Writings
ThoughtForceinBusinessandEverydayLife TheLawoftheNewThought NuggetsoftheNewThought MemoryCulture:TheScienceofObserving,RememberingandRecalling DynamicThoughtorTheLawofVibrantEnergy ThoughtVibrationortheLawofAttractionintheThoughtWorld PracticalMind‑Reading PracticalPsychomancyandCrystalGazing TheMindBuildingofaChild TheSecretofMentalMagic MentalFascination Self‑HealingbyThoughtForce Mind‑Power:TheLawofDynamicMentation PracticalMentalInfluence ReincarnationandtheLawofKarma TheInnerConsciousness TheSecretofSuccess Memory:HowtoDevelop,TrainandUseIt SubconsciousandtheSuperconsciousPlanesofMind SuggestionandAuto‑Suggestion TheArtofExpression TheArtofLogicalThinking TheNewPsychology:ItsMessage,PrinciplesandPractice TheWill Thought‑Culture HumanNature:ItsInnerStatesandOuterForms MindandBodyorMentalStatesandPhysicalConditions Telepathy:ItsTheory,FactsandProof TheCrucibleofModernThought ThePsychologyofSalesmanship ThePsychologyofSuccess ScientificParenthood TheMessageoftheNewThought YourMindandHowtoUseIt TheMasteryofBeing Mind‑Power:TheSecretofMentalMagic TheNewPsychologyofHealing NewThought:ItsHistoryandPrinciples
Telepathy
ItsTheory,FactsandProof
1910
William Walker Atkinson
1862–1932
信
YOGeBooks:Springfield,MO
Contents
•ChapterI ……… WhatisTelepathy • ChapterII ……… TheNatureoftheProblem • ChapterIII……… ExperimentalTelepathy • ChapterIV……… TheEnglishExperiments • ChapterV……… MoreEnglishExperiments • ChapterVI……… TheWeltmerExperiment • ChapterVII ……… ResultsoftheWeltmerExperiment • ChapterVIII ResultsoftheWeltmerExperiment(Continued) • ChapterIX………TheTheories
Chapter I
What is Telepathy
T
he term “telepathy” is of quite recent origin. A few yearsagoitwasnottobefoundinanyofthestandard dictionaries,anditsusewasconfinedtothesmallcircle of investigators who were pursuing experiments in thought‑ transference, and who regarded the Society for Psychical ResearchofEnglandastheircentreofinfluence.Atthepresent time, however, the word has passed into popular usage, is found in the current editions of the dictionaries and heard frequentlyonthestreets.ItwasderivedfromthetwoGreek words,tele,meaning“afar,”andpathosmeaning“feeling.”The term itself has been severely criticized as conveying a wrong impression, for thought‑transference is not the same as “feeling”‑transference. Some authorities have preferred the term“Telæsthesia,”which,freelytranslated,means“perception bythesensesatadistance.”Thepresentwriterhassoughtto introduce the term “Telementatian” which, freely translated, means“mentalactionatadistance”andthesaidtermhasmet with considerable favor among scientific investigators of the subject.But,inspiteoftheobjections,thepublicclingstothe original term, and “Telepathy” is generally used to designate thephenomenaofthought‑transference,orasthedictionariesstateit:“Theactionofonemindonanotheratadistanceand withoutcommunicationbymeansofthesenses.”
Thought‑transferenceisnotanewthinginthethoughtof theworld,althoughitmayseemtotheordinaryreadertobea recentdiscovery.Itsbeginningislostinthehazeofthehistory of the primitive peoples of the race. The ancient writings of Indiagiveusmanyinstancesoftheeffectofonemindupon anotheratadistance.Andtheoccultlegendsofotherancient peoples give evidence that the belief in the effect of mind uponmindatadistancewasquitecommon.Inmanyofthe oldoccultwritingswefindtracesofthisalmostuniversalbelief inthought‑transmissionandthought‑force,andwehaveevery reasontobelievethattheoldalchemistswerefullyacquainted withthephenomena.
In India, especially, has the belief in thought‑transference prevailed from time immemorial. Passing over the legendary tales,andcomingdowntothetimeofrecenthistory,wesee manyinstancesoftheacceptanceofthisideabythepeopleof thatoldlandofthestrangeandmysterious.TheEnglishwho livedthroughthegreatuprisinginIndiainthelastcenturyhave passedontousmanytalesofthestrangepowerofthenative HinduswhichenabledthemtoflashfromonepartofIndiato anotherthenewsofgreatbattlesanduprisings.Itisrecordedby thosewhopassedthroughthisgreatuprisingthattheHindus werenoticedtobeagitatedinastrangewayaboutthetime oftheactualoccurrencesinfardistantpartsoftheland,and seemedtobefullyinformedregardingtheseoccurrences,while theEnglishwerecompelledtowaitfordaysuntiltheircouriers broughtthemthenewsintheregularway.Inotherwords,the natives maintained a mental‑telegraphic system, while the Englishwerecompelledtorelyuponcouriers,thedaysofthe electrictelegraphnothavingasyetarrived.
But,sofarasthesubjectofmodernTelepathyisconcerned wemayaswellassumethatTelepathyhaditsbirthintomodern scientificthoughtatthetimeoftheformationoftheEnglish
WhatisTelepathy
SocietyforPsychicalResearchin1882.Oneofthestatedobjects ofthesaidSocietywas“toconductanexaminationintothe natureandextentofanyinfluencewhichmaybeexertedby oneminduponanother,apartfromanygenerallyrecognized mode of perception.” While the latter years of the Society’s existence has been devoted principally to an investigation of the phenomena of clairvoyance, spirit‑return, trance‑ mediumship,etc.,itsfirstdecadewasalmostentirelydevoted to the investigation of telepathy, thought‑transference, and similarphenomena.TheearlyexperimentsoftheSocietyhave beenfullyreported,andthesereports,whichcompriseseveral volumes,havegiventheworldarecordofpsychicphenomena ofthegreatestvaluetoscience.
