those of the eye, or of the vocal13 chords, respond to impulses which would leave the masseter or biceps unstirred. According to Marey, the hyoglossus of a frog will become tetanic under a stimulus of only ten pulses in a second; whereas the gastrocnemius of that same frog resists a stimulus of less than twenty in a second. We find the retina responding to ethereal pulses which leave the auditorius unaffected; we find the muscles of a gnat’s wing so exquisitely151 susceptible152 that the wing beats eight thousand times in a second,—a delicacy153 in comparison with which even our muscles of the eye are coarse.
66. The facts which the hypothesis of specific energies is called on to explain are more consistently interpreted on the admission of a common property in nerve-tissue, manifesting different degrees of excitability, and entering into different mechanisms154, so that the functional results differ. A nerve which may be stimulated from the skin will not respond at all, or not in the same way, if the stimulus be applied under the skin. Are we to suppose210 that the specific energy resides in one part of the nerve, and not in another?109 That the optic nerve responds to stimuli which will not sensibly excite a motor nerve, depends on the terminal structures through which the stimulation is excited; for the optic nerve itself, apart from the retinal expansion, is as insensible to light as the motor nerve is. And the specific sensation, or movement, which results from stimulation of a nerve depends not on the nerve, but on the mechanism of which the nerve is one element. Sensations of touch, temperature, and pain are assuredly specific; they are as unlike each other as a sensation of taste is unlike a sensation of smell. Yet the same nerves, variously stimulated, produce all three sensations.
67. We conclude, therefore, that the phrase “specific energy” is an elliptical expression for the particular office of a nerve. In this meaning there is no obscurity. The optic nerve is not a vasomotor nerve, the skin nerve is not a muscle nerve; the auditory nerve is a nerve of special sensation, the vagus is a nerve of systemic sensation; and so on. Neither movement nor sensation belongs to the nerves themselves.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
mandates
|
|
| 托管（mandate的第三人称单数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
discredit
|
|
| vt.使不可置信；n.丧失信义；不信，怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
par
|
|
| n.标准，票面价值，平均数量；adj.票面的，平常的，标准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
irreconcilable
|
|
| adj.（指人）难和解的，势不两立的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
neural
|
|
| adj.神经的，神经系统的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
deduction
|
|
| n.减除，扣除，减除额；推论，推理，演绎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
physiologists
|
|
| n.生理学者( physiologist的名词复数 )；生理学( physiology的名词复数 )；生理机能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
specification
|
|
| n.详述；[常pl.]规格，说明书，规范 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
molecular
|
|
| adj.分子的；克分子的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
vocal
|
|
| adj.直言不讳的；嗓音的；n.[pl.]声乐节目 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
symbolizing
|
|
| v.象征，作为…的象征( symbolize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
shibboleth
|
|
| n.陈规陋习；口令；暗语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
speculative
|
|
| adj.思索性的，暝想性的，推理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
disdain
|
|
| n.鄙视，轻视；v.轻视，鄙视，不屑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
entity
|
|
| n.实体，独立存在体，实际存在物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
molecules
|
|
| 分子( molecule的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
velocity
|
|
| n.速度，速率 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
velocities
|
|
| n.速度( velocity的名词复数 )；高速，快速 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
requisite
|
|
| adj.需要的，必不可少的；n.必需品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
stimulation
|
|
| n.刺激，激励，鼓舞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
gratuitously
|
|
| 平白 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
incessantly
|
|
| ad.不停地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
incessant
|
|
| adj.不停的，连续的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
liberating
|
|
| 解放，释放( liberate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
vibrations
|
|
| n.摆动( vibration的名词复数 )；震动；感受；（偏离平衡位置的）一次性往复振动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
gunpowder
|
|
| n.火药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
sweeping
|
|
| adj.范围广大的，一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
dormant
|
|
| adj.暂停活动的；休眠的；潜伏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
contraction
|
|
| n.缩略词，缩写式，害病 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
philosophical
|
|
| adj.哲学家的，哲学上的，达观的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
chaos
|
|
| n.混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
peripheral
|
|
| adj.周边的，外围的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
stimulate
|
|
| vt.刺激，使兴奋；激励，使…振奋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
stimulated
|
|
| a.刺激的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
specified
|
|
| adj.特定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
expounded
|
|
| 论述，详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
manifestation
|
|
| n.表现形式；表明；现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
underlying
|
|
| adj.在下面的，含蓄的，潜在的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
generic
|
|
| adj.一般的，普通的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
accurately
|
|
| adv.准确地，精确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
texture
|
|
| n.(织物)质地；(材料)构造；结构；肌理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
wrought
|
|
| v.引起；以…原料制作；运转；adj.制造的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
cylinder
|
|
| n.圆筒，柱(面)，汽缸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
physiology
|
|
| n.生理学，生理机能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
functional
|
|
| adj.为实用而设计的，具备功能的，起作用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
gland
|
|
| n.腺体，(机)密封压盖，填料盖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
secretion
|
|
| n.分泌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
mirage
|
|
| n.海市蜃楼，幻景 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
psychical
|
|
| adj.有关特异功能现象的；有关特异功能官能的；灵魂的；心灵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
