The Influence of Bodily Organs on the Function of Mind| OKWAVE

英語に自信のある方和訳お願いします

The aim of the physicianin the treatment of insanity is to bring the means at his command to bear, directly or indirectly , on the disordered nerve elemnt. But, in striving to do this, he soon learns with how many bodily organs and functionshe has really to do. to callmind a function of the brain may lead to much misapprehension, if it be thereby supposed that the brain is the only organ which is concerned in the function of mind. There is not an organ in the body which is not in intimate relation with the brain by means of its paths of nervous communication, which has not , so to speak, a special corresopondance with it through internuncial fibres, and which does not, therefore, affect more or less plainly and specially its[ist=the brain's] function as an organ of mind. It is not merely that a parpitating heart may cause anxiety and apprehension, or a disorderedliver[may cause] gloomy feelings, but there are good reasons to believe that eachorgan has its specific influence on the constituiton and function of mind; an influence not yet to be set forth scientifically., because it is exerted on that unconscious mental life which is the basis of all that we consciously feel and think. were the heart of one man to be placed in the body of another it would probably make no difference in the circulation of the blood, but it might make a real difference in the temper of his mind. so close is the physiological sympathy of parts in the commonwealth of the body that it is necessary in the physiological study of mind to regard it as a function of the whole organism, as complehending the whole bodily life.

和訳お願い致します。

Two points have to be observed with regard to this criterion, in whichever verbal form we may choose to express it. The first is that it is not rigidly exclusive either, on the one hand, of a possibly mental character in apparently non- mental adjustments, or, conversely, of a possibly non-mental character in apparently mental adjustments. For it is certain that failure to learn by individual experience is not always conclusive evidence against the existence of mind; such failure may arise merely from an imperfection of memroy, or from there not being enough of the mind-element present to make the adjustments needful to meet the novel circum stances. Conversely, it is no less certain that some parts of our own nervous system, which are not concerned in the phenomena of consciousness, are nevertheless able in some measure to learn by individual experience. The nervous apparatus of the stomach, for instance, is able in so con siderable a degree to adapt the movements of that organ to the requirements of its individual experience, that were the organ an organism we might be in danger of regarding it as dimly intelligent. Still there is no evidence to show that non-mental agents are ever able in any considerable measure thus to simulate the adjustments performed by mental ones ; and therefore our criterion, in its practical application, has rather to be guarded against the opposite danger of defying the presence of mind to agents that are really mental For, as I observed in " Animal Intelligence," " it is clear that long before mind has advanced sufficiently far in the scale of development to become amenable to the test in question, it has probably begun to dawn as nascent subjectivity. In other words, because a lowly organized animal does not learn by its own individual experience, we may not therefore con clude that in performing its natural or ancestral adaptations to appropiate stimuli, consciousness, or the mind-element, is wholly absent ; we can only say that this element, if present, reveals no evidence of the fact. But, on the other hand, if a lowly organized animal does learn by its own individual experience, we are in possession of the best available evi dence of conscious memory leading to intentional adaptation. Therefore, our criterion applies to the upper limit of non- mental action, not to the lower limit of mental[action]''.

英語の翻訳に自信がある方お願い致します。

英語の翻訳に自信がある方お願い致します。 ※ポイント欲しさに翻訳機械で翻訳したのを載せる様な方はご遠慮願います。 It is a long journey, in more ways than one, from Lantern Yard to Raveloe, from dissenting chapel to village church.Not surpisingly,Silas,his faith shattered,does not go out of his way to discover what kind of religion might be available to him in his new place of residence. Lantern Yard was all he knew.Had he been of mind to investigate,he would have discovered that religion in Raveloe is a different matter altogether than the fierce and narrow faith he has been fed at Lantern Yard. the narrator is at pains to point out that Raveloe has not only seen nothing of the Industrial Revolution,it has not been affected by “puritan earnestness”-the kind that flourished in many of the dissenting chapels.People in Raveloe are not in the habit of applying a stern morality to their own lives,and the do not judge their neighbors in that way either.

