Examination of the telepathic hypothesis--Some arguments which render
its acceptance difficult.
I have mentioned in passing what should be understood by the word
_telepathy_. I shall repeat my explanation; it is necessary that the
reader should have it well in mind, as in this chapter I am about to
examine the telepathic hypothesis and endeavour to find out if it will
cover the facts which we are studying. By telepathy is here meant, not
only the power of obtaining information from the consciousness and
subconsciousness of the sitters on the part of the secondary
personalities of Mrs Piper, but also their power to read the
consciousness and subconsciousness of persons somewhere or anywhere else
on earth, no matter where, distance in no way increasing the difficulty
of this reading. This is evidently among hypotheses a wide and
far-reaching one, and yet, if we reject the spiritualistic hypothesis,
there is no other which will cover all the facts.
The following arguments here briefly indicated are, with others,
developed at length in Professor Hyslop's book. I shall not again go
over those which circumstances have necessitated my explaining with
sufficient clearness before in the course of this work.
To begin with, what is the origin of this telepathic hypothesis? Is it
justified by the facts of experimental or spontaneous observation among
psychologists? Certainly not; if we only reckoned the experiments and
observations of official psychology, the hypothesis of telepathy, as we
understand it, would be almost unfounded. This hypothesis is in reality
founded on our ignorance; we may admit it temporarily, because we are
ignorant of the latent powers of the human mind, and because we have
every reason to think these latent powers great and numerous. I think
that the first wide use of it was made in the famous book by Gurney,
Myers, and Podmore, _Phantasms of the Living_. The telepathic hypothesis
might very well be admitted as an explanation of the facts recorded in
that book, although the spiritualistic hypothesis would explain them as
well, or even better. But when we are considering other facts, such as
those of Mrs Piper's trance, for example, the telepathic hypothesis, in
order to explain them, must be stretched beyond permitted limits.
In the first place, with regard to reading the consciousness of those
present, it would seem that, if we were dealing with telepathy, the
so-called communicator ought generally to bring out the facts of which
the sitters have been thinking most intently. But this hardly ever
happens; in Professor Hyslop's sittings it never happens. Certainly many
of the incidents related were in the consciousness of the sitters, but
the latter were not thinking about them till the communicator recalled
them.
For the same way, if we were dealing with telepathy, it is to be
supposed that the communicators would be the persons whom the sitters
expect. Now this is far from being the case. In the fifteen years during
which Mrs Piper's mediumship has been studied, a great number of
communicators have appeared about whom nobody was thinking. Professor
Hyslop, among others, says that he has met with several communicators
whom he did not in the least expect. Others whom he expected did not
appear. It is a fact worthy of remark that in Professor Hyslop's
sittings only those persons appeared who were capable of telling
something of a nature to prove their identity; the others seem to have
been systematically put aside by Imperator, even when information
concerning them was abundant in the consciousness and subconsciousness
of the sitter.
It would seem that, if we were dealing with telepathy, the self-styled
communicators would most easily utter the least remote ideas of the
sitters' minds; the nearest, most vivid ideas ought to appear first. Now
this is far from being the case. It seems to make no difference to the
communicator whether the idea is familiar or otherwise to the minds of
the living.
When it is a question of facts entirely unknown to the sitters and known
only to persons living at a great distance, this distance might be
expected to affect telepathic mind-reading; nothing in nature authorises
us to neglect this law of distance. We can only conceive the telepathic
process as a propulsion of waves through space; these waves should
decrease with distance; the contrary is absolutely inconceivable. Now
this does not happen; if the fact exists only in the consciousness of a
person who is at the time at the far ends of the earth, it makes no
difference in the precision of the details. If an analogy should be made
between telepathy--as we must conceive it, to explain the phenomena--and
wireless telegraphy, Mrs Piper entranced must be regarded as a mere
coherer of the telepathic waves. But this analogy is non-existent;
wireless telegraphy is far from being unaffected by distance, and
besides, when the coherer functions, it is because another instrument is
emitting particular waves. When a fact known only to a distant person is
reported, as in Mrs Piper's phenomena, it rarely happens that the
distant person was actively thinking of the fact, which was lying
unnoticed in the lowest strata of his consciousness. When the
experimenter makes his inquiries at the conclusion of the sitting, it is
often found that a definite effort on the part of the absent person is
required before the fact is recalled to memory.
