THE PROBLEMS OF TELEPATHY
"I suppose everybody would say it would be an extraordinary
circumstance," said the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., F.R.S., in
his Presidential Address before the Society for Psychical Research,
some years ago, "if at no distant date this earth on which we dwell
were to come into collision with some unknown body travelling
through space, and, as the result of that collision, be resolved
into the original gases of which it is composed.... This is a
specimen of a dramatically extraordinary event. Now I will give you
a case of what I mean by a scientifically extraordinary
event--which you will at once perceive may be one which, at first
sight and to many observers, may appear almost commonplace and
familiar. I have constantly met people who will tell you, with no
apparent consciousness that they are saying anything more out of
the way than an observation about the weather, that by the exercise
of their will they can make anybody at a little distance turn round
and look at them. Now such a fact (if fact it be) is far more
scientifically extraordinary than would be the destruction of this
globe by some such celestial catastrophe as I have imagined. How
profoundly mistaken, then, are they who think that this exercise of
'will power,' as they call it, is the most natural and the most
normal thing in the world, something which everybody should have
expected, something which hardly deserves scientific notice or
requires scientific explanation. In reality it is a profound
mystery, if it is true, or if anything like it be true; and no
event, however startling, which easily finds its appropriate niche
in the structure of the physical sciences ought to exercise so much
intellectual curiosity as this dull and at first sight commonplace
phenomenon." (_Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. x. pp. 9-10.)
These were the words, not only of the Premier of England, but of an
exceptionally well-balanced and learned man of science, from which it
will be seen how extraordinary a thing this "thought-transference" or
"telepathy" is to the scientific world; and how hard it is for the
_savant_ to accept it! Yet, as Mr. Balfour says, nearly every one at the
present time believes in telepathy, and accepts it as the only
explanation for certain facts, and as a more or less commonplace event.
Why, then, is there so much mystery about it; _why_ is it so
extraordinary?
The reason for this lies in the fact that psychologists hold a certain
view of the nature of the mind which is not shared or understood by the
majority of persons. They believe that the mind, or consciousness, is
bound up with the functionings of the brain; and that it is inseparable
from them. Just as digestion is a function of the whole digestive
apparatus, circulation of the circulatory apparatus, and respiration of
the respiratory apparatus; just so, it is believed, is thinking a
function of the thinking apparatus--the brain and nervous system. And
one is no more detachable than the other; and one is no more "immortal"
after the death of the body than the other. All these functions fall
away and perish at once, at the moment of death. This is the position of
positive, materialistic psychology--which is the psychology taught in
our schools and colleges at the present day. Naturally, our professors
do not believe in telepathy; were this theory true, it would be
"impossible," just as impossible as it is for a solid object to be in
two places at the same time. Consciousness cannot be both inside the
brain and out of it; and as it is believed to reside inside, it cannot
be outside! As it is a function of nervous tissue, how can it make
itself manifest at a distance of 2000 miles--at the moment, too, when it
is being annihilated. Obviously the thing is impossible!
But, alas for science (or rather for the dogmatic scientist), the
experience of the past tells us that many things deemed impossible are
nevertheless facts. Though they are jeered at when they are first
brought to the attention of the scientific world, subsequent
investigation has only served to confirm them.... It is on record that
no physician over forty years of age at the time of his great discovery
ever accepted Harvey's proof of the circulation of the blood--so great
was the force of tradition and orthodoxy.... And today the facts of
"psychical research" are laughed at, and its investigators held up to
ridicule, because of this same spirit of prejudice and intolerance, and
the desire to mock at what we do not understand. "But," as Professor
James so well remarked _a propos_ of this subject, "whenever a debate
between the mystics and the scientists has been once for all decided,
it is the mystics who have usually proved to be right about the _facts_,
while the scientists had the better of it in respect to _theories_." But
inasmuch as only the "facts" are now in dispute, and no one cares as yet
what theory shall be adopted in order to explain them, is it not time at
least to investigate them, and to see whether or not such facts
exist--quite irrespective of whether they are explainable, when found?
