and the JOINTS but so many WHEELS giving motion to the whole body,
such as was intended by the artificer?'

"Now this theory of conscious automatism is not merely a legitimate
outcome of the theory that nervous changes are the causes of mental
changes, but it is logically the only possible outcome. Nor do I
see any way in which this theory can be fought on grounds of
physiology."

In passing, I may say the theory that living beings are conscious
machines, can be fought just as much and just as little as the
theory that machines are unconscious living beings; everything that
goes to prove either of these propositions goes just as well to
prove the other also. But I have perhaps already said as much as is
necessary on this head; the main point with which I am concerned is
the fact that Professor Huxley was trying to expel consciousness and
sentience from any causative action in the working of the universe.
In the following month appeared the late Professor Clifford's hardly
less outspoken article, "Body and Mind," to the same effect, also in
the Fortnightly Review, then edited by Mr. John Morley. Perhaps
this view attained its frankest expression in an article by the late
Mr. Spalding, which appeared in Nature, August 2, 1877; the
following extracts will show that Mr. Spalding must be credited with
not playing fast and loose with his own conclusions, and knew both
how to think a thing out to its extreme consequences, and how to put
those consequences clearly before his readers. Mr. Spalding said:-

"Against Mr. Lewes's proposition that the movements of living beings
are prompted and guided by feeling, I urged that the amount and
direction of every nervous discharge must depend solely on physical