The celebrated Sidgwick experiments, conducted under theauspicesoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearchin1889and 1890,excitedgreatinterestinscientificcircles,andplacedthe subject of Telepathy upon a basis which science could not affordtorefusetoperceive.Andtheresulthasbeenthatmany careful scientists have freely acknowledged that “there may besomethingtoit,”somegoingsofarastoopenlyadvocate Telepathyasanestablishedscientificfact,althoughthereare manyscientistswhostilladheretotheopinionthatTelepathy remains to be proven scientifically, while some of the ultra‑ conservativesgosofarastoinsistthatTelepathyisscientifically impossible,thislatteropinionbeingcalculatedtocauseasmile to one who remembers how many “scientifically impossible” thingshaveafterwardbeenproventobenotonlyscientifically possible, or probable, but also actually existent. It is either a very bold man, or else a foolish one, who in these days can positivelyassertthatanythingisscientificallyimpossible.Inthis connectiononeisremindedofthelearnedbodyofscientists who sitting in conference solemnly decided that it was scientificallyimpossibleforavesseltocrostheoceanbythe powerofsteam.Whilethedecisionwasbeingrecordedonthe minutes,thewordwasreceivedthatasteamshiphadactually
made the voyage across the ocean, and was that moment enteringtheharbor.Onealsorecallsthestoryoftheeminent English scientist who had for a lifetime positively disputed thepossibilityofcertainfacts,andwhoinhisoldage,when askedtowitnesstheactualdemonstrationofthedisputedfact, refusedtolookintothemicroscopeforthepurpose,andleft theroom,angrilyshakinghisheadandsaying,“Itisimpossible.” Yesterday’s“impossibilities”areoftentomorrow’s“provenfacts.” Inviewofwhathasbeensaidabove,thefollowingopinions ofcertainwell‑knownscientistsmayproveofinteresttothe reader as indicating the change in the mental attitude of sciencetowardthephenomenaofTelepathy.
SirWilliamCrookes,inanaddressdeliveredseveralyearsago atBristol,England,beforetheRoyalSociety(ofwhichhewas president),said:
“Were I now introducing for the first time these inquiries to the world of science, I should choose a starting point different from thatofold,whereweformerlybegan.Itwouldbewelltobeginwith Telepathy;withthefundamentallaw,asIbelieveittobe,thatthoughts andimagesmaybetransferredfromonemindtoanotherwithoutthe agencyoftherecognizedorgansofsense—thatknowledgemayenter thehumanmindwithoutbeingcommunicatedinanyhithertoknown orrecognizedways.Althoughtheinquiryhaselicitedimportantfacts withreferencetothemind,ithasnotyetreachedthescientificstage ofcertaintywhichwouldenableittobeusefullybroughtbeforeone of the sections. I will therefore confine myself to pointing out the direction in which scientific investigation can legitimately advance. If Telepathy take place, we have two physical facts—the physical changeinthebrainofA.thesuggestor,andtheanalogousphysical change in the brain of B. the recipient of the suggestion. Between thesetwophysicaleventstheremustexistatrainofphysicalcauses. Whenevertheconnectingsequenceofintermediatecausesbeginsto berevealed,theinquirywillthencomewithintherangeofoneofthe sections of the British Association. Such a sequence can only occur
WhatisTelepathy
throughaninterveningmedium.AllthephenomenaoftheUniverse arepresumablyinsomewaycontinuous,anditisunscientifictocall in the aid of mysterious agencies when with every fresh advance in knowledgeitisshownthatethervibrationshavepowersandattributes abundantlyequaltoanydemand—eventhetransmissionofthought.” Thesameeminentauthorityalsosays: “Itissupposedbysomephysiologiststhattheessentialcellsofnerves donotactuallytouch,butareseparatedbyanarrowgapwhichwidens insleepwhileitnarrowsalmosttoextinctionduringmentalactivity. ThisconditionissosingularlylikethatofaBranlyorLodgecoherer(a devicewhichhasledMarconitothediscoveryofwirelesstelegraphy) astosuggestafurtheranalogy.Thestructureofthebrainandnerves, being similar, it is conceivable that there may be present masses of such nerve coherers in the brain, whose special function it may be to receive impulses brought from without through the connecting sequenceofetherwavesofappropriateorderofmagnitude.Roentgen has familiarized us with an order of extreme minuteness compared withthesmallestwaveswithwhichwehavehithertobeenacquainted, and of dimensions comparable with the distances between the centersoftheatomsofwhichthematerialuniverseisbuiltup;and there is no reason for believing that we have reached the limits of frequency.Itisknownthattheactionofthoughtisaccompaniedby certainmolecularmovementsinthebrain,andherewehavephysical vibrations capable from their extreme minuteness of acting direct uponindividualmolecules,whiletheirrapidityapproachesthatofthe internalmovementsoftheatomsthemselves.” Prof.CamilleFlammarion,thewell‑knownFrenchastronomer, says: “Wesumup,therefore,ourprecedingobservationsbytheconclusion thatonemindcanactatadistanceuponanother,withoutthehabitual medium of words, or any other visible means of communication. It
appearstousaltogetherunreasonabletorejectthisconclusionifwe accept the facts. There is nothing unscientific, nothing romantic, in admittingthatanideacaninfluencethebrainfromadistance.The actionofonehumanbeinguponanother,fromadistance,isascientific fact;itisascertainastheexistenceofParis,ofNapoleon,ofOxygen,or ofSirius….Therecanbenodoubtthatourpsychicalforcecreatesa movementoftheether,whichtransmitsitselfafarlikeallmovements ofether,andbecomesperceptibletobrainsinharmonywithourown. The transformation of a psychic action into an ethereal movement, andthereverse,maybeanalogoustowhattakesplaceonatelephone, wherethereceptiveplate,whichisidenticalwiththeplateattheother end,reconstructsthesonorousmovementtransmitted,notbymeans ofsound,butbyelectricity.” Prof.Ochorowiczsays: “Everylivingbeingisadynamicfocus.Adynamicfocustendsever to propagate the motion that is proper to it. Propagated motion becomestransformedaccordingtothemediumittraverses.Motion tendsalwaystopropagateitself.Thereforewhenweseeworkofany kind—mechanical, electrical, nervic, or psychic—disappear without visibleeffect,then,oftwothings,onehappens,eitheratransmissionor atransformation.Wheredoesthefirstend,andwheredoesthesecond begin?Inanidenticalmediumthereisonlytransmission.Inadifferent mediumthereistransformation.Yousendanelectriccurrentthrough athickwire.Youhavethecurrent,butyoudonotperceiveanyother force.Butcutthatthickwireandconnecttheendsbymeansofafine wire;thefinewirewillgrowhot;therewillbeatransformationofthe currentintoheat.Takeaprettystrongcurrentandinterposeawirestill moreresistant,oraverythincarbonrod.Thecarbonwillemitlight.A partofthecurrentthenistransformedintoheat and light.Thislight actsineverydirectionaroundabout,firstvisiblyaslight,theninvisibly asheatandaselectriccurrent.Holdamagnetnearit.Ifthemagnet isweakandmovable,intheformofamagneticneedle,thebeamof lightwillcauseittodeviate;ifitisstrongandimmovable,itwillin
