APPLICATION TO CERTAIN OF THE FACTS ELICITED BY PSYCHIC RESEARCH
In this chapter I propose to give some instances of the way in which
the higher space hypothesis throws light on certain Psychic Phenomena
which, without its aid, appear extremely obscure and difficult of
explanation, but I shall make no attempt to cover the whole range of
phenomena known to students.
Some are not yet, in my opinion, sufficiently well authenticated
to necessitate consideration, and those which are, some--such as
Telekinesis, Prevision, and certain aspects of unconsciousness--are
more conveniently treated in later chapters; others are so mysterious
as to render any attempt at explanation premature until we have a wider
and firmer foundation of fact on which to build; others again, such
as thought transference or Telepathy, will probably prove explicable
without introducing the Higher Space hypothesis in any direct
connection.
There are some, however, which may well be considered here.
The first, and by far the most important problem which confronts us
in attempting to form an idea of post-mortem conditions, or of the
existence of personality apart from the physical body, lies in the fact
that we cannot conceive of personality as absolutely disembodied--as
pure essence. Yet we know that if personality does in fact survive
physical death, it must do so in some form, completely non-material
in the ordinary sense of the word, which is invisible, impalpable, in
short entirely imperceptible, to our normal senses.
Probably it is the difficulty of conceiving such a mode of existence
which has chiefly prevented physical scientists, as a whole, from
accepting the obvious interpretation of the evidence for Survival
offered by various Psychic phenomena.
Few people, I think, who have studied the literature of the subject,
would be prepared to deny that Survival is, at least, strongly
indicated by the evidence in question.
But this difficulty of conceiving a state of existence, at once
real and non-physical, has induced scientists to prefer to seek an
explanation of the observed facts in terms of Thought transference,
Secondary personality and so forth.[1]
But as soon as we introduce the concept of the Fourth Dimension this
difficulty disappears.
We have but to suppose that after physical death the Individual
consciousness is embodied in a vehicle organised, not from physical
matter, but from Four-dimensional matter, _i.e._, that which, in four
space, corresponds to what we call "Matter" in three space.
Such a vehicle fulfills the required conditions in every way. It is
scientifically real--that is to say, it has its habitat in a region as
subject to law and as susceptible to mathematical analysis as the three
dimensional world in which we at present live.
And yet it must be supposed to be, of its very nature, inapprehensible
by our normal physical senses.
We are thus enabled to understand how those who have left this physical
world may, although discarnate, be none the less as truly _alive_ as
ever, close to us and yet invisible, constantly in touch with us and
yet beyond our normal ken.
This is the first and supremely important application of the
hypothesis and it is impossible to over-emphasise it.
* * * * *
Of the more specific phenomena suitable for discussion here, I will
first deal with Clairvoyance.
This is probably far from being a simple phenomenon of unvarying
nature. There would appear to be at least four varieties and it is
possible that as our knowledge of the subject increases we shall come
to recognise still more.
The four at present distinguishable may be denoted as follows:--
(1) So-called "Etheric Clairvoyance." This is apparently no more than
a heightening of the ordinary powers of vision.
(2) Perception of objects and contemporary events more or less removed
in space from the percipient and invisible by ordinary means.
(3) Perception of non-material objects or events; as when a
clairvoyant describes the appearance of a deceased person alleged to
be present in "spirit form."
(4) Clairvoyance in time. That is to say the perception of future
events--Prevision--or of past events--Postvision.
Instances of each of these four forms are abundant and amply verified
except, perhaps, in the case of class 3 where verification is scarcely
possible.
It is easy to understand how clairvoyance of the first type arises. We
know that light consists of very rapid vibrations in the ether which
impinge upon the retina and cause the sensation of sight. We also know
that if a beam of white light is passed through a triangular glass
prism it is bent aside and split up into the seven colours of the
rainbow, viz., Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet.
The resulting band of colour is called a Spectrum. If the Spectrum so
obtained is thrown upon a screen and a number of people are asked to
mark thereon the limits of what they can see it will be found that
these limits vary considerably.
We know, too, that there is a wide range of light-vibrations beyond
the furthest of these visible limits, for although our eyes do not
respond to them the photographic plate does. We also know that some
of these vibrations will penetrate substances which are opaque to
ordinary light although the opposite is the case for some substances.
This is particularly the case with "ultra-violet" light which consists
of vibrations more rapid even than those of violet light which are
themselves the most rapid in all the visible spectrum. It seems
reasonable therefore to suppose that certain people with abnormal
retinæ or in an abnormal condition might be especially sensitive
to these ultra-violet rays and that they might not only see things
invisible to us but even see them _through_ obstacles which are opaque
to the sort of light to which normal eyes respond.
This explanation may serve for certain simple cases of clairvoyant
vision but it soon breaks down because the visual image of any object
seen in this way must be liable to confusion by the superimposed images
of intervening objects.
Suppose for instance that a clairvoyant wishes to see, by this method,
what is written on page 100 of a closed book. We will suppose that
the covers and paper of the book are transparent to some kind of
ultra-violet light to which the eye of the clairvoyant responds,
whereas the ink is opaque to the same light.
On looking at the book the writing on page 100 would be visible
all right, but so would that on the preceding 99 pages; it would,
therefore, be practically impossible to read the 100th page.
It will be seen, therefore, that clairvoyance of this type must be
of very limited scope and cannot be held to account for cases of the
second type where the clairvoyant perceives events happening at a
considerable distance, amounting in some instances to a matter of
hundreds of miles.
I freely admit that at present I am not prepared to give an explanation
of all cases where the distances involved are very large.
But to cases where the incidents or objects perceived are reasonably
near the percipient, the higher space hypothesis offers a simple and
elegant solution.
Consider the two dimensional analogue.
[Illustration: _Fig. 7_]
Suppose that "A" Fig. 7, represents a two-dimensional observer and that
X, Y, and Z are two-dimensional closed spaces, rooms, houses, or what
not. The interiors of these closed spaces will be invisible to "A."
All he will be able to see will be a straight line as at "B," for the
boundaries of X, Y, and Z will be opaque and impassable to him.
But now suppose that he were to be lifted up vertically, out of the
plane of the paper altogether. He would from this new position be
able to see the interiors of X, Y, and Z, together with any two space
incidents occurring therein. They would present approximately the
appearance shown in Fig. 7 and the degree of foreshortening would
diminish with the height to which he ascended above the plane of the
paper.
