Here the physiologist breaks in: “That consciousness has its seat in certain regions of the cerebral cortex may be proven by experiments on animals.” But this is a conclusion as grossly mistaken as that of the physicist when he imagines he can follow up energy throughout all its ramifications.[24] What can be got at by experimental methods is merely negative phenomena, and these furnish no warrant for coming to conclusions as to the seat of consciousness. If I cut through the wire connected with an electric light at any point at all in the circuit, the negative phenomenon “darkness” assuredly supervenes; but to say on that account, “The point of section must be the seat of the electric energy; here is ocular demonstration,” would be sheer foolishness. Yet the physiologist is guilty of just such foolishness, and at its behest does not stick at the perpetration of all those cruelties such as are scarcely to be avoided in experiments upon animals. If only the time would come when true ideas about life would take possession of science, the laboratories of physiologists would no longer be those places where every day sacrifice is made to error as in the temples of blood-stained idols. All these researches on the subject of the seat of consciousness are only possible where one is working with empty concepts. If one thinks in terms of actuality consciousness is just that with regard to which a reading, a working hypothesis of an inductive nature, is utterly impossible; for here the reading is precisely the form assumed by the consciousness, by that which is to do the reading, by the problem itself, and thus itself again requires a reading, and so on _ad infinitum_. But there is another point involved in this problem of “consciousness” which, so far as I know, has never been taken account of, and yet is of the utmost significance. As the Darwinian idea does not embrace in its purview the case of hybrid formations--it does not react upon it at all--so the scientific mode of envisaging things does not take in the case of the physiological negative phenomena of consciousness, does not at all react upon it. With the apparatus of science there is no possibility whatever of getting at such facts as “faith,” “illusion,” “error,” “forgetting.” Science requires something sensible and objective, something so constituted that I can rank it along with other things. In no respect, however, are any of these negative phenomena objective things. Here no possible point of entry offers for science with its instrument, induction.