The facts, then; are they true or are they not? It is a question quite
open to discussion, one quite capable of being solved by scientific
methods. It is useless to say beforehand whether or not such and such
things are or are not possible; the question is: Do they exist? We must
not question their utility either, even if true, for this never enters
into any scientific question of fact. Like the celebrated French
philosopher whose friend had proved to him the "impossibility" of a
certain happening, he replied: "My dear sir, I never said it was
_possible_; I said it was a _fact_!"
So, then, we come to the evidence for this wonderful power of telepathy
or thought-transference. Here I must be very brief, indicating merely a
fraction of the evidence which has been accumulated in proof of this
startling scientific truth.
When the Society for Psychical Research was founded, in 1882, its main
energies were directed toward the investigation of this faculty, and of
the reality of thought-transference. The various Committees who were
engaged in this investigation soon came to the conclusion that its
reality was beyond doubt. Some of the most interesting and conclusive
experiments were those conducted by Mr. Guthrie, a gentleman living in
Liverpool, and two of his employes. The tests were so arranged that
fraud was out of the question, even had it been attempted. All the
subjects were in a normal state, blindfolded, and separated some
distance. Strict silence was observed. In the presence of Messrs. Myers
and Gurney, the following trials in transferring the sensation of taste
were attempted. Various substances were provided the "agent" (the one
who was to transfer the sensation) and he placed a small quantity of one
of these in his mouth; while the "percipient" (receiver of the
telepathically sent message) stated what his or her impressions were. To
quote one set of trials:
September 4
_Substance Tested_ _Answers Given_
Worcestershire sauce. Worcestershire sauce.
" " Vinegar.
Port wine. Between eau de Cologne and beer.
" " Raspberry vinegar.
Bitter aloes. Horrible and bitter.
Alum. A taste of ink--of iron--of
vinegar. I feel it on my
lips; as if I had been eating
alum.
" Do. distinct impression: bitter
taste persisted.
Nutmeg. Peppermint--no; what you put
in puddings--nutmeg.
" Nutmeg.
Sugar. Nothing perceived.
" " "
Cayenne pepper. Mustard.
" " Cayenne pepper.
The next series of experiments concerned the transference of bodily
pains. The subjects still being blindfolded, and some distance apart,
the agent was pricked in various parts of his body by a needle. Several
physicians were present at these experiments:
Back of left ear pricked. Rightly located.
Lobe of left ear pricked. Rightly located.
Left wrist pricked. "It is the left hand."
Third finger of left hand tightly bound round with wire. A lower
joint of that finger was guessed.
Left wrist scratched with pins. "Is it the left wrist? Like being
scratched."
Left ankle pricked. Rightly located.
Now it would be foolish to attribute such results as these to chance.
But let us proceed.
Dr. Blair Thaw tried a number of experiments in transferring colours.
The following are samples:
Colours Chosen at Random
_Chosen_ _1st Guess_ _2nd Guess_
Bright red. Bright red. ....
Bright green. Light green. ....
Yellow. Dark blue. Yellow.
Bright yellow. Bright yellow. ....
Dark red. Blue. Dark red.
Dark blue. Orange. Dark blue.
Orange. Green. Heliotrope.
In 1895 Mr. Henry G. Rawson published a paper on the subject,
in which he narrated his success in transferring the diagrams
of objects. Tracings of these are given herewith. (O = original
and R = reproduction.) Further comment is hardly necessary.
[Illustration: Diagram Illustrative of Thought-Transference]
He also tried a number of experiments in naming cards drawn at random
from the pack (where the chance is always 51 to 1 of being correct, and
the chance of being correct a number of times in succession is
inconceivably great) and he attained the following results, among
others:
_Card Chosen_ _Card Guessed_
5 of Hearts. 7 of Hearts, Ace of Diamonds.
8 of Hearts. 8 of Hearts.
10 of Clubs. 9 of Clubs, 10 of Clubs.
Jack of Diamonds. Jack of Diamonds.
5 of Spades. 7 of Spades, 5 of Spades.
2 of Clubs. 2 of Diamonds, 2 of Clubs.
Queen of Hearts. Queen of Hearts.
5 of Diamonds. 9 of Diamonds, 5 of Diamonds.
Ace of Diamonds. Ace of Diamonds.
Ace of Hearts. Ace of Hearts.
