Cox's Cases Were Better Explained as Evidence Brains Don't Make Minds

 Edward W. Cox was a 19th-century writer who wrote the book "The mechanism of man: an answer to the question, what am I? A popular introduction to mental physiology and psychology."  The title page lists Cox as "SERJEANT-AT-LAW, PRESIDENT OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN." Confusingly, we find the same figure listed in some of the parapsychology literature of the time under the name of Serjeant Cox rather than Edward W. Cox. 

On page 293 of the June 17, 1875 edition of The Spiritualist, we have an example of Cox drawing the wrong conclusions from some important evidence. In that edition he writes an article entitled "The Duality of the Mind."  He writes this, referring to different hemispheres of the brain:

"A multitude of undisputed facts prove that one brain can be destroyed, or its action paralysed, and yet the other brain preserve its power and perform all the mental functions. As already stated, this result may be witnessed in cases of paralysis. One-half the body has lost sensation by reason of disease in one brain only; the other side of the body continues in full possession of its powers of sensation and action, because the other brain is uninjured. Dr. Wigan tells us of a boy who, climbing a tree, fell on a sharp edge of iron, which sliced off a large portion of the skull and brain on one side of his head; 4 oz. of his brain were thus lost. His mental faculties remained uninjured until his death from hemorrhage many days afterwards. In another case, one hemisphere of the brain was wholly destroyed by disease, but the man conversed rationally. Dr. Conolly records the case of a man of family, one side of whose brain was found on examination to have been annihilated by an abscess, and in its place was 'a yawning chasm.'  His mental faculties were apparently quite perfect to the moment of death. Dr. James Johnson reported another case of a man who preserved his mental faculties, although, on a post mortem, it was found that one hemisphere of the brain had been reduced to a thin membrane, the whole solid contents of one-half of the cranium having absolutely disappeared. A similar case is recorded by Cruveilhier, of complete atrophy of the left side of the brain without apparent injury to the intellectual powers, proving conclusively that the functions of the mind were performed wholly by the right side of the brain. These are but a few of a multitude of cases reported by medical observers, and they are adduced here merely as illustrations of the evidence upon which the great physiologists named have based their contention that each brain is a complete machine, capable of performing alone the work of mind."

These are all very interesting cases,  but they do not prove what Cox claims they prove. Instead of being evidence that each hemisphere of the brain can by itself produce the mind, such cases help to show that the brain is not the source of the mind.  One reason is that according to Cox's reasoning, a human would consist of two minds rather than one, since humans have two brain hemispheres. 

On the next page Cox states his full reasoning, which takes him to an untenable position:

"The propositions sought to be maintained in this paper are : —

 1. That the brain is constituted of two hemispheres. 

2. That the brain is the mechanism by which mental operations are conducted. 

3. That one hemisphere of the brain may be injured or destroyed without seriously impairing the operations of the other hemisphere. 

4. That in such cases the mental operations also proceed without serious impediment. 

5. That therefore each hemisphere of the brain is a complete and perfect mental machine, capable of performing alone most, if not all, mental operations. 

6. That therefore we have two minds. 

7. That this is proved abundantly by recorded cases of persons who have exercised the ordinary mental faculties when one brain has been destroyed."

This was very bad reasoning. Humans do not have two minds, but a single unified mind. The ability of the human mind to survive with little apparent damage after the destruction of most or all of a hemisphere is not evidence that backs up the claim that the brain is the source of the mind. Such an ability is instead evidence that the human brain is not the source of the human mind. Any line of reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that humans have two minds is one that must be an error. And Cox's reasoning was very much in error. 

The cases that Cox cites above are very similar to many other cases that I cite in my posts below:

Cases of High Mental Function Despite Large Brain Damage

More Evidence of High Mental Function Despite Large Brain Damage

Some People Our Neuroscientists Don't Want You to Know About

Preservation of Mind and Memories After Removal of Half a Brain

Brain Dogmas Versus Case Histories That Refute Them

Cox's theory of "two brains and two minds" has been effectively debunked by the rare cases in which the fibers connecting the hemispheres of the brain have been severed. Such operations are called split brain operations. The result is a single mind, not two. Claims that split-brain operations result in two minds are some of the most outrageous lies of materialists, who tell many dozens of types of lies (as documented here). Split brain operations actually leave people with a single unified mind. 