WhatisTelepathy
turncausethebeamoflighttodeviate.Andallthisfromadistance, without contact, without special conductors. A process that is at oncechemical,physicalandpsychical,goesoninabrain.Acomplex actionofthiskindispropagatedthroughthegraymatter,aswavesare propagatedinwater.Regardedonitsphysiologicalside,anideaisonly a vibration, a vibration that is propagated, yet which does not pass outofamediuminwhichitcanexistassuch.Itispropagatedasfaras otherlikevibrationsallow.Itispropagatedmorewidelyifitassumes the character which subjectively we call emotive. But it cannot go beyondwithoutbeingtransformed.Nevertheless,likeforceingeneral, itcannotremaininisolation—itescapesindisguise….Thoughtstays athome,asthechemicalactionofabatteryremainsinabattery;itis representedbyitsdynamiccorrelate,calledinthecaseofthebattery, acurrent,andinthecaseofthebrain—Iknownotwhat;butwhatever itsnamemaybe,itisthedynamiccorrelateofthought.Ihavechosen theterm‘dynamiccorrelate.’Thereissomethingmorethanthat;the universeisneitherdeadnorvoid.Aforcethatistransmittedmeets otherforces,andifitistransformedonlylittlebylittle,itusuallylimits itself to modifying another force at its own cost, though without sufferingperceptiblythereby.Thisisthecaseparticularlywithforces thatarepersistent,concentrated,wellsecondedbytheirmedium;itis thecasewiththephysiologicalequilibrium,nervicforce,psychicforce, ideas,emotions,tendencies.Thesemodifyenvironingforceswithout themselvesdisappearing;theyarebutimperceptiblytransformed,and ifthenextmanisofanatureexceptionallywelladaptedtothem,they gainininductiveaction.” Itisquitegratifyingtofindsucheminentscientificauthority expressingitsconvictionoftherealityofthought‑transference. Buttheaverageperson,intheend,believesinTelepathynot somuchbecausethisscientistorthatonethinksitreasonable, butbecauseheorshehashadsomepersonalexperienceorbit ofindividualproof.Whoofushasnothadtheexperienceof thinkingofsomeonewhomwehavenotseenorheardoffor monthsoryears,onlytoseetheindividualinpersonshortly
afterward?Ofteninspeakingtoanotherperson,wewillfind thathewilluttertheverywordsthatwehadinmind.Itisnot uncommonfortwopersonstostartinatthesamemomentto saypreciselythesamethingtoeachother.Howoftenhasthe personofwhomwehavebeenspeakingwalkedunexpectedly intoourpresence.Theoldsaying,“Speakoftheangels,andyou heartherustleoftheirwings”voicesthecommonexperience oftheraceinthisrespect.Severalyearsago,MarkTwainwrote amagazinearticleinwhichhestatedanexperiencecommon tomanyothers.Hesaidthathewasinthehabitofwritinga lettertoaperson,andthen,afterdulyaddressingit,destroying it instead of mailing it. He added that he had noticed that veryfrequentlyhewouldreceiveananswertotheunmailed letter,writtenbythepersonaddressedaboutthesametime thattheoriginalletterwaswritten,addressedanddestroyed, andthattheseanswersfrequentlycoveredtheidenticalpoints mentionedintheoriginalletter.
Moreover many persons have experimented with “the willinggame”andsimilarparlorfeatsalongthelinesof“mind‑ reading,”andhavefoundthatthere“issomethinginit,afterall.” TheriseintopopularityoftheteachingsoftheNewThoughtor MentalSciencehasfamiliarizedmanypersonswiththeideaof thought‑transferenceinsomeofitsvariedforms,untilto‑day wefindthatthemajorityofpersonsarepreparedtoadmitthat “theremustbesomefirewherethereissomuchsmoke.”We trustthatwewillbeabletomakethesubjectsomewhatclearer inthislittlevolume.
Chapter II
The Nature of the Problem
M
anypersonswhoareinterestedinthephenomena ofTelepathy,andwhoaccepttheproofsofferedby its advocates, seem to regard these phenomena as quite ordinary and as fully in accord with the more familiar manifestationsofNature’sforces.WefrequentlyhearTelepathy comparedtothemanifestationofelectricity,particularlyinthe phaseofwirelesstelegraphy.Butthematterisnotsosimpleas this—itcannotbelightlydismissedorplacedinanyordinary category. It is, scientifically, sui generis—in a class by itself; unique; peculiar. While we shall not attempt to put forward anyspecialhypothesisatthispoint,weinviteyoutoconsider the following statement from the lips of an eminent English statesman,himselfanearnestinvestigatorofTelepathy.After reading his statement, you will begin to appreciate the full natureoftheproblemconfrontingthosewho,whileadmitting theproofsofTelepathy,wouldseektoaccountforthesameby scientificprinciples. TheRightHonorableA.J.Balfour(afterwardPrimeMinister ofEngland)inanaddressdeliveredin1894,whilehewasthe PresidentoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch,saidinrelation toTelepathy:“Now I will give you a case of what I mean by a scientifically extraordinary event, which, as you will at once perceive, may be onewhichatfirstsight,andtomanyobservers,mayappearalmost commonplaceandfamiliar.Ihaveconstantlymetpeoplewhowilltell you, with no apparent consciousness that they are saying anything moreoutofthewaythananobservationabouttheweather,thatby anexerciseoftheirwilltheycanmakeanybodyatalittledistanceturn round and look at them. Now such a fact (if fact it be) is far more scientifically extraordinary than would be the destruction of this globebysomecelestialcatastrophe.Howprofoundlymistakenthen aretheywhothinkthatthisexerciseofwill‑power,astheycallit,is themostnaturalthingintheworld,somethingthateverybodywould haveexpected,somethingwhichhardlydeservesscientificnoticeor requiresscientificexplanation.Inrealityitisaprofoundmystery,ifit betrue,orifanythinglikeitbetrue,andnoevent,howeverstartling, whicheasilyfindsitsappropriatenicheinthestructureofthephysical sciencesoughttoexcitehalfasmuchintellectualcuriosityasthisdull andatfirstsightcommonplacephenomenon. “NowdonotsupposethatIwantyoutobelievethateverygentlemanor ladywhochoosestosupposehimselforherselfexceptionallyendowed withthisso‑calledwill‑powerisotherthanthedupeofanill‑regulated fancy.Thereis,however,quiteapartfromthetestimony,avastmassof evidenceinfavorofwhatwenowcallTelepathy,andtoTelepathythe observationsIhavebeenmakingdoinmyopinionmoststrictlyapply. For,consider:IneverycaseofTelepathyyouhaveanexampleofrealor apparentactionatadistance.Examplesofrealorapparentactionata distanceare,ofcourse,verycommon.Gravitationissuchanexample. We are not aware at the present time of any mechanism, if I may usethephrase,whichcantransmitgravitationalinfluencefromone gravitatingbodytoanother.Nevertheless,scientificmendonotrest contentwiththatview.Irecollectitusedtobemaintainedbythelate Mr.JohnMillthattherewasnogroundforregardingwithanyspecial wonderthephenomenonofactionatadistance.Idonotdogmatize uponthepoint,butIdosayemphaticallythatIdonotthinkyouwill findafirst‑classphysicistwhoispreparedtoadmitthatgravityisnot
TheNatureoftheProblem
aphenomenonwhichstillwantsanexplanation.Heisnotready,in otherwords,toacceptactionatadistanceasanultimatefact,though he has not even got the first clue to the real nature of the links by whichtheattractingbodiesmutuallyactupononeanother.