Ace of Clubs. Ace of Clubs.
King of Spades. King of Diamonds, King of Spades.
Again, it is useless to say that such results are attributable to
chance. The good standing of the participants places their good faith
beyond question; all normal means of communication were prevented. How
are we to account for such facts--short of invoking some sort of mental
interaction, through other than the ordinary channels of sense?
But these were experiments conducted in the normal state. Equally and
even more interesting and conclusive results were obtained when the
subject was placed under hypnotism. Of these, the most conclusive
experiments were those conducted by Mrs. Sidgwick and Miss Alice
Johnson. Put to the law of chance, it was shown that such coincidences
were many hundreds, not to say thousands, of times more numerous than
chance could account for. Then, again, we have the experiments at a
great distance, in which Dr. Pierre Janet willed a patient of his to
come through the streets, and she almost invariably came when he willed
it. We have, too, a number of most interesting experiments in which
_dreams_ have been induced in others--by trying to influence the
sleeping thoughts of the dreamer. Here is a fruitful field, as yet
hardly touched, for an experimenter in this line of research.[40]
Among the most interesting and dramatic cases of the kind are those
experiments in which one person has voluntarily caused a figure of
himself to appear to another at a distance. Thus, A sits down and wills
intently that he shall appear to B that night--in sleep or waking, as
the case may be. The next morning A receives a letter from B, stating
that he has seen an apparition of him, and asking him if he is well. The
following is an example of a case of this character:
"One certain Sunday evening in November, 1881, having been reading
of the great power which the human will is capable of exercising, I
determined with the whole force of my being that I would be present
in spirit in the front bedroom of the second floor of a house
situated at 22 Hogarth Road, Kensington, in which room slept two
young ladies of my acquaintance, viz. Miss L. S. V. and Miss E. C.
V., aged respectively twenty-five and eleven years. I was living at
this time at 23 Kildare Gardens, at a distance of about three miles
from Hogarth Road, and I had not in any way mentioned my intention
of trying this experiment to either of the above ladies, for the
simple reason that it was only on retiring to rest upon this
particular Sunday night that I made up my mind to do so. The time
at which I determined to be there was one o'clock in the morning,
and I also had a strong intention of making my presence
perceptible.
"On the following Thursday I went to see the ladies in question,
and in the course of conversation (without any allusion to the
subject on my part) the elder one told me that on the previous
Sunday night she had been much terrified by perceiving me standing
by her bedside and that she screamed when the apparition advanced
toward her, and awoke her little sister who saw me also...."
(Corroborative evidence was obtained from the two ladies
mentioned.)
Such a case is called a "telepathically induced hallucination" or an
"experimental apparition," for the reason that the figure seen is
doubtless hallucinatory in character and was induced by means of
telepathy. Such cases (and there are plenty of them) are very striking
proof of the direct action of mind on mind; and at the same time form a
sort of bridge across the gulf which otherwise seems to exist between
the experimental cases we have just quoted and the spontaneous cases to
which we must now refer.
Soon after the Society began its work it was noticed that numbers of
cases were sent in, in which apparitions were seen at the very moment of
the death of the person symbolized by the apparition. In many such
cases, no other experience such as this has happened to the percipient
throughout his or her life; but on the very occasion when such a figure
_was_ seen, the individual was found to have died at that particular
time! Can so many cases of so remarkable a character be attributed to
chance?
The answer at first sight is: No. But here we must be cautious. In
scientific research such as this, we must not be guided by impressions,
but by facts and figures. Accordingly it was decided to put this matter
to the test, and an "International Census of Hallucinations" was
inaugurated, which extended throughout several countries (America being
represented by Professor William James), and the taking of which lasted
several years. As the result of this laborious undertaking, 30,000
answers were received--the percentage of coincidental apparitions being
calculated. After making allowances for all possible sources of error,
it was ascertained that the number of coincidences received were several
hundred times too numerous to be attributed to chance; and the following
statement was signed by Professor Sidgwick's Committee[41]:
"_Between deaths and apparitions of the dying person a connection exists
which is not due to chance alone. This we hold as a proved fact._"
These are important words in many senses; and _donne a penser_. It shows
us that, after all is said and done, this old theory of "ghosts" is not
so far wrong, and that they, in a certain sense, _do_ exist; it is only
a matter of their interpretation: the "mystics" have as usual been
right as to the existence of the facts, but the "scientists" may be
right in their interpretation of them.
