CHAPTER II.

EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS IN THE NORMAL STATE.

It is somewhat remarkable that the facts of thought-transference should only have attracted serious attention within the last two decades. With waking percipients, indeed, such phenomena do not seem to occur unsought with sufficient frequency, or--if we leave on one side for the moment telepathic hallucinations--on a sufficiently striking scale to afford evidence of any transmission of thought or sensation otherwise than through the familiar channels. But the hypnotic state appears to offer peculiar facilities for such transmission, and hypnotism, under the name of mesmerism, has now been closely studied by numerous observers for upwards of a century. The earlier French observers,[15] indeed, occasionally recorded instances of what appears to have been thought-transference between the mesmerist and his subject. But these facts were observed by the way, in the search for phenomena of another kind; and no attempt appears to have been made to follow up the clue by means of direct experiment. Even the English observers of 1840 and onwards, though familiar with what they termed "community of sensation" between the operator and his subject, appear never to have realised its possible significance. Dr. Elliotson, for instance, describes in the _Zoist_ (vol. v. pp. 242-245) some experiments in which a lady, mesmerised by himself, was able to indicate correctly the taste of salt, cinnamon, sugar, ginger, water, and pepper, as Dr. Elliotson placed successively these various substances in his mouth. But he seems to have recorded the results chiefly from curiosity, and to have regarded them as of little scientific interest compared with the stiffening of a limb, or the painless performance of an operation under mesmeric anæsthesia. Dr. Esdaile (_Practical Mesmerism_, p. 125), Mr. C. H. Townshend (_Facts in Mesmerism_, pp. 68, 72, 76, etc., etc.), Professor Gregory (_Animal Magnetism_, p. 231), and other writers of that time, record similar observations. But the subject seems to have been crowded out, on the one hand, with the more cautious observers, by the growing importance of hypnotism as an anæsthetic and a curative agency, on the other by the greater marvels of "clairvoyance" and "spirit" communications.

It was Professor Barrett, of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, who, in a paper read before the British Association at Glasgow in 1876, first isolated the phenomenon from its somewhat dubious surroundings, and drew public attention to its importance. Up to that time "community of sensation" or thought-transference seems to have been known only as a rare and fitful accompaniment of the hypnotic trance. But in the course of the correspondence arising out of his paper Professor Barrett learnt of several instances where similar phenomena had been observed in the waking state. The Willing game was just then coming into fashion, and cases had been observed in which the thing willed had been performed without contact between the performer and the person willing, and apparently without the possibility of any normal means of communication between them. Later, in the years 1881-82, a long series of experiments, in which Professor Sidgwick, the late Professor Balfour Stewart, the late Edmund Gurney, Mr. F. W. H. Myers and others joined with Professor Barrett, seemed to establish the possibility of a new mode of communication. And these earlier results have been confirmed by further experiments continued down to the present time by many observers both in this country and abroad. In the present chapter some account will be given of experiments in the transference of simple ideas and sensations performed with percipients in the ordinary waking state. The next chapter will deal with similar results obtained with hypnotised persons. In Chapters IV. and V. results of a more complicated or unusual character will be described and discussed.

_Transference of Tastes._

The particular form of telepathy which first attracted attention to the whole subject, the transmission to the percipient of impressions of taste and pain experienced by the agent, appears to have been observed in the normal state very rarely. One such case may be here quoted. In the years 1883-85 Mr. Malcolm Guthrie, J.P., of Liverpool, the then head of a large drapery business in that city, conducted a long series of experiments with two of his employees, Miss E. and Miss R. In September 1883 Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Edmund Gurney, and Mr. Myers, indicated respectively by the initials M. G., E. G., and M., had a series of trials with these percipients in the transference of tastes. The percipients, who were fully awake, were blindfolded; the packets or bottles containing the substances experimented upon were placed beyond the range of possible vision; and in the case of strongly smelling substances, either at a distance or outside the room; and other precautions were taken by the agents, by keeping the mouth closed and turning the head away, etc., in order that the percipients should not become aware by the sense of smell of the nature of the substance experimented with. Strict silence was of course observed. It may be conceded that when all possible precautions are taken, experiments with sapid substances must be inconclusive when the agent is in the same room with the percipient; since nearly all such substances have an odour, however faint. In view, however, of the extreme sensibility already demonstrated (see below, pp. 23, etc.) of these particular percipients to transferred impressions of other kinds, it seems probable that the results in this case also were actually due to telepathy. The alternative explanation is to attribute to persons in the normal waking state a degree of hyperæsthesia for which we have no exact parallel even in the records of hypnotism. For to persons of normal susceptibility the odour of a small quantity, _e.g._ of salt or alum, in the mouth of another person at a distance of two or three feet would certainly be quite inappreciable.