和訳お願い致します。

Without, therefore, entertaining the question as to the connexion between Body and Mind, it is enough to say that under any view concerning the nature of this connexion, we are justified in drawing a distinction between activities which are accompanied by feelings, and activities which, so far as we can see, are not so accompanied. If this is allowed, there seems, to be no term better fitted to convey the distinction than the term Choice ; agents that are able to choose their actions are agents that are able to feel the stimuli which determine the choice. Such being our Criterion of Mind, it admits of being otherwise stated, and in a more practically applicable manner, in the following words which I quote from " Animal Intelli gence :" — " It is, then, adaptive action by a living organism in cases where the inherited machinery of the nervous system does not furnish data for our prevision of what the adaptive action must necessarily be — it is only here that we recognize the objective evidence of mind. The criterion of mind, therefore, which I propose, and to which I shall adhere throughout the present volume, is as follows : — Does the organism learn to make new adjustments, or to modify old ones, in accordance with the results of its own individual experience ? If it does so, the fact cannot be merely due to reflex action in the sense above described ; for it is impossible that heredity can have provided in advance for innovations upon or alterations of its machinery during the lifetime of a particular individual".

すみませんが英語に自信のある人はご協力をお願いします。

すみませんが英語に自信のある人はご協力をお願いします。次の文の和訳を知りたいです。 For example,it is suggested that animals do not modify their signals to address one individual rather than another,and in this sense that they address no one in particular. This is certainly not true in specific instances,such as the exchange of calls between mating birds,or between the African honey guide and the honey badger that follows the bird. But even where it is true,in insect colonies and hunting packs,it is a characteristic of social organization and not of language. The animal addresses no one in particular because it addresses everyone in the community.The only individual that the animal does not know how to address is itself;so that its shortcoming is not that it cannot turn monologue into dialogue,but that it cannot turn it into soliloquy.The bee that tries to dance in an almost empty hive fails to read its context,but the dance remains a signal and not a private act.For the dance has been evolved by a process of natural selection whose effect is constantly to improve its social efficiency.The same pressure of selection has shaped all animal calls and gestures to make them,in general,signals that instruct the whole community. 文章は人間と動物のlanguageの違いを述べた文章です。よろしくお願いします。長ければThe only individualの前まででもお願いします。

和訳お願い致します。

The other point which has to be noted with regard to this criterion is as follows. I again quote from " Animal Intelligence :"— " Of course to the sceptic this criterion may appear un satisfactory, since it depends, not on direct knowledge, but on inference. Here, however, it seems enough to point out, as already observed, that it is the best criterion available ; and, further, that scepticism of this kind is logically bound to deny evidence of mind, not only in the case of the lower animals, but also in that of the higher, and even in that of men other than the sceptic himself. For all objections which could apply to the use of this criterion of mind in the animal kingdom, would apply with equal force to the evidence of any mind other than that of the individual objector. This is obvious, because, as I have already observed, the only evi dence we can have of objective mind is that which is furnished by objective activities ; and, as the subjective mind can never become assimilated with the objective so as to learn by direct feeling the mental processes which there accompany the objective activities, it is clearly impossible to satisfy any one who may choose to doubt the validity of inference, that in any case, other than his own, mental processes ever do accompany objective activities.

和訳お願い致します。

The early speculator was harassed by no such scruples, and asserted as facts what he knew in reality only as probabilities. But we are not on that account to doubt his perfect good faith, nor need we attribute to him wilful misrepresentation, or consciousness of asserting that which he knew not to be true. He had seized one great truth, in which, indeed, he anticipated the highest revelation of modern enquiry -- namely, the unity of the design of the world, and its subordination to one sole Maker and Lawgiver. With regard to details, observation failed him. He knew little of the earth's surface, or of its shape and place in the universe; the infinite varieties of organized existences which people it, the distinct floras and faunas of its different continents, were unknown to him. But he saw that all which lay within his observation bad been formed for the benefit and service of man, and the goodness of the Creator to his creatures was the thought predominant in his mind. Man's closer relations to his Maker is indicated by the representation that he was formed last of all creatures, and in the visible likeness of God. For ages, this simple view of creation satisfied the wants of man, and formed a sufficient basis of theological teaching, and if modern research now shows it to be physically untenable, our respect for the narrative which has played so important a part in the culture of our race need be in nowise diminished. No one contends that it can be used as a basis of astronomical or geological teaching, and those who profess to see in it an accordance with facts, only do this sub modo, and by processes which despoil it of its consistency and grandeur, both which may be preserved if we recognise in it, not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance, which it has pleased Providence to use Providence a special way for the education of mankind.

和訳お願い致します。

It is, then, adaptive action by a living organism in cases where the inherited machinery of the nervous system does not furnish data for our prevision of what the adaptive action must necessarily be — it is only in such cases that we recognize the element of mind. In other words, ejectively con sidered, the distinctive element of mind is consciousness, the test of consciousness is the presence of choice, and the evidence of choice is the antecedent uncertainty of adjustive action between two or more alternatives. To this analysis it is, however, needful to add that, although our only criterion of mind is antecedent uncertainty of adjustive action, it does not follow that all adjustive action in which mind is con cerned should be of an antecedently uncertain character; or, which is the same thing, [it does'nt follow] that because some such action may be of an antecedently certain character, we should on this account regard it as non-mental. Many adjustive actions which we recognize as mental are, nevertheless, seen before hand to be, under the given circumstances, inevitable ; but analysis would show that such is only the case when we have in view agents whom we already, and from independent videuce, regard as mental.

和訳お願い致します。

It is obvious, then, to start with, that by Mind we may mean two very different things, according as we contemplate it in our own individual selves, or as manifested by other beings. For if I contemplate my own mind, I have an imme diate cognizance of a certain flow of thoughts and feelings, which are the most ultimate things — and, indeed, the only things— of which I am cognizant. But if I contemplate Mind in other persons or organisms, I can have no such immediate cognizance of their thoughts and feelings ; I can only infer the existence of such thoughts and feelings from the activities of the persons or organisms which appear to manifest them. Thus it is that by Mind we may mean either that which is subjective or that which is objective. Now throughout the present work we shall have to consider Mind as an object ; and therefore it is well to remember that our only instrument of analysis is the observation of activities which we infer to be prompted by, or associated with, mental antecedents or accompaniments analogous to those of which we are directly conscious in our own subjective experience. That is to say, starting from what I know subjectively of the operations of my own individual mind, and of the activi ties which in my own organism these operations seem to prompt, I proceed by analogy to infer from the observable activities displayed by other organisms, the fact that certain mental operations underlie or accompany these activities.

日本語訳お願いします。

In simpler terms, brain makes mind. Science can demonstrate no way for the mind to occur except as a result of the neurological functioning of the brain. Without the brain’s ability to process various types of input in highly sophisticated ways, the thoughts and feelings that constitute the mind would simply not exist. On the other hand, the brain’s irresistible drive to create the most vivid,sophisticated perceptions possible means that it cannot help but generate the thoughts and that are the basic elements of mind. Neurologically speaking,then, the mind cannot exist without the brain, and the brain cannot exist without striving to create the mind. The relationship of mind and brain is so intimately inked, in fact, that it seems most reasonable to consider the terms as two different aspects of the very same thing.

日本語訳お願いします。

Consider, for example, that the existence of a single human thought requires the highly complex interaction of hundreds of neurons. In order to separate mind from brain, it would be necessary to think of each neuron as something distinct from its function, which is a little like trying to separate the seawater that provides the substance of an ocean wave from the energy that gives the wave its shape and motion. The existence of the wave requires both elements: without energy, the wave would fall flat; without water, the wave energy would have no expression. In the same sense, it is not possible to separate individual neurons from their functions; if it were possible, then a thought could be feed from its neurological base, and the mind could be seen as something separate from the brain, a free-floating consciousness that could be considered a “soul “.

和訳お願い致します。

The diffculties and disputes which attended the first revival of science have recurred in the present century in consequence of the growth of geology. It is in truth only the old question over again－precisely the same point of theology which is involved, although the difficulties which present themselves are fresh. The school books of the present day, while they teach the child that the earth moves, yet [they] assure him that it is a little less than six thousand years old and that it was made in six days. On the other hand, geologists of all religious creeds are agreed that the earth has existed for an immense series of years－to be [to be=it should be] counted by millions rather than by thousands:and that indubitably more than six days elapsed from its first creation to the appearance of man upon its surface. By this broad discrepancy between old and doctrine is the modern mind startled, as were the men of the sixteenth century [startled] when [they were] told that the earth moved.

和訳お願い致します。

This earth apparently so still and steadfast,lying in majestic repose beneath the aestherial vault,is a globular body of comparatively insignificant size, whirling fast through space round the sun as the centre of its orbit, and completing its revolution in the course of one year, while at the same time it revolves daily once about its own axis,thus producing the change of day and night. The sun,which seems to lead up each morning from the east and, traversing the skyey bridge,slides down into the west,is relatively to our earth motionless. In size and weight it inconceivably surpasses it. The moon,which occupies a position in thr visible heavens only second to the sun and far beyond that[that=the position]of every other celestial body in conspicuousness, is but a subordinate globe,much smaller our own, and revolving round the earth as it's centre,while it accompanies it [it=the earth]in its[its=the earth's]yearly revolutions about the sun.Of itself it has no luster and is visible to us only by the reflected sunlight.

英語に自信のある方和訳お願い致します

Admitting as is historically and in fact the case , that it was the mission of the Hebrew race to lay the foundation of religion upon the earth, and that Providence used this people specially for this purpose, is it not our businessand ourduty to look and see how this has reall been done? notformingfor ourselves theories of what a revelation ought to be or [of] how we, if entrusted with the task, would have made one, but enquiring ho it haspleased God to do it. In all his theoriesof the world, man has at first deviated widely from the truth,and has only gradually come to see how far otherwise God has ordered things than the first daring speculator had supposed. It has been popularly assumed that the Bible, bearing the stampof divine authority, must be complete, perfect, and unimpeachble in all itsparts, and a thousand difficulties and incoherent doctrines have sprung out of this theory. Men have proceeded in the matterof theology, as they did with physical sciencebefore inductive philosophy sent them to the feet of nature and bid them learnin patience and obedience the lessons whichsh[she=nature] had to teach. Dogma and groundless assumption occupy the place of modest enquiry after truth, while at the same time the upholders of these theories claim credit for humility and submissivenss. Thisis exactly inverting the fact; the humble scholr of trut is not he who, taking his stand upon the traditions of rabbins,Christian fathers, or schoolmen, insists upon bending facts to his unyielding standard, but he who is willing to accept such teaching as it has pleased Divine Providence to afford, without murmuring that it has not been furnished more copiously or clearly.

和訳お願い致します。

In actual research these three objects are prosecuted, not successively, but simultaneously. Thus it is not necessary in either case that the final object — that of classification- should wait for its commencement upon the completion of the dissection or analysis of every organism or every mental structure that is to be found upon the earth. On the con trary, the comparison in each case begins with the facts that are first found to be comparable, and is afterwards pro gressively extended as knowledge of additional facts becomes more extensive. * The word " structure " is used in a metaphorical sense when applied to mind, but the usage it convenient.

和訳お願い致します。

Now assuredly we have here a most important issue, and as it is one the discussion of which will constitute a large element of my work, it is perhaps desirable that I should state at the outset the manner in which I propose to deal with it . The question, then, as to whether or not human intelli gence has been evolved from animal intelligence can only be dealt with scientifically by comparing the one with the other, in order to ascertain the points wherein they agree and the points wherein they differ. Now there can be no doubt that when this is done, the difference between the mental faculties of the most intelligent animal and the mental faculties of the lowest savage[savage=wild beast] is seen to be so vast, that the hypothesis of their being so nearly allied as Mr. Darwin's teaching implies, appears at first sight absurd. And, indeed, it is not until we have become convinced that the theory of Evolution can alone afford an explanation of the facts of human anatomy that we are prepared to seek for a similar explanation of the facts of human psychology. But wide as is the difference between the mind of a man and the mind of a brute, we must remember that the question is one, not as to degree, but as to kind ; and therefore that our task, as serious enquirers after truth, is calmly and honestly to examine the character of the difference which is presented, in order to determine whether it is really beyond the bounds of rational credibility that the enormous interval which now separates these two divisions of mind can ever have been bridged over, by numberless inter mediate gradations, during the untold ages of the past.

和訳お願い致します。

The Hebrew race, their works, and their books, are great facts in the history of man; the influence of the mind of this people upon the rest of mankind has been immense and peculiar, and there can be no difficulty in recognising therein the hand of a directing Providence. But we may not make ourselves wiser than God, nor attribute to Him methods of procedure which are not His. If, then, it is plain that He has not thought it needful to communicate to the writer of the Cosmogony that knowledge which modern researches have revealed, why do we not acknowledge this, except that it conflicts with a human theory which presumes to point out how God ought to have instructed man? The treatment to which the Mosaic narrative is subjected by the theological geologists is anything but respectful. The writers of this school, as we have seen, agree in representing it as a series of elaborate equivocations -- a story which palters with us in a double sense.' But if we regard it as the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, promulgated in all good faith as the best and most probable account that could be then given of God's universe, it resumes the dignity and value of which the writers in question have done their utmost to deprive it. It has been sometimes felt as a difficulty to taking this view of the case, that the writer asserts so solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no authority. But this arises only from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the spirit of true science has taught us. Mankind has learnt caution through repeated slips in the process of tracing out the truth.

和訳お願い致します。

The foregoing explanation many have now adopted. It is sufficient for my purpose, if it be a possible explanation, and if it meet the difficulties of the case. That it is possible in itself, is plain from the fact above established, that the Scriptures wisely speak on natural things according to their appearances rather than their physical realities. It meets the difficulties of the case, because all the difficulties hitherto started against this chapter on scientific grounds proceeded on the principle that it is a cosmogony; which this explanation repudiates, and thus disposes of the difficulties. It is therefore an explanation satisfactory to my own mind. I may be tempted to regret that I eau gain no certain scientific information from Genesis regarding the process of the original creation; but I resist the temptation, remembering the great object for which the Scripture was given -- to tell man of his origin and fall, and to draw his mind to his Creator and Redeemer. Scripture was not designed to teach us natural philosophy, and it is vain to attempt to make a cosmogony out of its statements. The Almighty declares himself the originator of all things, but he condescends not to describe the process or the laws by which he worked. All this he leaves for reason to decipher from the phenomena which his world displays. This exploration, however, I do not wish to impose on Scripture; and am fully prepared to surrender it, should further scientific discovery suggest another better fitted to meet all the requirements of the case.'

和訳お願い致します。

We venture to think that the world at large will continue to consider the account in the first chapter of Genesis to be a cosmogony. But as it is here admitted that it does not describe physical realities, but only outward appearances, that is, gives a description false in fact, and one which can teach us no scientific truth whatever, it seems to matter little what we call it. If its description of the events of the six days which it comprises be merely one of appearances and not of realities, it can teach us nothing regarding them. Dissatisfied with the scheme of conciliation which has been discussed, other geologists have proposed to give an entirely mythical or enigmatical sense to the Mosaic narrative, and to consider the creative days described as vast periods of time. This plan was long ago suggested, but it has of late enjoyed a high degree of popularity, through the advocacy of the Scotch geologist Hugh Miller, an extract from whose work has been already quoted. Dr. Buckland gives the following account of the first form in which this theory was propounded, and of the grounds upon which he rejected it in favour of that of Chalmers:

おねがいします。訳してください。

　ラストです。　　　education is good only in so far as it looks to its natural end, which is the divelopment of man both as an indivisual and in society ,not only in body but　also in mind and spirit. です。　よろしくおねがいします(;O;)

The Influence of Bodily Organs on the Function of Mind

英語に自信のある方、英訳お願い致します。

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

関連するQ&A

英語に自信のある方和訳お願いします

和訳お願い致します。

英語の翻訳に自信がある方お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

すみませんが英語に自信のある人はご協力をお願いします。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

日本語訳お願いします。

日本語訳お願いします。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

英語に自信のある方和訳お願い致します

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

おねがいします。訳してください。

注目のQ&A

カテゴリ

あなたにピッタリな商品が見つかる！ OKWAVE セレクト

専門家に質問してみよう

The Influence of Bodily Organs on the Function of Mind

英語に自信のある方、英訳お願い致します。

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

関連するQ&A

英語に自信のある方 和訳お願いします

和訳お願い致します。

英語の翻訳に自信がある方お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

すみませんが英語に自信のある人はご協力をお願いします。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

日本語訳お願いします。

日本語訳お願いします。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

英語に自信のある方和訳お願い致します

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

おねがいします。訳してください。

注目のQ&A

カテゴリ

あなたにピッタリな商品が見つかる！ OKWAVE セレクト

専門家に質問してみよう

英語に自信のある方和訳お願いします