So we have the whole class of "spontaneous" telepathic phenomena, so
called because they are not induced by direct experiment. In this class
we have all those manifestations which take place at or about the moment
of death; phantasms of the living, phantasms of the dying, and phantasms
of the dead--according to whether the subject is yet living, is dying,
or has recently died. In all such cases we may postulate a telepathic
action at the moment of death, for in those cases when the apparition
was seen but a few minutes or even a few hours after death, the impact
might have been transmitted at the moment of death, and only have
emerged into consciousness during the quietness and peace of the
evening, or when night gave it a chance to do so. For we now know that
subconscious ideas do tend to rise into consciousness when the latter is
less occupied with the events of the day.
It is, of course, impossible to detail here the mass of evidence of all
kinds which has been accumulated of late years in favour of the
existence of telepathy, but enough has been quoted to indicate the
method of approach and the character of the evidence adduced. Suffice it
to say that, in the eyes of those who have inquired into the subject
closely, telepathy is now held to be proved; it is now considered to be
a scientific fact, though not as yet explained. Again I repeat, the
question is not: Is it possible? but, Is it a fact?
Taking all that has been said into consideration, it may fairly be
contended that the mere _fact_ of telepathy may therefore be said to
have been proved. This being so, the interesting question of its nature
or character presents itself. How is such action to be explained? How
account for the facts?
There are many theories which have been advanced from time to time to
explain this remarkable phenomenon, and, if it be a fact in nature, its
scientific explanation must some day be forthcoming. Once telepathy
stands proved it will mean the remoulding and recasting of many of our
scientific theories, and even a reconstruction of science--in so far, at
least, as it refers to physiological psychology. Such being the case,
and telepathy being proved, as many eminent men of science today
believe, the question of its theoretical explanation becomes most
important.
Now the first analogy which strikes one in the consideration of this
question is that of wireless telegraphy--the subtle electric vibrations
which journey to and fro with incredible swiftness through the universal
ether. In short, telepathy is thought by many to be simply a species of
physical vibration, proceeding from brain to brain, just as electric
waves pass from the transmitter to the receiver in wireless telegraphy.
This explanation is so common that many persons accept it without
further ado, as being the correct explanation of the facts. But such a
theory cannot be said to cover the facts in a satisfactory manner.
In the first place, there seems to be no definite or prescribed
area in the brain adapted for such a purpose; no cell or centre has
as yet been discovered which appears destined to send out waves of
this character. Still, perhaps it will be some day, for the functions
of certain portions of the brain--particularly the frontal lobes--are
as yet very little understood. But there is the argument that, if
such waves exist, they must be detected by means of our scientific
instruments--instruments so delicate and subtle that they are able to
measure the difference of the pull of gravity of an article when placed
on the table or on the floor, or can register the heat of a candle at a
distance of more than a mile (Langley's bolometer). Compared with such
delicate instruments, our five senses are coarse indeed, and any
vibrations which can affect these same senses must surely affect the
more delicate and sensitive instruments just mentioned. Yet none of them
have as yet been able to indicate the existence of any such vibrations,
and this would seem to show that they cannot exist.[42]
But there is a reply to this argument. It may be said that, although the
_senses_ do not register any such vibrations, the _brain_ might do so,
in some direct manner; and the brain might be far more sensitive than
any instrument so far devised. Indeed the definition of telepathy, "the
ability of one mind to influence or be influenced by another mind
otherwise than through the recognized channels of sense," would seem to
indicate that in this process only the brain is involved, and not
necessarily the physical senses at all. So far, then, so good; telepathy
might still be vibratory in character.