Cox seemed to have had  a great tendency to try to make observations fit his theories, which often involved awkward cases of trying to hammer round pegs into square holes. Cox's 1872 book Spiritualism Answered by Science was a book that appeared the year after the Dialectical Society's 1871 report summarized here; and Cox was one of the investigators involved in that report which found resoundingly in favor of various types of dramatic paranormal phenomena.  Probably some people bought Cox's book hoping to read someone discredit reports of the paranormal that may have irritated them.  If someone bought the book hoping to see a wholesale debunking of the paranormal, they must have been sorely disappointed. Before  long the book's pages start telling us that some of the main types of paranormal phenomena are well-established observational facts.  On page 20 the author states this:

"Not only is the evidence by which the phenomena of Psychic Force are established stronger than any upon which the criminal courts daily convict and punish even with death ; it is at least equal to the evidence upon which most of the other sciences are founded. The experiments with Psychic Force are in all respects as perfect and trustworthy as those exhibited by Professor Tyndall at the Royal Institution. They are as plain to the eye, as palpable to the touch, as audible to the ear, as any witnessed in that famous lecture room. If the senses can deceive in the one, so are they equally liable to be deceived in the other, and the argument of imposture would be found equally applicable to both."

On page 29 the author describes being part of a group of investigators testing the hypothesis (suggested by Michael Faraday) that table turning (also called table tipping) was merely the result of involuntary muscular effort by the hands, and decisively debunking such a hypothesis:

"Such was the reasonable argument that led us to look to involuntary muscular action as the explanation of the motions and sounds that were continually being made. To ascertain if this hypothesis was correct, we devised a series of tests that should place the matter beyond all possible doubt. First, all hands were laid upon the table ; then one hand only of each person ; then the table was touched by the tips only of all the fingers ; then by the fingers of one hand alone ; then with one finger only. Still the motions and sounds continued with but slightly diminished force. If our theory of involuntary pressure was correct, the force should have diminished in precise proportion to the lessened points of contact. Moreover, it did not explain the fact, continually before our eyes, of the table being raised several inches from the floor on one side only, the muscular action of the fingers upon that side of the table being antagonistic and not contributory to such a motion ! We continued our experiments with lessened faith in our foregone conclusion. First, one person withdrew from all contact ; then a second, and a third, until one finger of one person only touched the table. Nevertheless it moved, the sounds continued to come from it, and a frequent motion was the lifting up of the table at the side on which the finger was pressing down, if exercising any pressure whatever. I should state that at all of these test experiments the tables employed were the large and heavy dining tables, some nine feet and some twelve feet long, with six legs, in common daily use in the dining-room of members of the committee, standing upon Turkey carpets, therefore not easily slid and difficult to move by the arm. 

We next tried a more decisive test. All hands were joined and held over the table at the height of three inches from it, no part of any hand touching it, the room being well lighted with gas and all eyes keeping careful watch over the lifted hands. The sounds were heard and the motions produced as before. It was suggested that possibly the feet might be at work ; so two of the members seated themselves under the table to observe. The motions and sounds continued, but not a foot stirred. Then all the persons present stood, so that no foot could touch the table unseen. Still it moved. Lastly we devised a test that conclusively settled the question as to the possible agency of muscular action, conscious or unconscious. It was contrived thus : All present turned the backs of their chairs to the table, and kneeling upon the chairs, placed their arms upon the backs of the chairs, their hands being extended above the table, but without possibility of contact with it. The chairs were first placed six inches from the table, with which, as the reader will readily understand, neither foot nor hand, nor any part of the person, of any of those present could possibly come into contact unseen. In this position the table moved eight inches over the carpet and tilted several times. The chairs were then withdrawn further from the table, on each trial to an increased distance, and with the same results. At the distance of two feet from it the motions were continued, with but slightly diminished power....These experiments of motion without contact were repeated many times at different meetings in different houses, and with the same results. Thus was our third and last explanatory conjecture, which we had eagerly accepted on the authority of Faraday, completely demolished by the facts, and we were compelled reluctantly to the conclusion that there is a Force apparently proceeding from the human organisation by which motion is produced in heavy substances without the employment of any muscular force, and without contact or material connection of any kind between such substances and the body of any person present."