No. 1.--By MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHERS.

_September 3, 1883._

EXPT. TASTER. PERCIPIENT. SUBSTANCE. ANSWERS GIVEN.

1 M. E. Vinegar. "A sharp and nasty taste." 2 M. E. Mustard. "Mustard." 3 M. R. Do. "Ammonia." 4 M. E. Sugar. "I still taste the hot taste of the mustard."

_September 4._

5 E. G. & M. E. Worcestershire sauce "Worcestershire sauce." 6 M. G. R. Do. "Vinegar." 7 E. G. & M. E. Port wine "Between eau de Cologne and beer." 8 M. G. R. Do. "Raspberry vinegar." 9 E. G. & M. E. Bitter aloes "Horrible and bitter." 10 M. G. R. Alum "A taste of ink--of iron--of vinegar. I feel it on my lips--it is as if I had been eating alum." 11 M. G. E. Alum (E. perceived that M. G. was as not tasting bitter aloes, E. G. and M. supposed, but something different. No distinct perception on account of the persistence of the bitter taste.)

EXPT. TASTER. PERCIPIENT. SUBSTANCE. ANSWERS GIVEN. 12 E. G. & M. E. Nutmeg "Peppermint--no--what you put in puddings--nutmeg." 13 M. G. R. Do. "Nutmeg." 14 E. G. & M. R. Sugar Nothing perceived. 15 M. G. R. Do. Nothing perceived. (Sugar should be tried at an earlier stage in the series, as, after the aloes, we could scarcely taste it ourselves.) 16 E. G. & M. E. Cayenne pepper "Mustard." 17 M. G. R. Do. "Cayenne pepper." (After the cayenne we were unable to taste anything further that evening.)

Throughout the next series of experiments the substances were kept outside the room in which the percipients were seated.

_September 5._

18 E. G. & M. E. Carbonate of Soda Nothing perceived. 19 M. G. R. Caraway seeds "It feels like meal--like a seed loaf--caraway seeds." (The _substance_ of the seeds seems to be perceived before their _taste_.) 20 E. G. & M. E. Cloves "Cloves." 21 E. G. & M. E. Citric acid Nothing felt. 22 M. G. R. Do. "Salt." 23 E. G. & M. E. Liquorice "Cloves." 24 M. G. R. Cloves "Cinnamon." 25 E. G. & M. E. Acid jujube "Pear drop." 26 M. G. R. Do. "Something hard, which is giving way--acid jujube." 27 E. G. & M. E. Candied ginger "Something sweet and hot." 28 M. G. R. Do. "Almond toffy." (M. G. took this ginger in the dark, and was some time before he realised that it was ginger.) 29 E. G. & M. E. Home-made Noyau. "Salt." 30 M. G. R. Do. "Port wine." (This was by far the most strongly smelling of the substances tried; the scent of kernels being hard to conceal. Yet it was named by E. as salt.) 31 E. G. & M. E. Bitter aloes "Bitter." 32 M. G. R. Do. Nothing felt.

(_Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research_, vol. ii. pp. 3, 4.)

Further experiments in this direction are much to be desired. But apart from the difficulty above referred to, experiments of the kind are liable to be tedious and inconclusive because of the inability of most persons to discriminate accurately between one taste and another, when the guidance of all other senses is lacking. To conduct such experiments to a successful issue, it would probably be necessary that the percipients should have some preliminary training to enable them to distinguish by taste alone between various salts and pharmaceutical preparations.