In a precisely analogous manner we must suppose that three-dimensional
obstructions do not exist for, and that the interiors of closed
three-dimensional spaces are entirely open to, anyone who could regard
them from a point situated in four space, _i.e._, removed from three
space to a suitable distance in the direction of the fourth dimension.
The greater this distance the less will be the foreshortening and the
greater will be the range of vision.
There would be no question of intervening objects obscuring the
view, simply because, in four space, three space objects do not
intervene--the view of X in Fig. 7 is in no way obscured by the
presence of Y or Z.
Compare with this the statements of many clairvoyants to the effect
that when in the clairvoyant state they can, and do, see the front,
sides, back, and every internal point of three space objects
simultaneously.
The parallel is almost irresistible in its significance. Compare also
the following case given by Professor de Morgan, and which is typical
of the very numerous cases of this nature on record.
In this case the percipient was a little girl who was undergoing
mesmeric treatment for fits by Mrs. de Morgan. While in the mesmeric
state she was desired to follow Professor de Morgan mentally to the
house at which he was dining and which was totally unknown to the
child. The girl got there at once and gave an accurate description of
the room in which the Professor was, the furniture which it contained,
the people to whom he was talking and various small incidents which
took place. On his return Professor de Morgan confirmed every detail of
the description.
This is, of course, a very condensed resumé of the occurrence.
Interested readers should consult contemporary Psychic literature
which abounds with such cases. The point is that no amount of retinal
hypersensibility will so much as begin to explain this sort of case,
whereas it is not so utterly incomprehensible when we introduce the
idea that the percipient may have been seeing four-dimensionally.
It is hardly necessary to observe that the sense organs involved cannot
be the physical eyes. They must be supposed to belong to the four
dimensional vehicle.
In attempting to explain this second type of clairvoyance along these
lines, there seem to be two main difficulties involved and these are
admittedly very great.
First, how is it that the four space vehicle possesses organs capable
of perceiving three space objects and incidents? One would expect it to
respond to four space impressions only.
Secondly, as soon as the distances involved become more than quite
small it is very difficult to conceive how the percipient can
simultaneously describe the events by the use of physical speech
mechanism and also perceive them from a point of view which must be
supposed to be very considerably removed in the direction of the fourth
dimension.
A correspondent of my own who appears to possess this power of
clairvoyance at a distance in a remarkable degree and to be able to
exercise it at will, tells me that when she is seeing a distant scene,
she is yet so closely in touch with her physical body that she is
conscious of moving her hand, for example.
It is difficult to account for this on the four dimensional or any
other theory.
I have no wish to minimise these difficulties or to claim that the
introduction of the Higher space hypothesis clears up the whole matter.
It does nothing of the sort.
But it does give us a dim inkling of what the general nature of the
causes at work may be, especially as regards the power of "internal
vision" mentioned above and which I particularly wish to emphasise.
This is more than can be said of any alternative theory with which I am
acquainted.
Future study will probably show that this class of phenomena is far
from simple and is really capable of being resolved into a number of
sub-classes, each requiring its own appropriate explanation.
It is interesting to note that Mr. C.W. Leadbeater, the well-known
Theosophical writer and clairvoyant, definitely introduces the
four-dimensional concept in his book on Clairvoyance and ascribes the
power of long-range perception to the intervention of what he calls an
"astral telescope"; but there would appear to be no evidence in support
of this idea beyond the _ipse dixit_ of the writer and even he is very
vague on the point.
The third form of clairvoyance, namely, the perception of non-physical
things, is readily explicable on the hypothesis which we are
considering.
Just as the physical body has sense organs adapted for the perception
of physical things, so the four-dimensional body or "vehicle" will
presumably possess analogous organs adapted for the perception of
four-dimensional things.
In ordinary persons, we must suppose either that these organs are
almost completely undeveloped, or else that the mechanism, whereby the
impressions received are conveyed to the consciousness and recorded as
memories, is defective or inhibited.
In the clairvoyant on the contrary we may suppose that they are well
developed and active and that he is able consciously to perceive by
their aid.
In advancing this explanation of the third form of clairvoyance, I do
not wish it to be thought that I attribute an objective origin to all
visions of objects which have no obviously physical reality.
Hallucination is often a _vera causa_ and indeed it is comparatively
seldom that we can eliminate it with certainty.
But I do not think it can legitimately be applied to all visions of
this class.
The point is of some interest and worthy of a moment's thought even
though it involves a digression from the main topic.
The essence of hallucination is that it should have a purely subjective
origin and be unfounded on objective reality.
If I were to look round and find my sofa occupied by three green
cassowaries playing nap I should, I think, be justified in assuming
that I was the victim of an hallucination having no foundation in
objective fact. It would, presumably, have arisen from a simultaneous
excitation of the memory centres associated with the game of nap,
cassowaries, the number three, and the sensation of greenness,
occasioned, more or less fortuitously, by over-work or alcoholic excess.
On the other hand if I were to see the figure of an old man with a
long white beard, one front tooth missing, shaggy eyebrows, black
velvet smoking jacket, gold watch and chain, and so forth and were
subsequently to find that such a person, answering the description in
every detail, and previously entirely unknown to me, had really once
lived, or was still living, then the view that this vision was the
result of pure hallucination, would be untenable.
The probabilities against any chance stimulation of memory centres
giving rise to precisely that combination of characteristics, are
immeasureably large.
In such cases--and they are by no means unknown--we must attribute some
degree of objectivity to the origin of the vision.
This is of importance in view of the tendency in some quarters to
dismiss all such visions as purely hallucinatory.
We shall see later that the problems connected with Prevision and
Postvision are also, if not completely explained, at least rendered
less utterly incomprehensible by the introduction of the higher space
hypothesis.
With the third class of clairvoyant phenomena is closely associated
that group of facts known as "Phantasms of the Living, of the Dying,
and of the Dead."
Certain aspects of the dream state, again, seem to be related to
clairvoyance at a distance and are conveniently dealt with here.
Let us follow up the idea of a four-dimensional vehicle and see what
light, if any, it throws on these questions.
Let us suppose that the four-dimensional vehicle becomes detached
from, and loses touch with, the three-dimensional physical body
during unconsciousness; or rather that unconsciousness is due to this
detachment.