Reports such as the one above will seem shocking only to those who have failed to study the extremely abundant evidence for paranormal phenomena in the 19th century, including very frequent reports by very many distinguished witnesses that untouched tables had levitated or moved around inexplicably. A good starting point if you want to look into such matters is my 13-part "Spookiest Years" series (you can reach Part 11 and links to the first 10 parts here). 

On pages 39-40 Cox reports a paranormal phenomenon of the mysterious alteration in the weight of tables (something similar to what was reported by Sir William Crookes in very careful observations):

"Alterations in the weight of tables and other furniture have been frequently exhibited. Bidding the table to be light, a finger lifted it ; the next moment, bidding it to be heavy, the entire force of the body was required to raise it from the floor. It was, however, suggested by myself and others who were engaged in the scientific investigation of the phenomena of Psychic Force, that possibly this change in the weight of the subject of the Force might be merely in our own sensations, and not an actual change in the gravity of the wood or the operation of any pressure upon it. To test this, a weighing machine was constructed with a hook to fix to the table, the index accurately marking the weight of whatever was attached to it. Applying this machine to the table and other bodies, we found that the change was really in them, and not sensational merely, as we had suspected. This simple experiment was tried so often, and with, so many precautions, as to establish it beyond doubt. The weights varied at every trial, but all proved the reality of the Force that was operating. One instance will suffice. Weighed by the machine, the normal weight of a table, raised from the floor 18 in. on one side, was 8 lb. ; desired to be light, the index fell to 5 lb. ; desired to be heavy, it advanced to eighty-two pounds ; and these changes were instantaneous and repeated many times."

On page 45 Cox begins to speculate about the nature of the mysterious force he has observed, what he has called a Psychic Force.  Cox's speculations on this matter are not very believable.  He seems determined not to go all the way towards admitting the existence of a mysterious supernatural force from some external agency beyond living humans. He tried to inhabit some halfway house between materialism and the supernatural. 

Cox tries to suggest that the effects he has observed can be explained as some natural but poorly understood force coming from human beings, not from beyond them. He imagines a kind of unconscious telekinesis or subconscious psychokinesis "mind over matter" coming from psychics or mediums or even ordinary people. 

On page 49 Cox states his theory:

"There is a Force proceeding from, or directly associated with, the human organisation, which, in certain persons and under certain conditions, can cause motion in heavy bodies, and produce audible and palpable pounds in such bodies, without muscular contact or any material connection between any person present and the heavy body so moved or on which the sounds are produced. This Force appears to be frequently directed by some intelligence. For the reasons presently to be specified, we conclude that this Force is generated in certain persons of peculiar nervous organisation in sufficient power to operate beyond bodily contact." 

Since the nineteenth century we have learned much about the organization of human bodies. We have learned that human bodies are vastly more organized than any one in the nineteenth century had imagined. But nothing we have learned about the stratospheric levels of organization in human bodies supports the idea that the human organization could result in some power to mysteriously manipulate matter outside of the human body.  It could be that the human soul has some ability to manipulate matter outside of the body, through something like telekinesis or psychokinesis. But nothing we have learned about the physical body can explain such an effect it if exists. 

One problem with such a theory of subconscious telekinesis is that it can explain only a fraction of reports of paranormal phenomena, only physical effects. Such a theory of subconscious telekinesis cannot explain reports of inexplicable mental effects. Subconscious telekinesis cannot explain the very many well-documented accounts in the nineteenth century of dramatic clairvoyance of hypnotized subjects. Subconscious telekinesis cannot explain cases such as that of the medium Leonora Piper, who (while in trance) stated a great deal of correct information relating to deceased people who should have been unknown to her.  