“Butthoughgravitationandtelepathyarealikeinthis,thatweare quite ignorant of the means by which in either case distant bodies influence one another, it would be a great mistake to suppose that the two modes of operation are equally mysterious. In the case of Telepathy there is not merely the difficulty of conjecturing the nature of the mechanism which operates between the agent and thepercipient,betweenthemanwhoinfluencesandthemanwhois influenced;butthewholecharacterofthephenomenarefusestofit inwithanyofouracceptedideasastothemodeinwhichforcemay beexercisedfromoneportionofspacetoanother.Isthistelepathic actionanordinarycaseofactionfromacenterofdisturbance?Isit equallydiffusedinalldirections?Isitlikethelightofacandle,orthe lightofthesun,whichradiatesequallyintospaceineverydirection atthesametime?Ifitis,itmustobeythelaw—atleast,weshould expectittoobeythelaw—ofallotherforceswhichsoactthrough anon‑absorbingmedium,anditseffectsmustdiminishinverselyas thesquareofthedistance.Itmust,sotospeak,getbeatenoutthinner andthinnerthefurtheritgetsremovedfromitsoriginalsource.But isthisso?Isitevencrediblethatthemerethoughts,or,ifyouplease, theneuralchangescorrespondingtothesethoughts,ofanyindividual, couldhaveinthemtheenergytoproducesensibleeffectsequallyin alldirections;fordistanceswhichdonot,asfarasourinvestigationsgo, appeartohaveanynecessarylimit?Itis,Ithink,incredible,andinany casethereisnoevidencewhateverthatthisactualdiffusionevertakes place.Thewillpower,wheneverthewillisused,orthethoughts,in caseswherethewillisnotused,haveaneffect,asarule,onlyuponone ortwoindividualsatmost.Thereisnoappearanceofgeneraldiffusion. Thereisnoindicationofanydisturbanceequaltoequaldistancesfrom itsorigin,andradiatingfromitalikeineverydirection. “Butifwearetorejectthisidea,whichisthefirstwhichordinary analogieswouldsuggest,whatarewetoputinitsplace?Areweto
supposethatthereissomemeansbywhichtelepathicenergycanbe directedthroughspacefromtheagenttothepatient,fromtheman who influences to the man who is influenced? If we are to believe this,asapparentlywemust,wearefacetofacenotonlywithafact extraordinaryinitself,butwithakindoffactwhichdoesnotfitin withanythingweknowatpresentintheregioneitherofphysicsor physiology.Itistrue,nodoubt,thatwedoknowplentyofcaseswhere energyisdirectedalongagivenline,likewaterinapipe,orlikeelectrical energyalongthecourseofawire.Buttheninsuchcasesthereisalways somematerialguideexistingbetweenthetwotermini,betweenthe placefromwhichtheenergycomesandtheplacetowardwhichthe energygoes.IsthereanysuchmaterialguideinthecaseofTelepathy? Itseemsabsolutelyimpossible.Thereisnosignofit.Wecannoteven formtoourselvesanynotionofitscharacter,andyet,ifwearetotake whatappearstobetheobviouslessonoftheobservedfacts,weare forcedtotheconclusionthatinsomeshapeorotheritexists.Forto supposethatthetelepathicagentshootsouthisinfluencetowarda particularobject,asyoushootabulletoutofagun,orwateroutof a hose, which appears to be the only other alternative, involves us seeminglyingreaterdifficultiesstill.
“Here, then, we are face to face with what I call a scientifically extraordinary phenomenon, as distinguished from a dramatically extraordinary one. Anyone who has endeavored to wade through themassofevidencecollectedbyourSocietyonthesubjectwillbe preparedtoadmitthatitisnotexcitingorinterestinginitself,thatit doesnotarouseafoolishwonder,orappealundulytoanycravingfor themarvellous.Butdullastheseexperimentsmayseem,dullindeed astheyoftenare,theirdullnessisreallyoneoftheirgreatadvantages.It effectuallyexcludessomeperturbinginfluencesthatmightotherwise affectthecoolanalysisoftheexperimentaldata;andinconsequence itmakesthoseinvestigations,inmyjudgment,thebeststartingpoint fromwhichtoreconsider,shoulditbenecessary,ourgeneralview,Iwill notsayofthematerialuniverse,butoftheuniverseofphenomenain space….Evenifwecannotentertainanyconfidenthopeofdiscovering what laws these half‑seen phenomena obey, at all events it will be
TheNatureoftheProblem
somegaintohaveshown,notasamatterofspeculationorconjecture, butasamatterofascertainedfact,thattherearethingsinHeavenand earthnothithertodreamedofinourscientificphilosophy.”
