Page:Mind (Old Series) Volume 9.djvu/504

 492 EDMUND GUENEY : comatic unconsciousness. But there is nothing primd facie unreasonable in supposing attention to have passed away before this deep stage is reached in supposing that it does not survive that profound nervous change which, following Braid, we infer to have supervened as soon as the alert stage is reached. The state of the ' subject ' is so obviously pecu- liar that there would seem to be no strong a priori obliga- tion on us to interpret what would ordinarily be accounted signs of consciousness in the usual way. Dr. Carpenter's wavering utterances already indicate some suspicion on this point ; and the gradual progress in our knowledge of physical reflex action, and of its special connexion with the hypnotic state, has naturally given the question a new shape and significance. Hypnotism being, beyond doubt, the field on which such reflex action reaches its furthest limit, where is that limit to be drawn? The consideration of this point will further establish the distinction between the lower and the higher hypnotic phenomena, and will thus further define the fundamental peculiarity of the latter. If we begin at the bottom of the series of phenomena, we certainly find no reason to suppose that they are accom- panied by any distinct consciousness or concentration of attention. If we found it hard to credit the frog with atten- tion during the process of hypnotisation, it is still harder when the process is complete ; and the insensibility and immobility of the human ' subject,' if left to himself in the ' deep stage,' seem to indicate a mental condition not very different from the frog's. Higher in the scale, actual ex- periments in reflex action suggest a decided lowering of the psychical functions. The heightening of the reflex respon- siveness of the muscles, which is often the first symptom of hypnotic influence, does not, it is true, serve as a sign of dimi- nished mental activity, especially as the phenomenon itself the twitching limbs and the inability to control them is peculiarly calculated to stimulate the ' subject's ' attention. But Prof. Stanley Hall's recent experiments avoid this diffi- culty, and give us just the indication that is needed. For in establishing the diminution, during the alert stage of hypnotism, of the time necessary for voluntarily reacting on a stimulus, they suggest that the reaction has become to some extent reflex ; x and since this implies that the brain- 1 It is worth observing that this extension of reflex action in one dilu- tion may perfectly well co-exist with what might appear a contrary result in another. For Instance, Prof. Stanley Hall's 'subject' (I presume while in the same hypnotic stage as he was in during the reaction-experiments) could gaze at a sunny window for 13 minutes without winking. But the