leads us to overlook in part the "bodily seat" of the sensation. Yet
even here we are dimly aware that the sensation is received by way of a
particular part of the sensitive surface, that is to say, by a
particular sense-organ. Thus, though referring an odour to a distant
flower, we perceive that the sensation of odour has its bodily origin in
the nose. And even in the case of hearing and sight, we vaguely refer
the impressions, as such, to the appropriate sense-organ. There is,
indeed, in these cases a double local reference, a faint one to the
peripheral organ which is acted on, and a more distinct one to the
object or the force in the environment which acts on this.

Now, it may be said that the act of localization is in itself distinctly
illusory, since it is known that the sensation first arises in
connection with the excitation of the sensory _centre_, and not of the
peripheral fibre.[29] Yet it must at least be allowed that this
localization of sensation answers to the important fact that, under
usual circumstances, the agency producing the sensation is applied at
this particular point of the organism, the knowledge of which point is
supposed by modern psychologists to have been very slowly learnt by the
individual and the race, through countless experiments with the moving
organ of touch, assisted by the eye.

Similarly, the reference of the impression, in the case of hearing and
sight, to an object in the environment, though, as we have seen, from
one point of view illusory, clearly answers to a fact of our habitual
experience; for in an immense preponderance of cases at least a visual
or auditory impression does arise through the action on the sense-organ
of a force (ether or air waves) proceeding from a distant object.

In some circumstances, however, even this element of practical truth