Chapter III
Experimental Telepathy
B
eginningwiththeyear1882,andcontinuingforseveral years thereafter, the English Society for Psychical Researchconductedanimportantseriesofexperiments inTelepathy,therecordsofwhichhavebeenpreservedinthe severalreportsoftheSocietywhichareonfileintheprincipal librariesoftheworld.Inthe“GlossaryofTermsusedinPsychical Research” by the Society, we find Telepathy defined as “the communicationofimpressionsofanykindfromonemindto another,independentlyoftherecognizedchannelsofsense.”In 1882, the President of the Society, Prof. Henry Sidgwick, appointed a committee to “investigate Thought‑Reading or Thought‑Transference,” the members of the committee being Prof.W.F.Barrett,ProfessorofPhysicsintheRoyalCollegeof ScienceforIreland;EdmundGurney,M.A.,LateFellowofTrinity College;andF.W.H.Myers,M.A.,LateFellowofTrinityCollege, Cambridge. The purpose of the inquiry by the committee wasstatedasfollows:“Isthereoristherenotanyexistingor attainableevidencethatcanstandfairphysiologicalcriticism, tosupportabeliefthatavividimpressionoradistinctideain onemindcanbecommunicatedtoanothermindwithoutthe intervening help of the recognized organs of sensation? And
if such evidence be found, is the impression derived from a rareorpartiallydevelopedandhithertounrecognizedsensory organ,orhasthementalperceptbeenevokeddirectlywithout anyantecedentsense‑percept?”
The committee classified the phenomena of Thought‑ Transferenceasfollows: I.Phenomenamanifested,inwhichthehandsoftheoperator areincontactwiththesubject. II.Phenomenamanifestedwithoutcontactwiththeperson willingorsendingthethought‑impulse. III.Phenomenamanifested,inwhichsomenumber,wordor cardisguessedwithoutanyapparentphysicalcommunication betweentheoperatorandsubject.
In the first class of phenomena the committee places the ordinary“mindreading”ofthepublicperformer,inwhichthe operatorplaceshishandsuponthesubject,orinwhichheis placedinsomekindofphysicalcontactwiththelatter.Ithas beenheldthatthisclassofphenomenareallycomesunderthe head of “muscle reading,” inasmuch as there is transmitted to the subject some slight muscular impulse, often given involuntarily and unconsciously by the operator. This theory was first advanced by Dr. W. B. Carpenter, the distinguished English psychologist, who held that “the communications are made by muscular action on the part of one person and automatically interpreted by the other.” Dr. Carpenter explained this involuntary muscular action by his celebrated theory of “unconscious cerebration,” in which there is “the intermediationofthoseexpressionalsignswhicharemadeand interpretedalikeunconsciously.”Thefamiliar“willinggame”so oftenperformedforparloramusementbelongstothiscategory, asdoalsotheperformancesofmanyofthecelebratedpublic “mindreaders.”Thecommitteeconductednumerousseriesof carefulexperimentswithphenomenaofthisclass,and,while theresultswereveryinteresting,itwasfeltthattheconstantly present possibility of “unconscious muscular movement”
ExperimentalTelepathy
rendered the phenomena unsatisfactory from the scientific standpoint.
Thesecondclassofphenomenacamemorenearlyunderthe trueclassificationofTelepathy,foriftherebecommunication without physical contact it is reasonable to assume that somenewhypothesisisnecessary.Ifthesubjectwasableto selectandproceedtosomeobjectpreviouslyagreeduponby the operator or the roomful of people, in the “willing game,” withoutknowingtheobjectandwithoutphysicalcontactwith anypersonknowingit,thenitwouldseemthattheremustbe sometransmissionofthoughtimages“withouttheintervening helpoftherecognizedorgansofsensation.”Butsocarefulwere themembersofthecommittee,andsocloselydidtheyadhere to the strictest scientific methods, that they discarded this classofphenomenaasunsatisfactoryandunconvincing,and asopentothesuspicionthatthesubjectmayhavereceived involuntaryguidancefromtheeyesofthecompany,orperhaps from the different shades of tone in the conversation as the subjectapproachedorrecededfromtheselectedobjecttobe found.Eventhoughthesubjectmightbeblindfolded,itwas possible for impressions to be received through the sense of sight.
Thewriterremembersaninstanceinwhich,inhisopinion, a well‑known “mind‑reader” visiting in this country received impressions through her sense of hearing, although carefully blindfolded. The following quotations are from the account written by him at the time, and give an idea of the modus
operandi(thenameoftheperformerisomittedhere,although
appearingintheoriginalpublicationoftheaccount):
“The room was well filled with intelligent people, eager for an exhibition of the wondrous phenomenon of telepathy. Miss —— appearedanddeliveredashortaddressuponherwondrouspower…. Shethenplacedtwolong‑stemmedflowersontheplatform,andwas led away into another room to be blindfolded. During her absence
twopersonssteppeduptotheplatform,asperinstructions,andeach touchedaflower.Miss ——wasthenledbackintotheroom,blindfolded withasilkhandkerchief,andstartedintofindthepersonswhohad touched the flowers. She succeeded and handed each the flower previouslytouched.Shethen‘unitedaseparatedcouple,’byfinding oneandleadinghimtotheother.Shethenlocatedtheweaponwith whichanimaginarymurderhadbeencommitted,themurderer,the hiddenbody,and(wonderuponwonders)evenfoundthepoliceman toarrestthecriminal.Shefoundapieceofjewelryandrestoreditto the owner. She correctly disclosed the number of a bank‑note. The audience was pleased and many went away apparently convinced thatherewastelepathythattelepathed.Itdoeslookwonderful—now, doesn’tit?Wehavegivenyouanideaofhowitseemedtothegeneral observer,nowletustellyouhowitappearedtothosewhowere‘on theinside.’
