r leaves further back along the branches,
and, exploring deeper, find leaves that are dead and brown, while
still further in they have all fallen off, leaving bare branches
reaching back to the trunk; so that you finally "see" how the tree is
constructed, as a hollow cone of foliage supported by an interior
framework of branches. All this has meant a lot of different reactions
on your part, and the final "seeing" of how the tree is constructed
would scarcely be called a sensation, since it has required mental
work beyond that of simply seeing the tree. It is a response
additional to the strictly sensory response of seeing the tree.

Now the question is whether this additional response can be recalled,
without recalling at the same time the primary {374} response of
seeing the tree. Can we recall the fact observed about the tree
without at the same time seeing the tree "in the mind's eye"? Must we
necessarily have an image of the tree when we recall the way the tree
is constructed?

Since getting the general sensory appearance of the tree, and
observing the way it is constructed, are two different responses, it
seems quite conceivable that either fact should be recalled without
the other; and no one doubts that the sensory appearance of the tree
can be recalled without the other observed fact coming up along with
it. But many authorities have held that the non-sensory fact could not
be recalled alone; in other words, they have held that every recalled
fact comes as a sensory image, or with a sensory image. Persons with
ready visual imagery are of course likely to get a visual image with
any fact they may recall. But persons whose visual imagery is hard to
arouse say that they recall facts without any visual image. I who
write these words, being such a person, testify that while I have been
writing and thinking about that tree I have not seen it before my
mind's eye.

It is true, however, that I have had images during this time--auditory
images of words expressing the facts mentioned. Another individual
might have had kinesthetic images instead of either visual or
auditory. But can there be a recall of fact without _any_ sensory
image?

On this question, which has been called the question of "imageless
thought", though it might better be called that of "imageless recall",
controversy has raged and is not yet at rest, so that a generally
accepted conclusion cannot be stated. But the best indications are to
the effect