• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!


The aim of the physician in the treatment of insanity is to bring the means at his command to bears, directly or indirectly,on the disordered nerve element.But,in striving to do this,he soon learns with how many bodily organs and fuctions he has really to do. To call mind a function of the brain may lead to much misapprehention,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 correspondence with it through internuncial fibres,and which does not,therefore affect more or less plainly and specially its[its=the brain's]function as an organ of mind.It is not merely that apalpitating heart may cause anxiety and apprehension,or a disordered liver[may cause]gloomy feelings,but there are reasons to believe that each organ has its specific influence on the constitution 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 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 comprehending the whole bodily life.


  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数89
  • ありがとう数0


  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.1

精神の異常をきたした患者を治療しようとするとき、医師が行うことは、機能障害を起こしている神経系に対して直接的ないし間接的に手技を施すことである。 しかしそれに取り組んでいるうち、どれほど多くの体内の器官が関連していることを医師は思い知ることになる。 意識という機能に関連している器官は脳だけであるという認識を持ったままでいるという脳の機能に関するこれまでの理解のほとんどは間違っていることを知る。 神経組織を通して脳につながっていない器官はひとつもないわけであり、多かれ少なかれ脳の機能に影響する"意識の器官"として機能していない内蔵器官はひとつもないことになる。 たとえば心臓の動悸が高まると不安を覚えたり、肝臓に異常があるとけだるい気分になるというだけでなく、どの内蔵器官にも意識の構造や機能に対して特別な影響を及ぼすということは、それらの影響については完全に科学的に証明できているわけではないが、信じるに足る十分な理由があるのである。なぜなら私たちが意識的に感じたり考えたりするのはすべて無意識の精神を元にしているからである。 ある人の心臓を別の人に移植したとしよう。そのとき、血液の循環には何の違いもないがあ、意識の変化には明らかに違いが出ることだろう。 肉体という統合体のなかで、各部の器官どうしがどのように生理学的に連携しているかを研究することが重要であるように、意識というものを生理学的に研究するうえでは、肉体全体の組織、肉体全体の生体機能を理解することが必要である。



  • 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.

  • 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 “.

  • 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。

  • 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".

  • 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。

    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]''.

  • 和訳お願いします

    大学入試の過去問を解いていて、分かりにくいところがありました。 下記の英文の和訳をお願いします。片方だけでも構いません。 (1) The fundamental nature and meaning of music lie not in objects, not in musical works at all, but in action, in what people do. It is only by understanding what people do as they take part in a musical act that we can hope to understand its nature and the function it fulfills in human life. Whatever that function may be, I am certain, first, that to take part in a music act is of central importance to our very humanness, as important as taking part in the act of speech, which it so resembles, and second, that everyone is born with the gift of music no less than with the gift of speech. (2) So far as I know the word “musicking” does not appear in any English dictionary, but it is too useful a conceptual tool to lie unused.

  • 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.