“In the first place, Miss —— was a much cleverer performer than the average ‘mind‑reader.’ She performed her feats with much less ‘personal contact’ than any other public performer whom we have seen.Shewentaboutherworkwithoutlossoftimeandwithanair ofconfidenceandassurancewhichcreatedagoodeffect.Itappeared tous,however,thatherfeatscouldbefullyaccountedforuponthe theoryoftheuseofthefivesenses,sharpenedbypractice,andthat anyofthefeatscouldbeduplicatedbyonefamiliarwiththesubject, withouttheaidoftelepathy.’Ofcourse,Miss ——mayhaveperformed herfeatsby‘mindreading’nobodybutherselfcanspeakpositivelyon thatpoint,—butwesaythatthesamefeatscanbeperformedbythe useofthefivesensesalone.Inthefirstplace,theordinaryblindfolding doesnotshutoutthesensesofsightandhearing,asyoumayascertain byalittlepersonalpractice.Thenthesenseoffeelingisfreeforone’s use,andwhenitisrememberedthat‘thoughttakesforminaction,’ andthattheaveragepersonwillgiveunconsciousmovementsinthe direction of the object or person thought of, it readily will be seen thataperformerwhohasdevelopedtouchandperceptiontoahigh degreewillbeabletofindapersonorthinguponwhichanumber ofpeopleareconcentratingtheirthoughts,withoutbeingcompelled
ExperimentalTelepathy
tofallbackupontelepathy.Thisisquitesimplewhencontactishad with the audience, but more difficult when contact is not resorted to.InMiss ——’sflowerfeat,itwasnoticedthattheentireaudience waslookingintentlyinthedirectionofthatoneofthe‘thoughtof’ personswhohappenedtobethenearertoher.Manypeopleinthe roomwerewhispering,butassheapproachedthedesiredpersonthe whispering decreased until almost a perfect silence prevailed when theproperpersonwasreached.Miss ——placedherhandsupona numberofpersonsbeforereachingtheproperone,butassoonasshe placedherhandsontherightonetheaudienceapplaudedloudly,and thesearchended.Itwasnoticedthatsomeoftheladiespresentwere so carried away with sympathy and enthusiasm that, unconsciously, theywouldwhisper,‘No.no!’‘Yes,that’sright!’‘Thisway,thisway!’‘To theright,right!’etc,etc.,andbyotherinvoluntaryexclamationsand motionsgivecueswhichcouldbetakenadvantageofbyaperformer dependingupontheuseofhersharpenedsenses.Inshort,itwasan up‑to‑datevariationoftheoldgameof‘hotandcold,’familiartoour childhooddays.
“You all know how expert some of your crowd of boys and girls becameinthisgame,andhowsoonthehiddenobjectwasfoundby theaidofthe‘hotandcold’suggestions.Youallrememberhowsome sympatheticandenthusiasticlittlegirlwouldbecomesoexcitedthat whenyounearedthehiddenobjectshecouldscarcelykeepherseat, andher‘hot,hot,HOT!’fairlysentyouspinningtowardthehidden handkerchief. We well remember our own childhood days, when this was our own favorite game, and when we were the champion lightweight‘hotandcold’finderofourjuvenileset.Andweremember, oh,howwellweremember,thatlittlefairfacedgirlwiththelonggolden curlsandthatsweetlittletrickofdemurelyliftingherbigblueeyesto meetourownboyishgaze.Wewellrememberhowouryouthfulheart wouldbeatwhenthoseeyesofbluewould—butthat’sanotherstory. Whatwewishedtosaywasthatthatlittlegirlwasourmascotinthe gameof‘hotandcold.’Evenwhenshewassinging‘cold,cold,cold,’ she would be looking intently toward the hidden object, and even leaninginthatdirection.Andwhenwewoulddrawneartotheobject,
wecouldhavefounditifwehadbeendeafanddumb,providedwe retained our sense of sight. That little girl was our guiding star, our compass.
“There were many ‘grown‑ups’ that evening who reminded us forciblyofthewaysofthatlittlegolden‑hairedfairy.They‘justwanted’ Miss ——tofindthosechosenpeople‘theworstway,’andtheynodded their heads, shook them, frowned, smiled, inclined in the indicated direction, rose to their feet when she got ‘hot,’ and when the right personwasfinallyreachedledtheapplause.Blesstheirhearts,they werejustsendingthoughtwavestohelpheralong,and,then,wasn’t sheblindfolded,sowhatdifferencediditmakeafterall?Oh,itjustmade ushomesickforasightofthatlong‑lostlittlegirl,theresemblancewas soperfect.Well,Missfoundthepeoplewhohadtouchedtheflowers, andeachreceivedthechoiceblossomasarewardofmerit.Shethen startedintoreuniteaseparatedcouple.Itwasthesamethingover again—the same feat, same method, same result. New name, that’s all.Thistimeweexperimented.Weturnedourbackwhen‘thecouple’ wasbeingselected,sothatwemightnotknowwhoweretheguilty individuals.Whenthehuntbeganweturnedaroundandfoundthat wewereabletopickouttheseparatedtwin‑soulssimplybymeansof the‘hotandcold’suggestionsbeinggiven,althoughrememberthat wehadtodependonsightandhearing,oursenseoffeelingnotbeing calledintoplay.WecouldeasilytellwhenMiss ——wasgetting‘hot’ and,inshort,wereabletopointouttoourcompaniontheprogress ofthehunt. “Whenitisrememberedthatthechosenpersonnearlyalwaysgives an involuntary indication to the trained observer who is touching him,itwillbeseenthatexperience,trainingandquickenedpowersof perceptionaretheprimerequisitesfortheperformanceofthemajority oftheseso‑called‘telepathic’feats.’Insomeofthesubsequentfeats somedoubtingThomaseswouldoccasionallyapplaudwhenMiss— reachedsomepersonotherthantherightone.Onsuchoccasionsshe wouldstopjustwhereshewasandwouldapparentlythinkthatthe rightpartyhadbeenreached,untilanominoussilencewouldreveal
ExperimentalTelepathy
thefactthatshewas‘cold.’This,ofcourse,mayhavebeenmerelya seriesofcoincidences,andwesimplystateitasanitemofinterest.”
It is interesting to note that the same performer, at a later exhibition, in which she was subjected to scientific test conditions(includingthepropercoveringoftheeyesbymeans oflittleovalsofsurgeons’cotton,placedneatlyoneoverthe other, and a bunch on top of all, and then the handkerchief boundoverthat;andthefillingofherearswithcotton,with another handkerchief bound around them) failed utterly to performthefeatsthatshehadsosuccessfullyperformedatthe previousexhibition.Sheclaimedthatherfailurewasduetothe audiencebeing“againsther,”andevenaccusedthepersonwho hadbroughtaboutherfailureofhavinghypnotisedher.The opinionofthescientificinvestigatorspresentwasthatshewas unabletoreceivetheimpressions,consciouslyorunconsciously, throughthesensesofsightorhearing,andhencefailed.We have related the case merely to show that it is possible for thesefeatstobeperformedwithoutcontactbymeansofthe ordinary senses. It is possible that this performer may have beenself‑deceived—suchcasesarecommoninthehistoryof experimentalpsychology.