It follows that the "Ego" embodied in this four-dimensional vehicle
can no longer receive impressions through the three-dimensional sense
organs and that it is wholly dependent for communication with the
outside world on those which belong to the four-dimensional vehicle.
The nature of the impressions received will depend on the degree of
development of these organs.
If they are completely undeveloped the Ego will be utterly oblivious
of its surroundings, whereas if they are well developed the reverse
will be the case and we may suppose the Ego to be as fully cognizant
of the surrounding world as we are in ordinary waking life. It is
interesting to compare with this the statements of those who claim
to have consciously explored the "Astral plane" or four space world.
They often describe sleepers as being present, but "in a brown study."
Compare also the statement often found in communications purporting to
emanate from discarnate personalities to the effect that, "We have seen
so-and-so, but do not know whether he is dead or not."
Of course, it by no means follows that it will be possible, even under
these latter conditions, to remember in waking life the impressions
received during unconsciousness. On the contrary we should expect this
to be the exception rather than the rule.
In their passage from sense organ to consciousness the impressions
received will, _ex hypothesi_, not pass through the physical brain and
the memory centres with which they become associated may be located in
a position which is inaccessible to consciousness when embodied in the
physical vehicle.
It would be possible, though not perhaps absolutely necessary, to
account on these lines for the impression which most people have
sometimes had, of apparently "remembering" a place which they have
certainly never visited previously in waking life. They might, however,
on this theory, have done so in sleep.
It would also account for those dreams in which the dreamer perceives
an incident at a distance which is subsequently verified.
As for the ordinary chaotic dream, this, it seems to me may be
accounted for in either of two main ways. If we suppose that the
stimulation of certain cells (memory centres) in the brain causes
an uprush into consciousness of the associated item of memory or
"souvenir," it is not unreasonable to suppose that such stimulation is
going on _in the body_ all the time. But it will only be in the state,
intermediate between profound sleep and waking, that these aroused
souvenirs will, on the one hand get through to the consciousness--which
in deep sleep is separated from the body altogether--and, on the other
will escape over-ruling by the Will or obliteration by the influx of
normal sensory impressions.
This would account for the fact that the majority of dreams appear to
be of very short duration and to take place in the very act of waking.
The other cause of ordinary dreams is probably in its general nature
suggestive. That is to say the Ego cut off from the outside world by
the imperfections of its four-dimensional senses is quiescent, and in
a state peculiarly favourable for the telepathic picking up of stray
thoughts which suggest dreams.
This of course is especially the case when the dream is deliberately
suggested by a hypnotic specialist, as is sometimes done.[2]
The subject of Phantasmal apparitions is also both complex in its
varieties and obscure as to its causes.
The commonest explanation, namely, the telepathic influence of the
percipient by the agent, does not seem to me to be applicable to every
case. For instance, it is difficult to conceive how a man shot through
the head can visualise himself sufficiently clearly at that moment to
project a telepathic image of himself, including the wound, to the
percipient. And, more generally, it is probable that few of us could
visualise our own appearance with sufficient accuracy to do more than
convey, telepathically, a vague general impression. On the other hand,
if we are to suppose that the details are filled up, so to speak, by
the percipient, how are we to explain accurate perception of clothing
and so forth of which the percipient could have no knowledge?
Finally, the whole telepathic theory seems weak in this respect. If
I in the act of death, vehemently long for, or think of, a certain
person, it is clear that the thought in my mind which is most likely
to be transmitted to the brain of a percipient will not be the thought
of myself--still less of my own appearance--but rather of the other
person. Why should this suggest _me_ to his mind?
In experimental telepathy it is the idea on which the agent
concentrated his mind that is transmitted to the percipient, not some
other idea, and I see no reason for supposing that this is not always
the case.
In cases where the apparition has been deliberately produced as the
result of an act of will on the part of the agent, the apparition has
invariably been preceded by the agent concentrating his mind on the
person to whom he wishes to appear, _not_ on himself.
In view of these considerations I frankly do not see how the telepathic
theory can be unreservedly maintained.
When we add that in some of these experimentally produced cases the
agent has himself seen the percipient and given details, subsequently
verified, of the circumstances prevailing at the percipient's end; and
then compare this with certain of the varieties of clairvoyance at a
distance, we must surely admit that the supposition that the agent was
really present, though not in the physical body, is by far the simplest
explanation.
For cases of this sort the reader should consult "Phantasms of the
Living." Some good selected instances are also given in "Death, it's
Causes and Phenomena," by Messrs. Carrington and Meader.
The idea that conscious existence in a vehicle other than the physical
body is possible even during life is borne out to some extent by the
evidence of those who testify to having seen their own body, from
outside, while in a state of unconsciousness. An interesting one is
given in the above mentioned work. The narrator describes how as he lay
in bed he felt a cold sensation creeping up his legs from the feet and
gradually extending throughout his body. After this had gone on for
some time he became momentarily unconscious and on coming to himself
again "seemed to be walking on air" and to be entirely free from his
body. He thought of a friend who was some hundreds of miles distant
and in a few seconds he found himself in the presence of his friend in
circumstances which he describes. His friend spoke to him but he could
not stay. After much difficulty and perplexity he decided that he ought
to return to his body and as soon as he had made up his mind on the
point he found himself looking at his apparently dead body propped up
in bed as he had been when this experience began. He tried to control
it and in due course was able to do so and after a time successfully
"re-embodied" himself apparently none the worse for his experiences.
The credentials of this case are good, and it is important to note that
the friend referred to wrote spontaneously to say that he had seen
the narrator at the time and in the circumstances which the latter
describes.
For this reason it can hardly be dismissed as a mere hallucination or
dream and it is relevant to the present discussion because the narrator
saw his own body from outside and was apparently embodied all the time
in a vehicle of some sort.
Another somewhat similar and equally remarkable case is given in the
same work. This I shall deal with in a later chapter. In view of the
foregoing considerations, I think it fair to say that the idea of
a non-physical vehicle of consciousness capable, under the proper
conditions, of temporary detachment from the physical body, has strong
claims to be adopted as a working hypothesis for future investigations
even though it is too early, as yet, to accept it as a proven fact.
