phenomena with the phenomena of the astral-senses. Each plane has its own phenomena—and each class is surely wonderful enough. And, again, remember that both physical and astral phenomena are purely natural; there is no need for seeking any supernatural agencies to account for these natural facts.
LESSON IV.
SCIENTIFIC TELEPATHY
The investigators of the Society for Psychical Research, of England, started by giving a broad definition of Telepathy, as follows: "Telepathy is the communication of impressions of any kind from one mind to another, independently of the recognized channels of sense." They took the rational position that the actual distance between the projector and the recipient of the telepathic message is not material; and that all that is required is such a separation of the two persons that no known operation of the senses can bridge the space between them. They wisely held that telepathy between two persons in the same room is as much telepathy as when the two persons are located at opposite sides of the world.
The investigators then ruled out all instances of thought-transmission in which there was even the slightest muscular contact between the projector and the recipient. They held that though there might be genuine telepathy in such cases, nevertheless, there was always the possibility of fraud or collusion, or of unconscious muscular action on the part of the projector. They demanded absolute and actual separation of the two persons, in order that their experiments might be above suspicion. They were wise in this, for while there is undoubtedly a psychic communication in the cases in which there is the slight physical connection between the two persons (as I shall point out to you a little further on), still the element of doubt or suspicion must be entirely eliminated from a scientific test, in order to render it valuable and valid.
They, therefore, confined their investigations in Telepathy to the two following classes, viz.: (1) where actions are performed without physical contact with the person willing; and (2) where some number, word, or card is guessed apparently without any of the ordinary means of communication. The investigators recognized the possibility that in the first of the above-mentioned two classes of experiments there is a possibility of suspicion of collusion, fraud, or unconscious suggestion, in the matter of the motion of the eyes of the party, or some member of it, which might be seized upon, perhaps unconsciously, by the recipient, and used to guide him to the object which was being thought of by the projector or the party. They sought to obviate this difficulty by blindfolding the percipient, and by placing non-conductors of sound over his ears. But, finally, they came to the conclusion that even these precautions might not prove sufficient; and, accordingly, they devoted their attention to the second class of experiments, in which all ordinary means of communication between projector and recipient were impossible. They took the additional precautions of limiting their circle to a small number of investigators of scientific reputations, and well known to each other, always avoiding a promiscuous company for obvious reasons.
One of the earliest series of investigations by these special committees of investigators was that of the family of the Rev. A.M. Creery, in Derbyshire, England. The children of this family had acquired a reputation in what was known as the "guessing game," in which one of the children, previously placed outside of the room, then returned to the room and attempted to "guess" the name or location of some object agreed upon by the party during her absence. The results were very interesting, and quite satisfactory, and have frequently been referred to in works on the subject written since that time. I think it well to give the results of this series of experiments in some little detail, for they form a basis for experiments on the part of those who read these lessons.
Prof. W.F. Barrett, Professor of Physics in the Royal College of Science for Ireland, conducted the most of the experiments. The report to the Society says: "We began by selecting the simplest objects in the room; then chose names of towns, people, dates, cards out of a pack, lines from different poems, etc., in fact, any thing or series of ideas that those present could keep in their minds steadily. The children seldom made a mistake. I have seen seventeen cards chosen by myself named right in succession without any mistake. We soon found that a great deal depended on the steadiness with which the ideas were kept before the minds of the thinkers, and upon the energy with which they willed the ideas to pass. I may say that this faculty is not by any means confined to the members of one family; it is much more general than we imagine. To verify this conclusion, I invited two of a neighbor's children to join us in our experiments, with excellent results."
The report gives the methods of the experiments, as follows: "The inquiry has taken place partly in Mr. Creery's house, and partly in lodgings, or at a hotel occupied by some of our number. Having selected at random one child, whom we desired to leave the room and wait at some distance, we would choose a pack of cards, or write on a piece of paper a name of a number which occurred to us at the moment. Generally, but not always, this was shown to the members of the family present in the room; but no one member was always present, and we were sometimes entirely alone. We then recalled the child, one of us always assuring himself that, when the door was suddenly opened, she was at a considerable distance, though this was usually a superfluity of caution, as our habit was to avoid all utterances of what was chosen. On re-entering, she stood—sometimes turned by us with her face toward the wall, oftener with her eyes directed toward the ground, and usually close to us and remote from the family—for a period of silence varying from a few seconds to a minute, till she called out to us some number, card, or whatever it might be."
In the first experiments, in "guessing" the name of objects, the child guessed correctly six out of fourteen. She then guessed correctly the name of small objects held in the hands of one of the committee—five times out of six. She guessed fictitious names chosen by the committee—five out of ten, at the first trial. The committee then tested her by writing down the name of some object in the house, fixed at random, and then, after all had thought intently of the thing, they sent for the child and bade her try to find the thing thought of, the thought-concentration of course continuing during the search. The result is thus reported: "In this way I wrote down, among other things, a hair-brush—it was brought; an orange—it was brought; a wine-glass—it was brought; an apple—it was brought; and so on, until many objects had been selected and found by the child."
Passing over the details of many other experiments we find that the following remarkable results were obtained by the committee: "Altogether, three hundred and eighty-two trials were made in this series. In the case of letters of the alphabet, of cards, and of numbers of two figures, the chances of success on a first trial would naturally be 25 to 1, 52 to 1, and 89 to 1, respectively; in the case of surnames they would of course be infinitely greater. Cards were far most frequently employed, and the odds in their case may be taken as a fair medium sample, according to which, out of a whole series of three hundred and eighty-two trials, the average number of successes at the first attempt by an ordinary guesser would be seven and one-third. Of our trials, one hundred and twenty-seven were successes on the first attempt, fifty-six on the second, nineteen on the third—MAKING TWO HUNDRED AND TWO, OUT OF A POSSIBLE THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO!" Think of this, while the law of averages called for only seven and one-third successes at first trial, the children obtained one hundred and twenty-seven, which, given a second and third trial, they raised to two hundred and two! You see, this takes the matter entirely out of the possibility of coincidence or mathematical probability.
But this was not all. Listen to the further report of the committee on this point: "The following was the result of one of the series. The thing selected was divulged to none of the family, and five cards running were named correctly on a first trial. The odds against this happening once in a series were considerably over a million to one. There were other similar batches, the two longest runs being eight consecutive guesses, once with cards, and once with names; where the adverse odds in the former case were over one hundred and forty-two millions to one; and in the other, something incalculably greater." The opinion of eminent mathematicians who have examined the above results is that the hypothesis of mere coincidence is practically excluded in the scientific consideration of the matter. The committee calls special attention to the fact that in many of the most important tests none of the