In view of what we have said, it may be seen why the committeeoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearchruledoutthis secondclassofphenomenaasnotbeingabovethesuspicionof errorand“unconsciouscerebration.”IftheproofsofTelepathy terminatedherethedecisionwouldhavetobetheoldScotch verdictof“notproven.”Butasweproceedtoaconsideration ofthethirdclassofphenomenawewillseethattheinquiryhas onlybegun.
Chapter IV
The English Experiments
B
y reference to the preceding chapter you will see that the third class of phenomena of Thought‑transference, according to the classification adopted by the English Society for Psychical Research, comprises cases in which “somenumber,wordorcardisguessedwithoutanyapparent communicationbetweentheoperatorandsubject,”sofaras theordinarysensesareconcerned.The experiments of the Society were eventually confined to this class of phenomena. It was recognized that if it were possibletoestablishtheexistenceofthisclassofphenomena, in which the operation of the ordinary senses was inhibited, thentherewouldbelaidthefoundationforarationalscientific belief in the reality of Thought‑transference. Voluntary or involuntarytransmissionofinformationbymeansofthefive senses being rendered impossible, it will be seen that the onlyelementofdangerwasthatofcollusionortrickery.This latter contingency was fully recognized by the Society and itscommitteetookstepstoguardagainstthedanger.Itwas ruledthatexperimentsconductedbeforeageneralaudience werealwaysopentothedangerofcollusionandtrickery,and that, therefore, results obtained therein lacked true scientific
value. Accordingly, the experiments of the committee were conductedbeforealimitednumberofpersons,theindividuals beingpersonsfamiliarwithscientificmethodsandhavingno personalinterestintheresults.
One of the early series of experiments by the committee wasthatcommonlyknownas“TheCreeryExperiments.”The subjectswerethefourchildrenoftheRev.A.M.Creery,B.A., ofDerbyshire,England.Mr.Creeryhadexperimentedwithhis childrenforaperiodofseveralyears,beginningwiththefamiliar “willing game,” and then gradually rising to higher phases of phenomenasuchasthe“guessing”ofnames,numbers,cards, etc. Mr. Creery reported to the committee in these words: “Webeganbyselectingthesimplestobjectsintheroom;then chosenamesoftowns,people,dates,cardsoutofapack,lines fromdifferentpoems,etc.,infact,anythingorseriesofideas thatthosepresentcouldkeepbeforethemindsteadily….They seldom made a mistake. I have seen seventeen cards chosen bymyselfnamedrightinsuccessionwithoutanymistake.We soonfoundthatagreatdealdependedonthesteadinesswith which the ideas were kept before the minds of the thinkers andupontheenergywithwhichtheywilledtheideastocome topass….Imaysaythisfacultyisnotbyanymeansconfined to members of one family; it is much more general than we imagine.ToverifythisconclusionIinvitedtwoofaneighbor’s childrentojoinusinourexperimentsandequallysatisfactory resultswereobtained.”
The committee investigated Mr. Creery’s statements, and coming to the conclusion that he was acting in good, faith and upon reasonable evidence, they began this remarkable series of experiments which continued over the period of aboutoneyear.Thefollowingreportwillgiveanideaofthe scientificmethodsemployed,andtheprecautionstaken.The committeereports:“TheinquiryhastakenplacepartlyinMr. Creery’shouseandpartlyinlodgingsorinaprivateroomat ahoteloccupiedbysomeofournumber.Havingselectedat
TheEnglishExperiments
random one child, whom we desired to leave the room and wait at some distance, we would choose a pack of cards, or writeonpaperanameoranumberwhichoccurredtousat themoment.Generally,butnotalways,thiswasshowntothe membersofthefamilypresentintheroom;butnoonemember wasalwayspresent,andweweresometimesentirelyalone.We thenrecalledthechild,oneofusalwaysassuringhimselfthat, whenthedoorwassuddenlyopened,shewasataconsiderable distance, though this was usually a superfluity of caution, as ourhabitwastoavoidallutterancesofwhatwaschosen.On re‑enteringshestood—sometimesturnedbyuswithherface tothewall,oftenerwithhereyesdirectedtotheground,and usuallyclosetousandremotefromthefamily—foraperiodof silencevaryingfromafewsecondstoaminute,tillshecalled outtoussomenumber,cardorwhateveritmightbe.”
The result of the first experiment was that the child succeeded in naming the object selected, in six cases out of fourteen. In the card tests she succeeded six times out of thirteen.Inthenametestsshesucceededinfivecasesoutof ten.Andinthenamingofsmallobjectsheldinthehandsof members of the committee she succeeded in five cases out ofsix.Thispercentagewasconsideredsoremarkable,andso muchgreaterthantheaverageexpectancywouldindicate,that thecommitteefeltthattheywereconsideringacaseofgenuine Thought‑transference.Andaccordinglyotherexperimentswere begun. Thefollowingisashortreportofoneofthemostinteresting of the Creery experiments: “One of the children was sent into an adjoining room, the door of which I saw was closed. On returning to the sitting room and closing its door also, I thoughtofsomeobjectinthehouse,fixeduponatrandom; writingthenamedownIshowedittothefamilypresent,the strictest silence being preserved throughout. We then all silently thought of the name of the thing selected. In a few seconds the door of the adjoining room was heard to open,
andinaveryshortintervalthechildwouldenterthesitting‑ room, generally appearing with the object selected. No one wasallowedtoleavetheroomaftertheobjecthadbeenfixed upon;nocommunicationwiththechildwasconceivableasthe placewasoftenchanged.Further,theonlyinstructionsgivento thechildweretofetchsomeobjectinthehousethatIwould fixuponand,togetherwiththefamily,silentlykeepinmindto theexclusion,sofaraspossible,ofallotherideas.InthiswayI wrotedown,amongotherthings,ahair‑brush—itwasbrought; an orange—it was brought; a wineglass—it was brought; an apple—itwasbrought;etc.,etc.”