But if so, how could such waves get through the skull to act upon the
brain direct? This is a staggering thought to the ordinary materialist,
and at first sight renders such an action unintelligible and hence
"impossible"! But to reason thus would be very superficial. For we know
that certain physical energies pass through solid substances--substances
impervious to other physical energies. Thus we know that glass permits
light to pass through it, but is a non-conductor of electricity; while
steel is impervious to light, yet electricity can traverse miles of
steel in the fraction of a second. "Gravity" seems the only energy which
cannot be isolated by some means or other. No substance is opaque to
gravity. It acts through all substances, at all times, continuously. In
this respect telepathy may resemble gravitation.[43] If this were true,
or anything like it were true, we could easily see why a solid
substance, such as the human skull, might offer no appreciable
resistance to the passage through it of undulations of a certain
velocity--of a speed so great, perhaps, that they could not be detected
by any of the instruments at the command of the physicist today.
But there are other and still more serious objections to the vibratory
action of telepathy which have not as yet been mentioned. For if we try
to push the analogy further, we shall find that it is by no means so
clear as might be supposed. Thus in the case of wireless telegraphy the
vibratory action of the ether is a purely mechanical process and does
not carry emotion, thought, or intelligence with it--being vibration
pure and simple. Now, in the case of a supposed telepathic message,
thought flashed from one brain to another must be supposed to convey
with it intelligence of some sort; for if it were a _purely_ mechanical
vibratory action, how is it that this would impress another brain in
such an entirely different manner from all other vibrations as to
create in that brain not only a thought, but the precise _kind_ of
thought--the _replica_ of the thought--which originated in the brain of
the agent? Granting that vibrations are but "symbols," and that they are
interpreted by our brains _as_ things, the difficulty remains that, in
all other cases, such vibrations, no matter what their intensity, convey
to the brain the idea of external objects, or qualities of those
objects, and do not convey to it the idea of mind or intelligence. How
is it, therefore, that one particular species of vibration, which, we
must assume, would vary more or less with each individual, can convey
with it the idea of thought, and that this vibration is associated with
mind, and in fact is thought, while all other vibrations in the world
are in nowise connected with intelligence and do not appear to us to be
so connected? And further, how infinitely we should have to vary the
degree and type of vibration to correspond to all shades of thought and
feeling and emotion! Sir William Crookes some years ago urged the
possibility of this vibratory action of telepathy; but Mr. Myers has
pointed out its defects and stated that all we can at present say about
telepathy is that "life has the power of manifesting to life"--a formula
surely general enough, yet highly significant.
Again, the theory has been advanced that all minds are in touch in a
sort of subterranean way--through their subliminal regions--just as all
spokes of a wheel ultimately reach the hub, though each spoke is
distinctive. In this way we could imagine an inter-connection taking
place, of which we are quite unaware, under certain favourable
conditions. To use an analogy somewhere employed by Professor James,
our conscious minds are like the leaves of the trees which whisper
together, but the roots of the trees are all embedded in the same soil
and are interlaced inextricably. So our minds, though they appear to be
so separate and apart, may really be at basis fundamentally _one_. There
must be, it is said, some common ground of interaction; possibly a sort
of universal fluid, in which all minds are bathed, and by means of which
interaction of thought is effected. This is somewhat akin to the theory
first propounded by Mesmer, and which has been revived, in somewhat
altered form, more than a hundred years later. Mesmer held that thought
was communicated from brain to brain "by the vibrations of a subtle
fluid with which the nerve substance is in continuity." Truly, if any
sort of physical action is employed, this seems a significant enough
remark. We know that two tuning forks will resound in unison, if one of
them be struck. Put in motion a magnetized needle; at a certain distance
and without contact another magnetized needle will oscillate
synchronously with the first. Set in vibration a violin string, or the
string of a piano; and at a certain distance the string of another piano
or violin will vibrate in unison with it. Such analogies make us wonder
whether or not communication of this kind might not exist, and,
certainly, in order to make telepathy intelligible at all, we must
suppose some such action taking place. We all have a tendency to think
in physical symbols, owing to our materialistic training.