It certainly seems to clear up certain cases of apparition and abnormal
acquisition of information as to distant events, in a way which other
theories do not do without being strained to an extent which I regard
as unwarrantable.
It seems probable that the chief reason why such an hypothesis has
not been adopted before is simply the difficulty of conceiving the
nature of such a vehicle. But this is overcome if we suppose that it is
four-dimensional.
The theory has, of course, its own attendant difficulties and I have no
desire disingenuously to ignore them.
First it may be asked: How does the percipient see the apparition?
For four-dimensional objects are, _ex hypothesi_ invisible to
three-dimensional sight.
Second: Why does the four-dimensional vehicle present the exact
appearance of the three-dimensional body--clothes and all?
Third: How can it speak, _i.e._, set up vibrations in three-dimensional
matter, as it is sometimes recorded as doing?
It is admittedly far from easy to answer these questions, in the light
of our present knowledge.
As regards the first, I should feel disposed to say that such
apparitions would be the rule rather than the exception, were it not
for the fact that only those whose four-dimensional organs are fairly
well developed can see them. Even so it may be that they are only
called into activity as a result of some special "rapport" existing
between the agent and the percipient.
Professor Joire, in his book "Psychical and Supernormal Phenomena"
points out that in nearly every case the percipient is in a state
which he describes as "superficial somnambulism or passive mediumship"
_i.e._, in some condition which from the facts of Hypnosis we may
consider to be especially favourable to the receiving of supernormal
impressions of any kind.
This observation appears highly relevant and important.
The second difficulty may be met, though not, I must admit, in a
particularly convincing manner, by supposing that the four-dimensional
vehicle is so mobile and plastic, in respect to appropriate forces,
that it is capable of being moulded by the mere power of will.
It would thus take the form which the agent commonly associated with
himself, or which he observed his physical body to have after he had
left it.
It would be possible to adduce a number of considerations in support of
this view, but none of them are in any way conclusive and I therefore
leave the reader to form his own opinion on the matter.
As regards the third point, there are two possible answers which might
be offered.
On the one hand it might be suggested that the words heard are really
objective; the result, that is to say of actual vibrations in the
atmosphere, and that this result is produced because, in all such
cases, the percipient is sufficiently mediumistic to provide the
necessary material for the agent to "work up" some form of speaking
apparatus. This is very difficult to conceive as possible, and yet we
must suppose some such process to be involved in the production of
the "Direct Voice," a phenomenon which, though baffling, seems well
authenticated.
But this is rendered improbable by the cases where the speaking agent
has been a living person, who records no such process as having taken
place.
Besides, it is grossly improbable that a living person, or for that
matter a newly 'dead' person, would know how to perform this operation.
The most probable explanation seems to be a combination of telepathic
communication between the agent and the percipient accompanied by an
auditory hallucination on the part of the latter. This would be, I
think, quite natural.
These difficulties are much reduced, though not entirely removed, if
we suppose that the agent is embodied, not in the four-dimensional
vehicle, but in what, for lack of a better word, is called the "Etheric
Double." This appears to be of a semi-material nature and is discussed
at length in the chapter dealing with "The Connecting Link."
But this supposition would involve special difficulties of its own.
There is reason to suppose that the "Etheric Double," if it exists at
all, is incapable of moving far from the physical body during life and
it does not appear well adapted for use as a vehicle after death.
But on this point I shall have more to say later.
Generally speaking, it seems probable that no one of these explanations
will be found to cover all the cases in question. But each is likely to
prove applicable to some of them, although much careful investigation
and analysis will be necessary before we can hope to be able to allot
each case to its true cause with any degree of assurance.
None the less I am convinced that the hypothesis of a four-dimensional
vehicle, detachable on occasion from the physical body, puts us, at
least, on the right track.
I will now turn to the consideration of a series of phenomena which,
from the point of view of the higher space hypothesis, are of far
greater interest and significance than any we have yet considered.
I refer to the phenomena of "apport" and of "apparent penetration of
matter by matter."
If we have a closed room, of which all the windows, doors, and other
apertures have been carefully shut and sealed, it is clearly impossible
to introduce any solid object into that room, by normal means, without
breaking the seals and opening one of the apertures. The same would
apply to a closed, locked and sealed box.
But the literature of Psychical research abounds with instances where
objects are alleged to have been introduced into such closed and
sealed rooms and boxes--or removed from them, which comes to the same
thing--_without_ breaking the seals. This is the phenomenon of "apport"
properly so called and it forms a special case of the more general
class of "apparent penetration of matter by matter."
Other cases of the latter are the tying of knots in an endless cord
of such a nature that they can only be untied by breaking the cord or
separating its previously sealed ends; or the passing, on to the wrist
or ankle of some person or other, of a ring so small that it could not
possibly be pushed on over the hand or foot.
A very good test would be the interlinking of two rings turned from
different sorts of wood--as was attempted without success in the
Slade-Zöllner investigation; or the passing of a piece of weldless
drawn steel tube on to the middle portion of an ordinary wooden
dumb-bell.
With regard to these phenomena I propose, first, to show in what their
very great importance lies and then to discuss the nature of the
evidence we have for their actual occurrence.
If the reader will refer back to the first chapter, he will at once
perceive why I laid what must have appeared to be unnecessary
stress on the fact that "rooms" and "boxes" which would appear to be
absolutely closed to a two space being would be perfectly open to us
who live in a three space world. Just as every point in the interior
of a two space figure is absolutely open in the direction of the third
dimension, so we must suppose from analogy that the interior of a
closed three space figure--a box or room--is perfectly accessible from
the direction of the fourth dimension.
Consequently on the hypothesis that four space actually exists as
a reality, and is peopled by intelligent beings, possessed of the
necessary "apparatus"--whatever that may be--the explanation of the
phenomenon of apport is quite simple.
We have only to suppose that the object in question is moved out of the
containing space, in the direction of the fourth dimension, and then
put down again into three space outside the box or room in which it
originally was. Or conversely, when it is a question of introducing an
object _into_ a closed space.
During transit, the object would, of course, be located entirely
outside of three space.
I will not go at length into the question of how the tying of knots
in an endless cord could be performed in four space. Any reader who
cares to tie together the two ends of a piece of string for himself,
will soon realise that it is not possible then to tie a simple knot
in the string without untying the ends. If such an operation were to
be performed, under test conditions, it would clearly be a case of
apparent penetration of matter by matter.