Many other experiments of the greatest interest were performed,whichwemustomitforwantofspace.Thefollowing summary,however,willgiveanideaoftheremarkablesuccess attendingtheseries.Atotalrecordofthreehundredandeighty‑ twoseparateexperimentsappearsinthereports.Acalculation ofthechancesofsuccessaregivenasfollows:“Inthecaseof lettersofthealphabet,ofcards,andofnumbersoftwofigures, thechancesagainstsuccessonafirsttrialwouldnaturallybe 25to1;51to1;and89to1;respectively.Inthecaseofsurnames the chances against success would of course be indefinitely greater.Cardswerefarmostfrequentlyemployed,andtheodds intheircasemaybetakenasafairmediumsample,according towhich,outofthewholeseriesofthreehundredandeighty‑ twotrials,theaveragenumberofsuccessesinthefirstattempt byanordinaryguesserwouldbesevenandone‑third.”Inview oftheabovestatedcalculationofchancesagainstsuccess,itis interestingtonotethatintheseriesoftrials127successesatthe firstattemptwerereported;56onthesecondattempt;19on thethirdattempt,makingthe remarkable total of 202 successes
out of a possible 382.
But one of the special experiments reveals a still more remarkable result. The committee selected a card without revealingittothefamily.Atonetimefive cards runningwere guessed correctly on first attempt. The odds against this
TheEnglishExperiments happeningwereover1,000,000to1.Anothertimetherewasa sequenceorrunofeight cardssuccessfullyguessedatfirsttrial, againstwhichtheoddswereestimatedat142,000,000to1;and asequenceorrunofeightnamessuccessfullyguessedatfirst trial,theoddsagainstsuchahappeningbeingalmostbeyond calculation.Thecommitteeinmakingitsreportsaidthatthey feltthatallchanceoffraudorcollusionhadbeenpractically eliminated, and that the hypothesis of coincidence being overbornebytheabovestatedcalculations,thereremainedbut theconclusionthatthephenomenawasreallyamanifestation ofThought‑transferance.
Prof. Balfour Stewart, LLD., F. R. S., who was present at a number of these experiments, reported as follows regarding certainpointsnoticedbyhim:
“In the first instance, the thought‑reader was outside a door. The objectorthingthoughtofwaswrittenonpaperandsilentlyhanded to the company in the room. The thought‑reader was then called in, and in the course of perhaps a minute the answer was given. Definiteobjectsintheroom,forinstance,werefirstthoughtof,and inthemajorityofcasestheanswerswerecorrect.Thennumberswere thoughtof,andtheanswersweregenerallyright,but,ofcourse,there weresomecasesoferror.Thenamesoftownswerethoughtof,anda goodmanyofthesewereright.Thenfancynameswerethoughtof.I wasaskedtothinkofcertainfancynamesandmarkthemdownand handthemroundtothecompany.Ithenthoughtofandwroteon paper,‘Bluebeard,’‘TomThumb,’‘Cinderella,’andtheanswerswereall correct.” Laterintheyear,thecommitteeresumedtheexperiments with the Misses Creery, this time, however, not at their own homebutattheresidenceofMr.F.W.H.MyersinCambridge, England. These experiments continued over a period of ten days.Theresultswereasremarkableasthoseobtainedinthe earlierexperiments.Forinstanceinthecardtestsmadewith
thefullpackoffifty‑twocards,outof248trialsthegirlsguessed 22absolutelycorrect;onthefirsttrial;and18onthesecond trial; besides which there were 69 guessed partially correct. Asthechancesofcorrectguessesshouldhavebeenbut1out of52trials,itwillbeseenthattheexperimentwasadecided success.Ononedayoftheseries,outof32experiments5were completely successful at the first attempt, and 20 partially correct.Onthisdaytherewasarecordofthesuitbeingnamed correctly14timesinsuccession,thechancesagainstsuchan occurrencebeing4,782,969to1.
In the experiments with figures known alone by the committee,outof64trialswithfiguresrangingfrom10to99, thegirlguessed5correctatfirsttrial;and6atsecondtrial.The average, of course, would be but 1 in 90 trials, according to thelawofaverage,whereasthegirlssucceededinaverymuch greaterdegree.
Chapter V
More English Experiments
A
nother series of experiments conducted by the English committee which has attracted the attention ofinvestigators,isthatknownasthe“Blackburn‑Smith experiments.”Theseexperimentswereconductedbeforethe committeeunderthedirectionoftwoofitsmembers,Messrs. F.W.H.MyersandEdmundGurney.Mr.G.A.Smithwasthe percipientandMr.DouglassBlackburnwastherecipient.The placeoftheexperimentswasBrighton,England. Therecipient,Mr.Smith,wasblindfolded,andsatwithhis back toward the percipient, Mr. Blackburn. Every precaution againstfraudwasobserved.Inordertoshutouttheonlysense possiblyavailabletotherecipient,thatofhearing,hisearswere coveredwithheavybandages;andincertainexperimentshis ears were filled with putty which was in turn covered by a thickbandage,overthiswasdrawnabolstercase,andthenhis entireheadandbodywascoveredbyablanket.Moreoverthe committeegroupeditselfaroundMr.Blackburn,thepercipient, so as to prevent his attempting to communicate with the recipientinanyway,Mr.Blackburnbeingalsorequiredtosit perfectlystillandquietsometwofeetbehindtherecipient.The resultswereobtainedunderthesestrictandrigidrequirements.Thenames,figures,etc.,weregivenbythecommittee,oneata timebeforeeachexperiment,toMr.Blackburn,thepercipient, whothenclosedhiseyesandconcentratedhisminduponMr. Smiththepercipient,whoshortlyafternamedtheobject,etc., thoughtof,orelsedrewwithapencilthefigureselected. Thefollowingistherecordoftheresultsobtained:
Color Selected. ……… Answer.
Gold……… Gilt(colorofpictureframe.) LightWood ……… DarkBrown,Slaty. Crimson ……… FieryLooking,Red. Black……… Black OxfordBlue ……… Yellow,Gray,Blue. White ……… Green,White. Orange………ReddishBrown. Black……… Iamtired.Iseenothing. • • •
Names Chosen. ……… Answer.
Barnard ………Harland,Barnard. Bellairs……… Humphreys,BenNevis,Benaris. Johnson ……… Jobson,Johnson. RegentStreet……… RembrantStreet,RegentStreet. QueenAnne ……… Queechy,Queen Wissenschaft……… Wissie,Wissenaft. Then followed a series of experiments in which pain was inflictedonthebodyofMr.Blackburn,thepercipient,andMr. Smith,therecipient,toldwhatpartofhisownbodyfeltthe pain.
Part of Body. ……… Answer.
LeftUpperArm ……… LeftUpperArm. LobeofRightEar………LobeofRightEar.