For if we try to picture to ourselves the process of telepathy as taking
place in some manner other than physical, how are we to conceive such
action? Does one consciousness stretch out, as it were, and grasp the
other passive mind? or does the agent project the thought from his brain
and impress the mind of the percipient with it--just as a bullet might
be shot from a rifle, or light waves radiate from some centre? The first
of these theories would be somewhat akin to true mind-reading, the other
to thought-projection or transference. But if the latter theory be
correct, is all thought directed into one single channel--at a target as
it were--or does it spread equally in all directions, like all other
vibratory radiations? It may be conceived that telepathy is a
combination of both the above processes--it being a kind of mutual
action--a projection on the part of one, and a mental reception or
grasping on the part of the other. If this be the case, we must conceive
the thought as met, as it were, in space, and in some way joined or
seized upon by the percipient thought; but how can we conceive such
seizing or such perception?
It will be seen that the problems arising from a study of telepathy are
numerous and remarkable. Let us briefly summarize the chief theories
which have been advanced to date. These are:
1. _The Theory of Exalted Perception._--This is, that the subject is in
some manner enabled to see the thoughts of his "magnetizer" or
hypnotist. This explanation applies only to those telepathic
manifestations observed when the percipient is in a state of trance; and
even here the theory cannot be said to explain, for it explains one
mystery by propounding another.
2. _The Hypothesis of Brain Exaltation with Paralysis of the
Senses._--On this theory, a sort of sympathetic action and reaction or
_rapport_ is supposed to take place, but of the exact nature of this
process its exponents can tell us nothing. Again, it only evades the
direct issue and answers one problem by asking another.
3. _The Hypothesis of Direct Psychic Action._--This is the view whose
ablest exponent is Mr. Frederic Myers. It is supposed that such action
takes place in its own world--its own sphere--just as distinct and just
as real as the material world. If this were true we could never
demonstrate the action of telepathy scientifically, since it would be
beyond the reach of such demonstration. Others again believe that the
action of telepathy is akin to the phenomena of _induction_; others that
it is akin to _gravitation_ or the _magnetic force_. While the details
of these theories are lacking, there is here a valuable suggestion and a
field for future research.
4. _The Hypothesis of Direct Physical Action._--This supposes that the
molecular changes in one brain, accompanying thought or emotion, set
certain ether vibrations in motion, which are caught up by another
brain, sensitive enough to receive them, or attuned to the proper
degree. This theory is one which appeals to most persons, though it is
open to the criticisms before raised. Nevertheless, it _may_ be true;
and if so, its law ought one day to be discovered. There is here also a
field for legitimate scientific research.
5. _The Idea of a Universal Fluid._--This is the theory held to by the
majority of mystics and occultists. There is supposed to exist a sort of
fluidic intermediary between mind and mind, which acts as the means for
thought transmission, and it is upon this that all thought is impressed.
It acts as a sort of mirror, which reflects the thoughts of all living
persons, just as a material mirror might reflect material objects. In
such a case, the thought is really _made objective_ and is perceived by
the subject in a sort of clairvoyant manner. I do not feel competent to
pronounce upon this hypothesis in the present embryonic state of
psychical science.
6. _The Theory of Spiritual Intermediaries._--This is the theory that
our thoughts are read by some purely "spiritual" process, by "spirits,"
who convey this thought to another individual and impress him in some
psychical manner directly. They thus act as carrier-pigeons between mind
and mind. To this theory it may be replied, as Professor Flournoy has
replied in his _Spiritism and Psychology_, that it represents the grave
methodological defect of multiplying causes without necessity; by
postulating spirits and importing them into the problem when they are
not wanted. It would be better to seek an explanation elsewhere.
7. _The Psycho-Physical Theory._--This theory supposes that all thought
is accompanied by nervous undulations, which are carried to the surface
of the body, there setting the ether in vibration; and this, in turn,
impinges upon the periphery of another person, particularly sensitive to
receive them, and by him re-transformed into nervous currents--into
thought! Such a theory completely fails to take into account those cases
of long-distance telepathy, of which so many have now been collected;
and in other ways is very defective.
8. Assuming all the above theories to be insufficient, we now come to:
_The Elements of a Scientific Explanation_
In studying this subject we must remember certain things:
(_a_) That telepathy is a highly complex phenomenon, and for that reason
we must not expect to find its solution easily or state it in a single
sentence.
(_b_) That we must consider it from the double standpoint, physical and
mental; and
(_c_) That we must consider the conditions affecting the operator, the
subject, and, if possible, the connection between them.