_Transference of Pains._

Experiments in the transference of pains are not attended with the same difficulties, nor open to the same evidential objections; and some interesting trials of this kind with one of the same percipients, Miss R., met with a fair amount of success. The experiments were carried on at intervals, interspersed with experiments of other kinds, by Mr. Guthrie at Liverpool during nine months in 1884 and 1885. The percipient on each occasion was blindfolded and seated with her back towards the rest of the party, who each pinched or otherwise injured themselves in the same part of the body at the same time. The agents in these experiments--the whole series of which is here recorded--were three or more of the following:--Mr. Guthrie, Professor Herdman, Dr. Hicks, Dr. Hyla Greves, Mr. R. C. Johnson, F.R.A.S., Mr. Birchall, Miss Redmond, and on one occasion another lady. The results are given in the following table:--

No. 2.--BY MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHERS.

1.--Back of left hand pricked. Rightly localised. 2.--Lobe of left ear pricked. Rightly localised. 3.--Left wrist pricked. "Is it in the left hand?" pointing to the back near the little finger. 4.--Third finger of left hand tightly bound round with wire. A lower joint of that finger was guessed. 5.--Left wrist scratched with pins. "Is it in the left wrist, like being scratched?" 6.--Left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.

7.--Spot behind left ear pricked. No result.

8.--Right knee pricked. Rightly localised.

9.--Right shoulder pricked. Rightly localised.

10.--Hands burned over gas. "Like a pulling pain ... then tingling, like cold and hot alternately," localised by gesture only.

11.--End of tongue bitten. "Is it the lip or the tongue?"

12.--Palm of left hand pricked. "Is it a tingling pain in the left hand here?" placing her finger on the palm of the left hand.

13.--Back of neck pricked. "Is it a pricking of the neck?"

14.--Front of left arm above elbow pricked. Rightly localised.

15.--Spot just above left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.

16.--Spot just above right wrist pricked. "I am not quite sure, but I feel a pain in the right arm, from the thumb upwards to above the wrist."

17.--Inside of left ankle pricked. Outside of left ankle guessed.

18.--Spot beneath right collar-bone pricked. The exactly corresponding spot on the left side guessed.

19.--Back hair pulled. No result.

20.--Inside of right wrist pricked. Right foot guessed.

(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. pp. 424-452.)

_Transference of Sounds._

It is noteworthy that there is little experimental evidence for the transmission of an auditory impression. Occasionally, in trials with names and cards the nature of the mistakes made has seemed to indicate audition, as when, _e.g._, _three_ is given for _Queen_ or _ace_ for _eight_. But obviously a long series of experiments and a long series of mistakes would be necessary to afford material for any conclusion. Sometimes a percipient has stated that he heard the name of the thing thought of; as, for instance, in a case recorded in Chapter V., where the percipient "heard" the word _gloves_ before "seeing" a vision of them. But such cases appear to be rare. Experiments with a view to test the transmission of _actual_ sounds could of course only be carried out under special conditions, of which one would be the separation of the agent from the percipient by a considerable intervening space--and this condition is, of itself, found to interfere with success. Some evidence, indeed, of a quasi-experimental character for the transference of musical sounds at a distance will be given in a later chapter (Chapter V., No. 33). Experiments with imagined sounds appear to have been rarely tried, or at least, successful results have rarely been recorded.[16] Occasionally indeed experimenters have put on record that in thinking of an object they have mentally repeated the name of the object as well as pictured the object itself, and there are a few cases where the general idea of the object thought of appears to have reached the percipient before the outlines of the form, which may possibly be explained as due to the reception of an auditory before a visual impression.[17]

This lack of evidence for auditory transmission is no doubt largely due to a desire on the part of experimenters in the first instance to make the proof of actual thought-transference as complete as possible. Experiments with sounds would impose a greater strain upon the agents, since in most cases they must be imagined sounds. Moreover, in such experiments it would be at once more difficult to estimate with precision degrees of success, and to preserve a permanent record of the result; and finally, the subject thought of would be more easily communicated either fraudulently, by a code, or by unconscious indications on the part of the agent. In this connection it is possibly significant that whilst in morbid conditions auditory hallucinations are much commoner than visual, the proportion appears to be reversed with telepathic hallucinations. It seems probable that the apparent infrequency of auditory transmission may be in part due to the fact that in the modern world the sense of vision is for educated persons the habitual channel for precise or important information. To the Greek in the time of Socrates no doubt the ear was the main avenue for all knowledge; it was the ear that received not merely the current talk of the market-place and the gymnasium, but the oratory of the law-court, the literature of the stage, and the philosophy of the Schools. But for modern civilised societies the newspaper and the libraries have placed the eye in a position of unquestioned pre-eminence. It seems likely therefore, apart from all defects in such evidence, that the agent would find a greater difficulty, as a rule, in calling up a vivid representation of a sound than of a vision; and that the percipient would experience a corresponding difference in the reception and discrimination of the two classes of impressions.