Consider this case which is analogous to that of the steel tube and the
dumb-bell suggested above:
Let A and B be two space objects. Fig 8. A two space being could not
conceive of their being brought into the second position shown in the
figure.
[Illustration: _Fig. 8_]
But we, having the advantage of a third dimension of space could very
easily pick up the object A and put it down in the second position with
regard to B. Similarly a four space being of sufficient knowledge and
manipulative ability could, theoretically, slip on to the middle part
of the dumb-bell a piece of steel tube of a diameter too small to be
passed over the two large ends. There are, of course, a large number of
variations which could be introduced into this class of experiment but
the foregoing will be sufficient to indicate their salient features.
For the purpose of detailed consideration I shall deal only with the
case of the removal of a solid object from the interior of a closed and
sealed box, which is typical of the whole of this class of phenomena.
Let it be clearly understood that at the moment I am not expressing
any opinion as to whether this or any allied phenomenon has actually
occurred. I am concerned merely with the inferences we should
be compelled to draw if such an occurrence were substantiated
scientifically beyond all possibility of doubt.
We have seen that given four-dimensional space as a reality and
an intelligent four-dimensional being equipped with the necessary
knowledge, powers, facilities and so forth, which I have included
under the general term of "apparatus" the thing could be done in a
comparatively comprehensible manner, although the actual manipulative
details would still require clearing up.
The question now arises: Is this the only conceivable _modus operandi_
that could bring about the same result? It is not. There is one other,
and so far as I know only one other, theory which has been advanced to
account for this type of phenomenon.
It has been supposed that the solid object in question is dissociated,
by some obscure means, into ultra-atomic particles, is passed in this
condition through the walls of the box and finally "integrated" again
into its original form outside the box.
Now, apart from the obvious difficulty of imagining how these
ultra-atomic particles are integrated into the precise form originally
possessed by the object, this theory has at first sight a certain
plausibility.
We know that all matter is probably susceptible of dissociation in a
fashion that was originally supposed to be the exclusive property of
Radium and other Radio-active substances.[3]
If, then, we postulate the existence of intelligent beings in a
non-physical state of existence, there is nothing to prevent us from
supposing that certain of them have acquired a sufficient knowledge
of physical laws to enable them to effect a process of this nature
artificially.
I do not say that this idea commends itself to me; but it is the
explanation most commonly offered for the phenomena in question, and
this fact taken in conjunction with its _prima facie_ plausibility,
entitles it to careful consideration before we dismiss it as untenable.
The real objection to it is a mere matter of Physics. The work of
the scientists mentioned above goes to show that what we call matter
is no more than a condensation of energy in the ether; and that the
dissociation of matter is invariably accompanied by an enormous
liberation of energy.
For calculations on this point the reader may refer to M. Le Bon's book
"The Evolution of Matter."
Without going into such calculations it may be said that the amount
of energy that would be liberated in the dissociation of a gramme of
matter, would be amply sufficient, if it were produced in the form of
heat, to fuse, and for that matter vaporise, the experimenters, the
room, the whole house, and probably about half the town as well!
What becomes of this enormous quantity of energy which must be
liberated during the process if the dissociation theory of the
phenomena is correct? Why is its liberation not apparent, and painfully
apparent, to the experimenters? How is it prevented from being
dissipated and how is it collected again and recondensed into matter?
This point seems to me to be insuperable.
If the object within the box is dissociated, then energy must
inevitably be liberated. If energy is liberated, then it cannot
conceivably escape detection in such quantities.
I hope I have made my point clear. I am quite sure that any scientist
accustomed to think in terms of energy will at once see the difficulty
to which I allude.
I can see only one way out and that is to suppose that in some
mysterious manner the liberated energy is stored in a "reservoir," so
to speak, _which is not situated in our space at all_, and this at once
lets us in for the original idea of a fourth dimension and higher space
and all the rest of it.
Hence I maintain, and I think I have reason to maintain, that if
these phenomena do actually occur at all, then we are compelled to
admit that four-dimensional space does actually exist; and this no
matter whether we accept as the proximate cause of the phenomena a
simple four-dimensional movement or the far more elaborate and less
satisfactory notion of dissociation and re-integration.
The reader will now understand why it is that I attach such great
importance to these phenomena of apport and of the "apparent
penetration of matter by matter."
If one of these phenomena could be established by absolutely
incontrovertible experimental evidence, with the same degree of
certainty, for instance, as the phenomenon of levitation without
contact has been established by the recent researches of Crawford, I
should regard the four-dimensional hypothesis as virtually proven.
I should be much interested to hear whether any interested reader can
get out of the difficulty, assuming the authenticity of the phenomenon
for the sake of argument, but I do not think that it will prove
possible.
* * * * *
I will now pass to the consideration of the nature of the evidence that
exists for the actual occurrence of this sort of phenomenon.
I will preface my remarks by two quotations from writers who appear to
hold somewhat different views on the subject.
In "The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism" Mr. Hereward Carrington
says:
"Without now stopping to consider any _a priori_ speculations as to
the scientific possibility or impossibility of such a thing; the
mere historic evidence in the case would certainly seem to point to
the conclusion that fraud and nothing but fraud has been operative
throughout and is quite sufficient to account for all the phenomena
observed (save in the case of W.S. Moses, perhaps, that stumbling
block to the rationalistic psychical researcher), in the presence of
professional mediums.... In fact _all_ these cases sift themselves
down to the one primary consideration: could the medium, in spite of
the searching, have introduced into the séance room, unseen by his
sitters, the objects materialised."
It should be noted that the above refers to cases where the séance room
is found, after the sitting, to contain objects which were certainly
not there before. In this connection the last sentence of the passage
quoted above is eminently justifiable and it is for this reason that I
prefer to deal with varieties of the phenomenon which are more amenable
to experimental control on the part of the experimenter; as for
instance the removal of a solid object from the sealed box which we are
considering.
Compare with this first quotation the following taken from Mr. Gambier
Bolton's book "Psychic Force."
"During my sixteen years of experimental investigation into the
question of the existence of this Psychic Force, the apparent
penetration of matter by matter has been such a common occurrence at
our experimental meetings, that unless this happens to take place
in connection with some unusually large and ponderous object that
is suddenly brought into our midst, or removed from the place where
we are holding our meetings, I take but very little note of it. I
could fill a large volume with instances where this has taken place
in my own presence.... I am not engaged in an attempt to explain
such things, but am merely recording phenomena which I myself have
witnessed and which have been witnessed hundreds, nay thousands, of
times by well-known investigators like Sir William Crookes and Dr.
Alfred Russel Wallace under the strictest test conditions."
These two views are, to say the least of it, somewhat divergent. We
must, therefore, see what is to be gathered from such original records
as are available.
The _locus classicus_ of this sort of phenomenon is the Slade-Zöllner
investigation of 1877-9.
This investigation has received so much attention that it is impossible
to avoid giving it somewhat careful consideration here.
Johann Carl Friedrich Zöllner was born in 1834. He was Professor
of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leipsic, a member of
many learned and scientific societies and the author of a number of
scientific treatises.
He was assisted, from time to time, in his investigations by Professors
Weber, Fechner, and Scheibner all of whom were men of considerable
eminence in one branch or another of mathematical or physical science.
The medium in whose presence the phenomena were produced was the
well-known "Dr." Slade. This medium has been demonstrated to have
resorted to fraud with a certainty that admits of no dispute.
But, as Mr. Hereward Carrington points out, we ought not to allow this
fact to influence us in the consideration of any particular case. In
the first place it is fairly certain that mediums who are capable of
producing genuine phenomena under suitable conditions are also liable
to resort to trickery when the genuine thing does not come off. (Cp.
the case of Eusapia Palladino.) In the second, too great a reliance
on antecedents is apt to produce an unreliable _a priori_ prejudice.
Every case should be considered on its merits alone and the medium's
past history should only be allowed to influence our judgment if it can
be shown that fraud has not been rigorously excluded and that the only
argument against it is the argument from moral integrity.
In this case the argument from integrity is obviously inadmissible and
as a matter of fact the precautions taken to guard against fraud were
so very inadequate that we cannot accept the experiments in question
as worth anything at all from the scientific point of view.
Zöllner's account of his experiments is to be found in his book
"Transcendental Physics," translated into English by Mr. C.C. Massey
in whom the author found an able and enthusiastic champion against his
many critics.
Among the more important of his experiments were:
Production of knots in an endless string.
Slate writing under "test" conditions.
Disappearance and reappearance of solid objects.
Coins transferred from closed and fastened boxes.
Other instances of the apparent penetration of matter by matter.
The careful study of this book is of the greatest value as an exercise
in the criticism of evidence and as a guide for anyone who proposes to
study such matters at first hand.
I do not think that I can illustrate my meaning better than by a
description of my own impressions in connection with the book.
When I first read it I was much impressed by the scientific eminence of
those who bore witness to the authenticity of the events described.
I reflected that here we had a Physicist of no mean order, assisted
by other scientists of European reputation, men trained, presumably,
in the art of exact observation and not likely to be deceived by the
manipulations of a conjuror. Surely we must believe their testimony if
we are to assign any value to human evidence at all!
Then, as I thought over the matter more and became more convinced of
the importance of the conclusions to be drawn from these experiments,
if genuine, I felt that these considerations, although possessed of
their own importance, were yet not sufficient to warrant acceptance of
the evidence without careful examination of the intrinsic qualities of
the latter.
On further study of the book I was struck by the fact that not
one of the special experiments, carefully designed by Zöllner to
establish the genuineness of the phenomena and the validity of the
four-dimensional explanation beyond all doubt, had succeeded. This was
suspicious, although not, of course, conclusive. Specially devised test
experiments may very likely fail simply because they may involve the
upsetting of some essential condition which is not fully understood
by the experimenter. But when such experiments fail, while others of,
apparently, identical general nature succeed, it gives one cause for
thought.
Finally, when I came to examine the records of individual experiments
in the light of the criticisms of Mr. Carrington, of Dr. Hyslop and
others, I realised that the nature of the evidence was emphatically
_not_ good enough to justify our accepting as demonstrated the facts
which Zöllner claimed to have established.
I shall not waste my own time and that of the reader by giving numerous
instances of the sort of thing I mean.
I will confine myself to the case that we are more especially
considering as being typical of the whole of this class of phenomena,
_i.e._, the case of the removal of a coin from a closed and fastened
box.
Zöllner describes how in December 1877 he put some coins in a small
cardboard box and had closed it by glueing a strip of paper round the
sides. He had done this in the expressed hope that Slade might be able
to remove them and thus give a proof of the reality of the fourth
dimension which was Zöllner's pet hobby. In May 1878 Slade came again
to Leipsic and performed the feat, at any rate to the satisfaction of
Zöllner.
The box was put on a table together with some slates and other objects
and Slade and Zöllner and his colleagues sat round. Zöllner satisfied
himself by shaking the box that the coin was still inside and in
answer to Slade's enquiries explained the purpose of the experiment
and its importance if successful. There was a little preliminary slate
writing and then Slade began staring into a corner of the room and
saying "I see funf and eighteen hundred seventy six." Then a hard
object was heard to fall on the slate which Slade had held under the
table all the time and on withdrawing the slate it was found to be a
five mark piece of date 1876. Zöllner then snatched up the cardboard
box and shook it only to find that it was empty.
This is a very highly condensed description of the proceedings but I
do not think I have been guilty either of "_suggestio falsi_" or of
"_suppressio veri_".
Interested readers can refer to the original.
Now, if Zöllner had been writing no more than a casual account of a
well-known experiment, inserted for the sake of completeness or for
similar reasons, it would be well enough.
But to offer his account, in the face of a very natural scientific
incredulity, as a conclusive demonstration of a highly controversial
point, was an insult to one's intelligence.
There are numerous criticisms that might be made, but I shall confine
myself to pointing out only the more conspicuous of them.
In this experiment there are two main methods by which the result might
have been obtained by fraudulent means.
There seems no doubt that the coin was really in the box at the
beginning of the sitting. We may equally accept the statement that the
box shaken at the end of the experiment did not contain a coin.
On the hypothesis of fraud, therefore, one of two things must have
happened.
Either Slade must have contrived, during the sitting, to possess
himself of the box, open it, abstract the coin, close the box again,
and return it to the table; or else he must have substituted for the
box, which at the beginning of the sitting contained the coin, another
(empty) box, previously prepared to resemble the original.
I do not think the former method to be at all likely.
One cannot unstick a length of glued paper and stick it up again in a
few seconds unobserved.
On the other hand everything lends itself to the supposition that the
second method was actually adopted.
In the first place we know that the box was prepared some six months
previous to the experiment.
It is true that Zöllner is a trifle hazy as to dates, saying at the
outset that Slade's first visit to Leipsic was in December 1877, and,
later, that the first and second visits were in November and December
1877.
But this is comparatively immaterial, the point being that Slade had
presumably had ample time and opportunity for finding out all about
these boxes and for preparing substitutes. I say "presumably" because
in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary, we have no reason
to suppose that these boxes were kept in an inaccessible place or that
Zöllner had never mentioned his intentions with regard to them to
Slade himself or to anyone else. I consider then that so far as the
records go, we are perfectly entitled to suppose that Slade was able to
prepare, and, in fact, actually did prepare, an empty counterfeit box,
externally similar to that prepared by Zöllner. The second, and almost
incredible, point to be noticed is that apparently no steps of any sort
were taken by Zöllner to identify either the box or the coin after the
sitting with those originally prepared by him.
In fact, he definitely says that he had completely forgotten, indeed
had never so much as observed, the value or dates of the coins used!
With such gross carelessness in the control, the trick becomes
exceptionally easy to perform.
Slade goes to the séance armed, among other things, with an empty,
counterfeit box resembling Zöllner's, also with a five-mark piece of
the right date--I think that even Zöllner would have been suspicious
if the coin that fell on the slate had been dated 1878! Zöllner shakes
_his_ box--the genuine one--and satisfies himself that the coin is
really there. Then follows a little preliminary play with the slate and
so on, the simplest matter in the world to an artist like Slade. At the
critical moment Slade diverts the attention of the experimenters from
the table by the world-old conjuror's dodge of gazing fixedly in some
other direction and murmuring "I see--see--funf," etc. While Zöllner
and his colleagues are glancing in the same direction to see what he
is looking at, Slade swiftly substitutes his counterfeit box for the
original, and the trick is to all intents and purposes done. All he has
now to do is to drop the coin which he brought with him on to the slate
at any convenient moment and draw out the latter in triumph!
Given the astounding guilelessness of Zöllner and the complete lack of
control revealed by the records, the thing was absurdly simple.
And yet Zöllner refers to it as having been performed under "such
stringent conditions!"
The foregoing example will, I hope, make quite clear how much
importance I attach to the Slade-Zöllner investigations.
I am not prepared to say that Slade never produced genuine phenomena,
either with Zöllner or with anyone else.
On the contrary, I think it probable that he possessed a certain amount
of genuine mediumistic power which, however, he did not hesitate to
supplement by cheating when occasion offered.
Some, or for that matter all, of the Slade-Zöllner experiments may
happen to have been genuine. But in view of the known untrustworthiness
of Slade and the complete lack of proper scientific control revealed
by a study of the published records we must write them off as quite
valueless from a scientific point of view.
I have dealt with this particular case at some length partly on account
of the vehemence of the controversies which have raged round it and
partly because the discrediting of Zöllner's observations has done much
to bring the whole idea of the fourth dimension into disfavour and even
into ridicule. This, I feel, is unfair and I wish to make it clear that
my present advocacy of the claims of the higher space hypothesis is in
no way based on the Zöllner experiments.
There are, of course, in the literature of the subject a large number
of other cases which are not so obviously unreliable--some, in fact,
which are distinctly good.
Dr. S.A. Peters gives an account of an early experiment by Dr.
Hare--one of the pioneer investigators--in which two small balls of
platinum were transferred to the inside of two hermetically sealed
glass tubes. It is not a bad case but is a very old one and the record
gives no particulars of any special precautions taken to exclude fraud.
The Milan Committee appointed to investigate the mediumship of Eusapia
Palladino failed to obtain any confirmation of Zöllner's experiments,
but they seem to have been puzzled by an unaccountable incident where
the medium managed to get into, or partially into, a coat while her
hands were being held by the Committee. I do not myself regard this
case as convincing.
The American Society for Psychical Research recorded some observations
with a Mrs. Roberts of New York, who managed to liberate herself from a
carefully made and sealed cage which was closed and sealed by members
of the investigating committee. I do not know anything at first-hand
about the credentials of this case. Dr. Paul Joire quotes it and I
suppose, therefore, that he considers it reliable.
The same author also quotes at length a case observed by Dr. Pogorelsky
and other Russian investigators with the medium Sambor. In this case a
cane chair was passed on to the arms of two of the experimenters whose
hands were clasped and bound together. That is to say, whereas to start
with the chair was by itself and independent of them it was, at the
end of the proceedings, found suspended from their arms by the opening
at the back. As the opening was too small for either of them to have
wriggled through even if they had wished to do so this was a clear case
of apparent penetration of matter by matter.
The evidence in this case seems to be well above the average although
it cannot be said to amount to mathematical certainty.
Mr. Gambier Bolton gives a distinctly good case in his book "Psychic
Force," p. 65. Under exceptionally favourable conditions he observed
the removal of a light table from a sort of tent which he had
constructed and very carefully closed and secured. This is one of the
best cases I know; it took place in the observer's own room, it was
done impromptu, it was well observed in light, and all the objects
concerned were the observer's property and not of a kind to admit of
prestidigitation. It is difficult to see any way out of it and yet I
must confess that I am not wholly satisfied. I feel that in every case
there is just something more needed to carry complete conviction and I
should very much like to see a good case myself.
Other instances are common. The records of the mediumship of Stainton
Moses, for instance, abound with them. But as there were never any
test conditions imposed, so far as I am aware, it follows that the
question of the genuineness of the phenomena is simply a matter of
the integrity of the medium. On this point every reader must be left
to form his own opinion. Many authorities have professed the greatest
confidence in Moses. Mr. Podmore, on the other hand, presents the
suspicious features of the case in a very able criticism in his "Modern
Spiritualism." Anyway on a point of such importance as this I do not
think it would be right to allow the matter to be settled by any purely
moral considerations of the type adduced in the case of Moses.
