(ii.) In the theory before us, sense-presentations count as non-mental or even as physical.
The distinction between act and object, or, as some take it, between act, content, and object, is here the governing consideration. It has been held to remove the principal reason for thinking that sense-presentations are something mental. I believe the word mental to be misleading, as I shall explain later on. But I desire to suggest that though it may be well to distinguish clearly between seeing and the object seen, yet it is not a mere failure to make this distinction which causes some of us to believe that the object seen has a character continuous with our mental life. Merely referring to the controversy between Manchester and St. Andrews, which I incline to think has established this point so far as sense-presentation is concerned, I endeavour to describe a more general argument which strongly appeals to me.
When I am told that I must not confuse