It would be well to reflect before we grant to telepathy a power of
omniscience, independent of all known laws.
Another well-observed fact, opposed to the telepathic theory, is the
selection made amongst incidents by the communicator. If we were dealing
with telepathy, the secondary personalities of the medium would
sometimes be mistaken, make blunders, record facts which the so-called
communicator could never have known, but which the sitter alone knows
well. Now this never happens. The reported facts are always common to at
least two consciousnesses, that of the communicator and that of the
sitter, or that of the communicator and that of a distant person. The
inaccuracies prove nothing against this argument; if they are wilful
falsehoods they simply prove that the communicator is a liar, and not
that he is a secondary personality of Mrs Piper. If the reported facts
are unverifiable, this does not prove that they are inexact.
If the telepathic theory expresses the truth, we must grant an almost
infinite power to telepathy. This supposition is indispensable to
account for the facts. Then how shall we understand the errors and
confusions of the communicators? How can an infinite power seem at times
so limited, so finite, when the conditions remain unchanged? On the
other hand, the lapses of memory and confusions are quite explicable on
the spiritualistic theory; we cannot reasonably think that a change so
great as death should not induce some disturbance of mind, at least
temporarily, or should not greatly weaken certain groups of memories
which, in the new surroundings, have no longer any practical use.
A change of communicators has always been frequent, but was especially
so in Professor Hyslop's sittings. Mr Robert Hyslop constantly says to
his son, "James, I am getting weak; wait for me, I am coming back." And
then another communicator appears on the spot. The telepathic hypothesis
cannot explain this fact; it would seem quite natural that the
communicator should be always the same. To explain it, another
hypothesis--that of suggestion on the part of the sitter--must be added
to the telepathic hypothesis. But the spiritualistic hypothesis, on the
other hand, explains this perfectly well, even though we may be
compelled to reckon with the complications which the admission of the
existence of another world may introduce.
The existence of the self-styled intermediaries between sitter and
communicator is another fact which does not fit in with the telepathic
theory. Formerly Phinuit was the most common intermediary; then George
Pelham collaborated with him; in Professor Hyslop's sittings, and, I
believe, in all subsequent sittings since the installation of the
Imperator _regime_, the intermediary is Rector. It is he who presides at
the functioning of the "machine," because he is particularly
competent--so say the communicators. These intermediaries have very
defined and life-like characters. Phinuit, George Pelham and Rector are
as unlike each other as possible. What, on the telepathic hypothesis,
has had the power to create them? Mrs Piper's secondary personalities
should have incarnated the communicator without intermediary. In order
to understand this ephemeral reconstitution of a consciousness which has
for ever vanished, we should have to allow that the scattered elements
of this consciousness had temporarily grouped themselves around the
_point de repere_ formed by the secondary personality of Mrs Piper. We
should then see how difficult it is to explain the presence of these
intermediaries. But if, on the other hand, we accept the spiritualistic
hypothesis as well founded, we must admit that these intermediaries
account for their presence very plausibly.
Here is another argument, which, I think, is very strong, against the
hypothesis of telepathy. Subjects in the hypnotic state, and the
secondary personalities which appear in this hypnotic state, according
to the precise and decisive experiments made by modern science, have an
extremely definite notion of time. If you tell a hypnotised subject to
perform an action in a year, at such an hour and minute, he will never
fail, so to speak, although when he is awakened there remains in his
memory no trace of the order. Now the communicators, in the phenomena we
are studying, have an extremely vague notion of time, because, they say,
time is not a concept of the world in which they live. How is it that
telepathy, which can do so much, owns itself incapable, or nearly so, of
determining the moment when an action has been performed? What prevents
it from reading the idea of time, as well as any other idea, in the
minds of the persons present, since the notion of time is as clear and
precise in them at least as any other notion?
To conclude, I should say that we are entirely ignorant of the point
where the powers of telepathy begin and end. What I have just said makes
the telepathic hypothesis an unlikely explanation; but, as Boileau said
long ago, "Le vrai peut quelque fois n'etre pas vraisemblable"--Truth
may sometimes be unlikely.