But we can at least credit Cox for being better than the average neuroscientist of today, in the sense that he reluctantly acknowledged evidence for paranormal phenomena that he preferred not to believe in. Conversely, today's typical neuroscientist goes all "head buried in the sand" when encountering any of countless abundant observational reports of paranormal phenomena beyond any neural explanation. Today's typical neuroscientist shows zero evidence of having seriously studied the evidence for such phenomena, and just follows a witless policy of "deny, deny, deny" whenever such evidence is mentioned.  

Types of paranormal phenomena discussed here

The insight of Edward W. Cox may have grown after the publication of the "we have two minds" statement quoted above. On page 136 of the March 23, 1877 edition of The Spiritualist, Cox states this:

"The paper contributed to the Psychological Society by Mr. Croll almost demonstrates as a fact in nature and science that the universe is not wholly material—probably the material part being the least part of it. It proves scientifically that spirit—by which I mean nothing more than nonmolecular being, affirming nothing whatever what that being is—underlies, surrounds, possibly permeates, all molecular matter—that the forms of life and being arc not determined by chance nor by the fortuitous combination of atoms, but are moulded by forces that are not the blind physical forces, but some power with a plan, which determines organic structure and perhaps all mundane structure; that matter, which is the proper study of the chemists, is not, as the materialists would have it, the all in all, but that there is behind the world of matter, and probably underlying it a cosmos of spirit—a universe of soul, whose investigation is the proper province of psychology. While the materialists are usefully toiling to learn the laws of those physical forces that mechanically move the dead unconscious matter which alone they recognise, we psychologists are not less usefully employed in exploring the facts and phenomena of living conscious being, the forces by which it is moved, and that yet greater force which determines the direction of all the forces of nature, and builds up that world of organic and inorganic matter which the materialists are analysing. We thank them for this good work. We cordially recognise the great service physical science is doing. We complain only that physicists will not be content with labouring in their own province, leaving psychology to psychologists, but, without seeing or knowing, they venture to pass judgment upon another branch of science of which they confess themselves wholly ignorant. Psychologists justly complain...that they [materialists] refuse to hear any evidence or any argument that goes to prove its. existence—that they insist upon pronouncing a verdict upon that which they have never seen, nor tried, nor studied..."

Sadly the situation Cox described persists to this day, with physicists and neuroscientists who have never properly studied human minds and human mental experiences (a topic of oceanic depth) issuing pronouncements about the nature of mind, which is rather like someone who never paid attention in physics class and shunned reading about physics issuing dogmatic proclamations about the nature of the subatomic world. 

On page 266 of the June 4, 1875 edition of The Spiritualist, Cox describes a state of extraordinary memory, what sounds like a case of photographic or eidetic memory. Cox describes himself as having a similar memory. Cox states this:

"The Rev. Henry Christmas, formerly of Sion College, possessed an extraordinary memory. I have seen him read a page of Greek or Latin opened at random, close the book and repeat the whole of the page verbatim, beginning with the broken sentence in the first line. He knew by heart the entire of many volumes of poems. He could repeat the whole of Horace from memory : one perusal usually sufficed. He informed me that this marvellous memory of his was a memory not of sound but of sight. He did not recall the words, but the page on which they had been printed when he learned them, and in his mind’s eye he saw that page and read from it. I suspect such a form of memory to be not uncommon. It is possessed by myself. When I desire to repeat anything learned by rote I am compelled to recall to my mind the book and the page of the book from which I learned it. I see in my mental vision the very misprints, creases, and spots upon the paper, and I mentally read it from the ideal representation of the book. This is plainly memory for objects of sight, not for language."

Such cases strengthen the case against the idea of a brain storage of memories, as they give us facts of exceptional human memory that make all claims of brains storing memories seem more implausible. The more exceptional human memory performance is, the less credible are claims that human memory can be explained by something with the many physical shortfalls of the brain.