In general, then, I should say that the phenomena of the apparent
penetration of matter by matter are not established with the same
degree of certainty which characterises certain other phenomena, and
which we ought to demand before accepting them as scientifically proven
or utilising them without reserve as a basis for the construction of
theories.
In the interests of the science it is in the highest degree important
that experiments of this nature should be carried out under real test
conditions.
Should any of my readers be so fortunate as to be acquainted with any
medium capable of producing these very rare phenomena with regularity,
I should esteem it a great favour if they would kindly inform me. I
would very much like to arrange some definite experiments to settle the
matter--if possible once and for all.
There is one other direction from which, in my opinion, we receive a
strong hint that four-dimensional space is intimately connected with
Psychic phenomena.
I refer to Crawford's work on table levitation. This investigation
is undoubtedly destined to take rank as a "classical" research of
the first magnitude and no one who professes to take an intelligent
interest in the scientific and experimental aspects of Psychic
investigations can afford to be without his book.[4]
In a later chapter I shall have occasion to refer to certain aspects
of his results and to show how they fit in with those of other
investigators working on very different lines.
In the present context I propose only to call attention to the rigidity
of his "cantilever," a phrase which perhaps needs some explanation.
As a result of the most careful and painstaking researches extending
over a period of nearly three years and performed under conditions
which were singularly favourable for observation, he has been enabled
to arrive at certain definite conclusions as to the mechanical causes
of telekinesis in general and table levitation without contact in
particular.
He finds that when the table is lifted clear of the floor it is
supported by a definite structure or cantilever. This structure is
invisible and impalpable, or nearly so, and appears to be organised out
of some form of matter actually taken from the body of the medium.
Dr. Crawford has been able to work out the form and size of this
structure with considerable accuracy. For the details of method and
results the reader should consult his book. It is possible to pass a
thin rod through this structure in any direction without causing a
breakdown, and without encountering any perceptible resistance.
Nevertheless the structure can resist compressional, tensional and
torsional stresses of very considerable magnitude as I am able to
testify from personal experience.
I may mention here that I have witnessed these phenomena myself under
good observing conditions and that I am prepared to certify in the most
unequivocal manner that they are absolutely authentic; that is to say
the result neither of fraud--conscious or unconscious--nor of illusion.
Indeed, I do not suppose that an intelligent person could suppose
them to be due to anything of the sort after a careful study of Dr.
Crawford's book, quite apart from any personal observation and I only
add my own testimony as a small make-weight for what it may be worth.
We are here confronted with a sort of mechanical paradox. How can we
conceive that the structure manages to combine the contrary attributes
of rigidity and impalpability? Rigidity means simply the power of
resisting deformation under stress. That is to say that in order for a
body to be rigid it must be capable of developing within itself forces
which shall counteract those which tend to deform it. If we apply a
stress--a deforming force--to a rigid body, then this force must be met
by some opposing force; otherwise the body will be deformed. Normally
this is a matter of molecular cohesion, etc.
Now, this structure resists deformation under stress, and it therefore
follows that the deforming forces must be counteracted by opposing
forces.
But the structure is impalpable, and we can pass a rod through it in
any direction without encountering any resistance.
This being so it is difficult to conceive how the forces resisting
deformation can be applied from any direction in which we can move the
rod, _i.e._, from any direction known and accessible to us.
The more one tries to think out what is involved in the idea of an
impalpable and yet rigid structure, the more hopeless it seems.
But I think that the concept of four-dimensional space will help us
even here.
We know two things. First that the structure is rigid and therefore
that the deforming stresses are counteracted by opposing forces and,
second, that these opposing forces are apparently not applied from
any direction with which we are acquainted. But is it not possible
that they may be applied from some direction with which we are _not_
acquainted?
From some direction, in fact, of which the hypothetical fourth
rectangular axis of space is a component.
Is it possible that the matter which is drawn from the body of the
medium, and which forms the structure, is composed of molecules whose
atoms are arranged not in space of three dimensions but in space of
four dimensions?
I do not say that this is necessarily so; but I must confess that to
me it looks rather like it. Still less am I prepared to say that the
atoms are arranged four dimensionally. We do not know enough for that
yet. But it is, I think, a possibility, although for all I know to the
contrary there may be many other ways in which forces operating in four
space might act on three-dimensional atoms and molecules.
Consider a two-dimensional analogy again.
Imagine a number of flat-headed drawing pins lying points upward on
a flat surface. Taken collectively as a system they will have no
rigidity. Now imagine a board pressed down on those points so that
they penetrate into the board. The points and the board alike will
be invisible to the two space beings inhabiting the surface and yet
the drawing-pins, taken collectively as a system would have acquired
rigidity. Deforming stresses would be resisted by cohesive forces
operating outside the two space surface altogether.
This analogy is, naturally, imperfect; but I think that it enables us
to form some idea of the way in which the rigidity of the levitating
structure might result from its being held together by binding forces
operating outside our space.
The only alternative is to suppose that the particles of which the
structure is composed are rendered rigid by virtue of some peculiar
motion of the ether of a nature entirely unknown to us and different
from any type of ethereal motion with which we are at present
acquainted. This is palpably unsatisfactory and has the grave defect,
in an explanation, of failing even to begin to explain.
In an article published in "Light," for July 14, 1917, I discussed this
point in somewhat greater detail.
This is all that I have to say with respect to the phenomena which are
essentially "Psychical." In the next chapter I shall deal with two
other applications of the theory to more general questions.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: Far be it from me to suggest that these last-mentioned
factors play no part in the phenomena. On the contrary, their effect is
at least very considerable, and does much to obscure and complicate the
work of interpretation.]
[Footnote 2: NOTE.--The foregoing remarks on the subject of Dreams
might be taken to imply an ignorance of the views inaugurated by
Freud, and extended by Jung, Pfister, and others of the Psychoanalytic
school. But I do not think that there is any fundamental contradiction
involved. Even if, as this school tends to maintain, there is no
dream without it's hidden and esoteric meaning, it is still perfectly
legitimate to suppose that the _form_ which a dream takes may be
determined by causes of the type which I have been discussing here.
These would provide the raw material so to speak which would be worked
up into the finished dream in accordance with Freudian principles.]
[Footnote 3: Compare the recent work of Rutherford, Soddy, Le Bon and
others.]
[Footnote 4: "The Reality of Psychical Phenomena" (Watkins).]