The whole of this strange mistake of Brown's appears to arise from the fault already noticed;--that of considering the image on the retina as the _object_ instead of the _means_ of vision. This indeed is what he says: 'the true object of vision is not the distant body itself, but the light that has reached the expansive termination of the optic nerve[19\4].' Even if this were so, we do not see why we should not perceive the position of the impression on this expanded nerve. But as we have already said, the impression on the nerve is the means of vision, and enables us to assign a place, or at least a direction, to the object from which the light proceeds, and thus makes vision possible. Brown, indeed, pursues his own peculiar view till he involves the subject in utter confusion. Thus he says[20\4], 'According to the common theory [that figure can be perceived by the eye,] a visible sphere is at once to my perception convex and plane; and if the sphere be a one, it is perceived at once to be a sphere of {320} many feet in diameter, and a plane circular surface of the diameter of a quarter of an inch.' It is easy to deduce these and greater absurdities, if we proceed on his strange and baseless supposition that the object and the image on the retina are _both_ perceived. But who is conscious of the image on the retina in any other way than as he sees the object by means of it? [Note 19\4: _Lectures_, vol. ii. p. 57.] [Note 20\4: _Ib._ vol. ii. p. 89.] Brown seems to have imagined that he was analysing the perception of figure 'in the same manner in which Berkeley had analyzed the perception of distance. He ought to have recollected that such an undertaking, to be successful, required him to show _what_ elements he analyzed it _into_. Berkeley analyzed the perception of real figure into the interpretation of visible figure according to certain rules which he distinctly stated. Brown analyzes the perception of visible figure into no elements. Berkeley says, that we do not directly perceive distance, but that we perceive something else, from which we infer distance, namely, visible figure and colour, and our own efforts in seeing; Brown says, that we do not see figure, but infer it; what then do we see, which we infer it from? To this he offers no answer. He asserts the seeming perception of visible figure to be a result of 'association;'--of 'suggestion.' But what meaning can we attach to this? Suggestion requires something which suggests; and not a hint is given what it is which suggests position. Association implies two things associated; what is the sensation which we associate with form? What is that visual perception which is not figure, and which we mistake for figure? What perception is it that suggests a square to the eye? What impressions are those which have been associated with a visible triangle, so that the revival of the impressions revives the notion of the triangle? Brown has nowhere pointed out such perceptions and