_Transference of Ideas not definitely classed._

Experiments by PROFESSOR RICHET and others.

In the following cases, where the exact nature of the impression received was not apparently consciously classified by the percipient, it may be presumed to have been either of a visual or an auditory nature. M. Charles Richet (_Revue Philosophique_, Dec. 1884, "La suggestion mentale et le calcul des probabilités") conducted a series of experiments in guessing the suits of cards drawn at random from a pack. 2927 trials were made: ten persons besides M. Richet himself--who acted sometimes as agent and sometimes as percipient--taking part in the experiments. In the 2927 trials the suit was correctly named 789 times, the most probable number of correct guesses being 732. A similar series of trials was conducted, on Edmund Gurney's initiative, by some members of the S.P.R. and others. There were 17 series, containing 17,653 trials, and 4760 successes; the theoretically probable number, on the assumption that the results were due to chance, being 4413. The probability for some cause other than chance deduced from this result is .999,999,98, which represents perhaps a higher degree of probability than the inhabitants of this hemisphere are justified in attaching to the belief that the ensuing night will be followed by another day.[18] In a similar series of experiments carried out under the direction of the American S.P.R. the proportion of successes was little higher than the theoretically probable number.[19] But in the absence of details as to the conditions under which the experiments were made, no unfavourable inference can fairly be drawn from these results. At any rate some very remarkable results were obtained later, in a series of trials made on the lines laid down by the committee of the American Society. The agent in this case was Mrs. J. F. Brown, the percipient Nellie Gallagher, "a domestic lately come from the county of Northumberland, in New Brunswick." The experiments appear to have been carried out with great care, and the results are recorded and analysed at length (_Proc. Am. S.P.R._, pp. 322-349). 3000 trials were made in guessing the numbers from 0 to 9 or from 1 to 10 inclusive. The order of the digits in each set of 100 trials was determined by drawing lots. The agent sat at one side of a table, the percipient at the other side. At first the percipient sat facing the agent, but after about 1000 trials had been made her back was turned to the table--and this position was continued to the end. The paper containing the numbers to be guessed was placed in the agent's lap, out of sight of the percipient. There was no mirror in the room. In the result the digits were correctly named 584 times, or nearly twice the probable number, 300. The proportion of the successes steadily increased, from 175 in the first batch of 1000 trials, to 190 in the second, and 219 in the third batch.

No. 3.--By DR. OCHOROWICZ.

In the following set of experiments, made by Dr. Ochorowicz, ex-Professor of Psychology and Natural Philosophy at the University of Lemberg, described in his book _La Suggestion mentale_ (pp. 69, 75, 76), there are not sufficient indications in most cases to enable a judgment to be formed as to the special form of sense-impression made on the percipient's mind. The percipient was a Madame D., 70 years of age. She had been shown to be amenable to hypnotism, but during these experiments she was in a normal condition. She is described as being of strong constitution and in good health; intelligent above the average, well read, and accustomed to literary work. The first experiments with Madame D. are not quoted here, not having been conducted, as Dr. Ochorowicz explains, under strict conditions. The objects thought of had been selected by the agent, instead of being taken haphazard, and the choice had frequently been directly suggested by his surroundings. It seemed possible, therefore, to explain the results as due to an unconscious association of ideas common to agent and percipient. Dr. Ochorowicz, however, has shown by his careful analysis of the experiments recorded in the earlier chapters of his book that he is fully aware of the risk of error from this and other causes, and in the series of the 2nd May and the following days he tells us that adequate precautions were taken.