monstrous
|
|
| adj.巨大的；恐怖的；可耻的，丢脸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
volition
|
|
| n.意志；决意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
irritability
|
|
| n.易怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
stimulus
|
|
| n.刺激，刺激物，促进因素，引起兴奋的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
differentiation
|
|
| n.区别，区分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
tentacle
|
|
| n.触角，触须，触手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
retracts
|
|
| v.撤回或撤消( retract的第三人称单数 )；拒绝执行或遵守；缩回；拉回 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
tentacles
|
|
| n.触手( tentacle的名词复数 )；触角；触须；触毛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
ascending
|
|
| adj.上升的，向上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
habitually
|
|
| ad.习惯地，通常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
consensus
|
|
| n.(意见等的)一致，一致同意，共识 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
physiological
|
|
| adj.生理学的，生理学上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
deferring
|
|
| v.拖延，延缓，推迟( defer的现在分词 )；服从某人的意愿，遵从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
synonym
|
|
| n.同义词，换喻词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
subjectively
|
|
| 主观地； 臆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
irritable
|
|
| adj.急躁的；过敏的；易怒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
secreting
|
|
| v.（尤指动物或植物器官）分泌( secrete的现在分词 )；隐匿，隐藏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
disturbance
|
|
| n.动乱，骚动；打扰，干扰；(身心)失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
notably
|
|
| adv.值得注意地，显著地，尤其地，特别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
intestines
|
|
| n.肠( intestine的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
intestine
|
|
| adj.内部的；国内的；n.肠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
diffusive
|
|
| adj.散布性的，扩及的，普及的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
vitality
|
|
| n.活力，生命力，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
agitation
|
|
| n.搅动；搅拌；鼓动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
scatters
|
|
| v.（使）散开， （使）分散，驱散( scatter的第三人称单数 )；撒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
metaphors
|
|
| 隐喻( metaphor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
momentary
|
|
| adj.片刻的，瞬息的；短暂的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
initiated
|
|
| n. 创始人 adj. 新加入的 vt. 开始，创始，启蒙，介绍加入 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
appreciably
|
|
| adv.相当大地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
awakens
|
|
| v.（使）醒( awaken的第三人称单数 )；（使）觉醒；弄醒；（使）意识到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
diffused
|
|
| 散布的，普及的，扩散的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
specialized
|
|
| adj.专门的，专业化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
membrane
|
|
| n.薄膜，膜皮，羊皮纸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
fig
|
|
| n.无花果(树) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
illustrated
|
|
| adj. 有插图的，列举的 动词illustrate的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
spine
|
|
| n.脊柱，脊椎；(动植物的)刺；书脊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
diffusion
|
|
| n.流布；普及；散漫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
fatigued
|
|
| adj. 疲乏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
penetrating
|
|
| adj.（声音）响亮的，尖锐的adj.（气味）刺激的adj.（思想）敏锐的，有洞察力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
repose
|
|
| v.(使)休息；n.安息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
antagonist
|
|
| n.敌人，对抗者，对手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
criticise
|
|
| v.批评，评论；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
reigning
|
|
| adj.统治的，起支配作用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
sensory
|
|
| adj.知觉的，感觉的，知觉器官的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
conjure
|
|
| v.恳求，祈求；变魔术，变戏法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
periphery
|
|
| n.(圆体的)外面；周围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
misty
|
|
| adj.雾蒙蒙的，有雾的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
exhausted
|
|
| adj.极其疲惫的，精疲力尽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
fabric
|
|
| n.织物，织品，布；构造，结构，组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
structural
|
|
| adj.构造的，组织的，建筑（用）的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
cadaveric
|
|
| 尸体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
rigidity
|
|
| adj.钢性，坚硬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
transfusion
|
|
| n.输血，输液 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
degenerates
|
|
| 衰退，堕落，退化( degenerate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
irritation
|
|
| n.激怒，恼怒，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
analogous
|
|
| adj.相似的；类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
robin
|
|
| n.知更鸟，红襟鸟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
deriving
|
|
| v.得到( derive的现在分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
ambiguities
|
|
| n.歧义( ambiguity的名词复数 )；意义不明确；模棱两可的意思；模棱两可的话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
hovered
|
|
| 鸟( hover的过去式和过去分词 )； 靠近（某事物）； （人）徘徊； 犹豫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
manifestations
|
|
| n.表示，显示（manifestation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
specify
|
|
| vt.指定，详细说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
anthropological
|
|
| adj.人类学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
modification
|
|
| n.修改，改进，缓和，减轻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
explicitly
|
|
| ad.明确地，显然地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
accredited
|
|
| adj.可接受的；可信任的；公认的；质量合格的v.相信( accredit的过去式和过去分词 )；委托；委任；把…归结于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
propounded
|
|
| v.提出（问题、计划等）供考虑[讨论]，提议( propound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
secretes
|
|
| v.（尤指动物或植物器官）分泌( secrete的第三人称单数 )；隐匿，隐藏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
stimuli
|
|
| n.刺激（物） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
innate
|
|
| adj.天生的，固有的，天赋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
exquisitely
|
|
| adv.精致地；强烈地；剧烈地；异常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
susceptible
|
|
| adj.过敏的，敏感的；易动感情的，易受感动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
delicacy
|
|
| n.精致，细微，微妙，精良；美味，佳肴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
mechanisms
|
|
| n.机械( mechanism的名词复数 )；机械装置；[生物学] 机制；机械作用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |