… the anatomist is primarily concerned with the study of the brain as the material substratum of mental processes. No more than the physiologist is he able to suggest how the physico-chemical phenomenon associated with the passage of nervous impulses from one part of the brain to another can be translated into a mental experience.

It matters a great deal whether mind is regarded as something which is distinct from and which animates the body – or whether the word is thought of as a generic term to cover such processes as feeling, thinking, remembering, perceiving and so on. If mind is conceived of as something which interacts with body – or as some parallel manifestation to body – the scientist may be misled into trying to solve problems which may prove unreal, e.g., I'm not convinced about the validity of the proposition, raised by Professor Le Gros Clark, that some parts of the brain have the special function of transforming measurable electrical impulses into consciousness… If mind is a verbal cloak for processes of perceiving, abstracting, reasoning – how far can these processes be explained in physical terms?… But because we humans use symbolic language our own memory also works independently of immediate environmental control. No one knows the physical basis of this particularly human capacity.