_An Object._

36. A bust of M. N. | Portrait ... of a man ... a | bust. 37. A fan. | Something round. 38. A key. | Something made of lead ... | of bronze ... it is iron. 39. A hand holding a ring. | Something shining, a diamond | ... a ring.

_A Taste._

40. Acid. | Sweet.

_A Diagram._

41. A square. | Something irregular. 42. A circle. | A triangle ... a circle.

_A Letter._

43. M. | M. 44. D. | D. 45. J. | J. 46. B. | A, X, R, B. 47. O. | W, A; no, it is an O. 48. Jan. | J ... (go on!) Jan.

_Third Series_, May 6th, 1885.--Twenty-five experiments were made, of which, unfortunately, I have kept no record, except of the three following, which impressed me most. (The subject had her back to us, held the pencil and _wrote_ whatever came into her head. We touched her back lightly, keeping our eyes fixed on the letters we had written.)

49. Brabant. | Bra ... (I made a mental effort to help the subject, without speaking.) Brabant. 50. Paris. | P ... aris. 51. Telephone. | T ... elephone.

_Fourth Series_, May 8th.--Same conditions.

52. Z. | L, P, K, J. 53. B. | B. 54. T. | S, T, F. 55. N. | M, N. 56. P. | R, Z, A. 57. Y. | V, Y. 58. E. | E. 59. Gustave. | F, J, Gabriel. 60. Duch. | E, O. 61. Ba. | B, A. 62. No. | F, K, O.

_A Number._

63. 44. | 6, 8, 12. 64. 2. | 7, 5, 9.

(I told my assistant to imagine the look of the number when written, and not its sound.)

65. 3. | 8, 3. 66. 7. | 7. 67. 8. | 8; no, 0, 6, 9.

Then followed thirteen trials with fantastic figures, details of which Dr. Ochorowicz does not record. He tells us, however, that only five of the representations presented even a general resemblance to the originals.

It is to be observed that in this series of experiments contact was not completely excluded in all the trials. But if Dr. Ochorowicz's memory may be relied upon for the statement that the agent looked at the original letters and diagrams, and not at the percipient's attempts at reproducing them, the hypothesis of involuntary muscular guidance must be severely strained to account for the results. At any rate, in the three remaining trials in this series it seems clear that muscle-reading is inadequate as an explanation.

A person thought of.

_Subject._ | _Answer._ 68. The percipient. | M. O----; no, it's myself. 69. M. D----. | M. D----.

An Image.

70. We pictured to ourselves | I see passing clouds ... a a crescent moon. M. | light ... (in a satisfied P---- on a background | tone)--it is the moon. of clouds, I in a | clear dark blue sky. |

_Transference of Visual Images._

NO. 4.--By DR. BLAIR THAW.

The experiments which follow were made by Dr. Blair Thaw, M.D., of New York. The series quoted, which took place on the 28th of April 1892, comprises all the trials in which Dr. Thaw was himself the percipient. Dr. Thaw had his eyes blindfolded and his ears muffled, and the agent, Mrs. Thaw, and Mr. M. H. Wyatt, who was present but took no part in the agency, kept silent, except when it was necessary to state whether an object, card, number, or colour was to be guessed. The objects were in all cases actually looked at by the agent, the "colour" being a coloured disc, and the numbers being printed on separate cards.[20]

_1st Object._ SILK PINCUSHION, in form of Orange-Red Apple, quite round.--Percipient: _A Disc_. When asked what colour, said, _Red or Orange_. When asked what object, named _Pincushion_.

_2nd Object._ A SHORT LEAD PENCIL, nearly covered by the nickel cover. Never seen by percipient. Percipient: _Something white or light. A card. I thought of Mr. Wyatt's silver pencil_.

_3rd Object._ A DARK VIOLET in Mr. Wyatt's button-hole, but not known to be in the house by percipient. Percipient: _Something dark. Not very big. Longish. Narrow. Soft. It can't be a cigarette because it is dark brown. A dirty colour._ Asked about smell, said: _Not strong, but what you might call pungent; a clean smell_.

Percipient had not noticed smell before, though sitting by Mr. Wyatt some time, but when afterwards told of the violet knew that this was the odour noticed in experiment.

Asked to spell name, percipient said: _Phrygian, Phrigid, or first