All scientific explanation consists in reducing the unknown to terms of
the known. We can often _classify_ a phenomenon without being able to
_explain_ its innermost nature. If we discover its laws, we have
advanced to that extent.
Dr. J. Ochorowicz, who has made a prolonged and minute study of this
question, writes as follows regarding the necessary conditions to be
observed in the operator:
"On the side of the _operator_ the conditions have been very little
studied. But it is probable:
"1. That there are personal differences.
"2. That these differences may be due not only to the degree of
thought intensity, but also to the nature of the thought itself,
according as it is visual, auditive, or motor.
"3. That some account has to be taken of a sort of accord, of
concordance between the two intelligences.
"4. That excessive will-power impairs the definiteness of the
transmission without much enhancing its intensity.
"5. That strong, persistent, prolonged thinking of a thought
repeated for a longer or shorter time constitutes a condition in
the highest degree favourable.
"6. That any distraction which causes the thought to disappear for
a moment, or that makes it cease to be isolated, seems eminently
unfavourable to the mental action.
"7. That, nevertheless, thoughts that are not intense, and even
thoughts that are at the moment unconscious (subconscious), may be
transmitted involuntarily.
"8. That the muscular efforts which usually accompany an exertion
of will are more or less indifferent; but that the muscle
expression of the operator may be useful, subjectively, by reason
of the habitude that connects thought with these expressional
signs.
"It follows from these considerations that the operator should
insist less upon the 'I will it' than upon the content of that
willing; and hence it is probable that, properly speaking, it is
not the 'strong will' that helps telepathy so much as clear
thinking."
As to the subject or _percipient_, experience has taught us that the
four following states are probably the most important for the recipience
of a telepathic message:
1. In the state of profound _aideia_ (complete lack of thought)
transmission is never immediate, but it may sometimes be latent.
2. In the state of nascent _monoideism_ (one idea) it may be immediate
and perfect.
3. In the state of _passive polyideism_ (many thoughts) it may be
either immediate or may take place after an interval of greater or
lesser length.
4. In the state of _active polyideism_ the conditions are complex and
subject to further subdivisions, for:
(_a_) Transmission may be direct if the subject helps by voluntary
self-absorption in a concentration of mind more or less monoideic; he
lends himself to the action; he listens mentally; he seeks, sometimes he
finds!
(_b_) It may be indirect, i.e. latent; this time also with some
concurrence on the part of the subject. This seems more frequent.
(_c_) Finally, it may in exceptional instances be either mediate
(delayed) or immediate, even without the subject's being advised
beforehand of the action.
* * * * *
Here, then, are the probable conditions; also the state of the agent and
percipient. Now what about the _connecting links_?
Here we come to the heart of the problem. I shall be as brief as
possible, since we cannot pretend that the problem is yet solved. I
merely offer a few suggestions, some original, others advanced before by
writers on these subjects.[44]
In order to obtain a specific action we must employ a specific
instrument: a telephone for a telephone; a brain for a brain.
Every living thing is a dynamic focus.
A dynamic focus tends ever to propagate the motion which is proper to
it.
Propagated motion becomes transformed according to the medium it
traverses. A force may be transmitted or transformed.
In an identical medium there is only _transmission_.
In a different medium there is _transformation_.
A dynamic nucleus, in propagating its motion, sends it out in every
direction; but this transmission becomes perceptible only on the lines
of least resistance.
A process that is at once chemical, physical, and psychical goes on in
the brain. A complex action of this kind is propagated through the grey
matter, as waves are propagated in water.
Regarded physiologically, a thought is only a vibration, probably, which
does not pass out of its appropriate medium. It is propagated, and it
must be along the motor nerves, since science admits no other route. But
the _thought itself_ does not radiate; it remains "at home," just as the
chemical action of a battery remains in the battery; it is represented
abroad by its dynamic correlate, called, in the case of the battery, a
_current_; and in the case of the brain, I know not what; but whatever
its name may be, it is the _dynamic correlate of thought_. Thought,
therefore, is dynamic. Thought is transformed; and may be
re-transformed, in another organism which supplies the necessary
conditions. Thought may be restored.
