Some philosophers have reason to suppose that mind can act directly on mind without intervening mechanism,--and sometimes that has been spoken of as genuine action at a distance; but no proper conception or physical model can be made of such a process, nor is it clear that "space" and "distance" have any particular meaning in the region of psychology. The links between mind and mind may be something quite other than physical proximity; and in denying action at a distance across empty space I am not denying telepathy or other activities of a non-physical kind. For although brain disturbance is certainly physical, and is an essential concomitant of mental action whether of the sending or receiving variety, yet we know from the case of heat that a material movement can be excited in one place at the expense of corresponding movement in another, without any similar kind of transmission or material connexion between the two places: the thing that travels across vacuum is not heat. In all cases where physical motion is involved, however, I would have a medium sought for. It may not be matter, but it must be something; there must be a connecting link of some kind, or the transference cannot occur. There can be no attraction across really empty space. And even when a material link exists, so that the connexion is obvious, the explanation is not complete; for when the mechanism of attraction is understood, it will be found that a body really only moves because it is pushed by something from behind. The essential force in nature is the _vis a tergo_. So when we have found the "traces," or discovered the connecting thread, we still run up against the word "cohesion"; and we ought to be exercised in our minds as to its ultimate meaning. Why the whole of a rod should follow, when one end is pulled, is a matter requiring explanation; and the only explanation that can be given involves, in some form or other, a continuous medium connecting the discrete and separated particles or atoms of matter.