We have now reached, from a purely physiological standpoint, a position
which I desired to reach before I advance the final part of the
theory--which may at first sight appear somewhat fantastic. But
telepathy itself is fantastic; and yet, being a fact, it must be
accounted for somehow, or left altogether unexplained.
It has always been contended by a peculiarly-gifted group of individuals
known as "clairvoyants," that we possess a "spiritual body"--just as we
possess a physical body--of exactly the same shape and appearance; and
that we inhabit this body at death. It is further contended that all our
physical senses find their exact counterpart in this "etheric double";
there is a physical eye and a spiritual eye; a physical ear and a
spiritual ear, etc. With the spiritual eye we see "clairvoyantly"; with
the spiritual ear we hear "clairaudiently," and so forth. I shall not
discuss the possibility of such a body, except to say that there is now
a mass of evidence in its favour. Assuming it to exist--assuming it to
be the exact counterpart of the physical body--then it too possesses a
brain; and it too must pulsate and vibrate just as the physical brain
does, when accompanying thought.
Now this inner body may be the _vehicle of thought_. It may possess
"centres" whose normal office is to send and receive telepathic
messages. One "etheric centre" may thus act upon another "etheric
centre" directly--only indirectly upon the physical brain cells. The
action would thus be dynamic, yet psychical; physical in a sense, yet
not physical as we conceive it. Philosophy tells us that the table we
see (the _phenomenon_) is not the "real" table (the _noumenon_)--the
reality behind; but, if we knock the two tables together, the _noumena_
touch, just as the phenomenal tables do; only we have no means of
knowing or directly seeing it. Thus there is a sort of physical
communication of a spiritual thing. Those who have entered rooms of a
certain character have often sensed their "psychic atmosphere." This is
a sort of duplicate or replica of the physical atmosphere, yet it is
different from it. The whole subject is so subtle that one cannot follow
it unless he has had some experience or some knowledge of these things.
The process cannot be explained in clear-cut fashion--any more than
mediums can tell the source of their thoughts and impressions. A little
intuition is needed in order to grasp the problem and comprehend its
difficulties.
Were I to try and state my theory briefly, then it would be somewhat as
follows: Every thought necessitates a three-fold phenomenon--(1) the
purely psychic activity; (2) the physiological correlate; and (3) the
"dynamic correlate," which is as yet unrecognized by science. This
"dynamic correlate" is the manifestation of the activity of the etheric
double; which sets into motion certain vibratory activities which,
though they are not physical vibrations, are their counterpart or
_equivalent_ on the plane above matter--the "astral" plane, if the term
be allowable; which is parallel to, but not identical with, the material
plane. Thus by a sort of "doctrine of correspondences" we arrive at the
conclusion that telepathic action is physical, in a sense, yet is not
sufficiently physical to be measured by our instruments in the
laboratory. The activity is, as it were, the _noumenon_, of which the
physical vibration would be the phenomenon; but no phenomenal aspect of
this activity may ever be manifested to us; and hence never be capable
of being registered by science, as it exists today.
I do not know whether or not I have made this theory very
comprehensible, but it seems to me some such theory might explain the
facts and at the same time do away with the difficulties. At all events
no theory of telepathy which has been advanced to date can be said to be
explanatory, when all the facts are taken into consideration; and if
this first tentative groping serves to stimulate others to speculate,
and above all to _experiment_, in this obscure field, I shall feel that
a first onward step has been taken toward a correct understanding of the
"Marvels of Telepathy."
FOOTNOTES:
[40] See Dr. G. B. Ermacora's paper in _Proceedings_, S.P.R., vol. xi.
pp. 235-308.
[41] Professor Henry Sidgwick, as we know, was Professor of Moral
Philosophy in Cambridge, and his works on _Ethics_ and _Political
Economy_ are considered standard in all countries.
[42] This is the argument put forward by, e.g., Carl Snyder, in his _New
Conceptions in Science_, pp. 306-7.
[43] See my article in _The Monist_ (July-September 1913, pp. 445-58),
"Earlier Theories of Gravity."--H. C.
[44] Especially Dr. Ochorowicz, in his excellent work, _Mental
Suggestion_, to which I am indebted for several of the ideas which
follow.