A Theory of the Mechanism of Survival: The Fourth Dimension and Its Applications

Fig. 6

Let us now extend this idea rather further.

Suppose we were to take a series of cinematograph pictures of the two-dimensional world, from the direction of the third dimension. We should obtain a succession of pictures each representing the precise state of affairs at some given moment in the two space world. Every thing in it would be represented in each. There would be no question of one thing being hidden by another because we are regarding them all from the direction of the third dimension in which they have an inappreciable extension. If we imagine the two space world to be very small or our camera to be very large there is no difficulty in supposing that each of our pictures includes the whole of the two space universe,—plane beings, earth, sun, planets, etc., all complete.

Imagine further that these pictures are reproduced, as cinematograph films actually are, on a transparent substance and then let us superimpose these successive pictures on one another in order so as to form a block. By this means we can represent the disposition of all the objects in a two space system at a number of successive instants in one single three space figure. For instance, the motion of a two space planet round its sun would become a part of a helix or spiral. If we now cut away from our block all the blank material which intervenes between the representations of the various two space objects we shall have a complete synthesis in three space of a succession of two space arrangements. If we were now to pass this three space object through a penetrable two space surface, e.g., a soap film, we should exactly reproduce for the two space beings in it the changes which we had originally recorded.

By analogy we can see that it would be possible to account for all the changes in our three-dimensional space by supposing them to be due to the passage through it of suitably shaped and arranged four-dimensional solids, of which we only perceive at any moment a section whose extension in the fourth dimension is imperceptibly small.

It will appear later that I do not think that this is literally the case. The point I want to make here is that the phenomena of change or successive arrangement in space of a given dimensionality are capable of explanation in terms of forms in the next space higher, which latter do not change within themselves.

The precise import of this will appear when we come to consider the bearing of the higher space theory on the problem of the nature of Time.

CHAPTER II

THE SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND PROBABLE IMPORTANCE OF THE HIGHER-SPACE CONCEPTS.

In the preceding chapter I have tried to explain what is meant by the term "four-dimensional space" and to demonstrate some of its more important properties from the point of view of ourselves who live in space of three dimensions.

I am now in a position to state the basic hypothesis which I propose to discuss in the pages which follow.

Briefly stated it is this:—

"Higher space is a Physical reality and not a mere mathematical idea. In waking life the individual consciousness functions in a three-dimensional 'vehicle,' namely the physical body. But it may also possess at least one other vehicle—a four-dimensional one—and in this it may function after death and, possibly, during sleep, trance, anæsthesia and other forms of insensibility."

This hypothesis is not my own and I am not prepared to defend it as being necessarily correct. But, as I hope to show, there are a number of considerations which tend to support it and I do think it is sufficiently plausible to make it worthy of serious consideration before it is finally rejected by those who are students of these matters.

In this chapter I propose to deal with the different ways in which it is likely to prove of importance.

First of all, then, it has strong claims to be adopted as a working hypothesis by those who are students of Psychical Research, especially by those who are convinced of the validity of the Spiritistic explanation of communications purporting to emanate from the deceased.

Secondly, I believe that if accepted as valid it would do much to provide a common meeting ground for opposite schools of religious and scientific thought. Between these there was a most marked and unfortunate cleavage during last century and though there has been a very considerable rapprochement since the days when controversy was at its height there is still much to be done before we can hope for a complete community of thought and expression.

It is hardly necessary to say that these two spheres of application are very closely allied, but it is none the less convenient to separate them for purposes of discussion.

THE NEED OF A WORKING HYPOTHESIS IN PSYCHIC SCIENCE.

The studies of Psychical Researchers must necessarily cover a very wide area which is bounded on the one hand by Physical science proper, on another by Philosophy, on a third by Psychology and on a fourth by Religion. With each of these subjects it has close relations and yet possesses features which serve to distinguish it from any of them.

Sir William Barrett writes as follows of the scope of Psychical Research:

"The subjects to be considered cover a wide range, from unconscious muscular action to the mysterious operation of our sub-conscious self; from telepathy to apparitions at the moment of death; from hypnotism and the therapeutic effects of suggestion to crystal-gazing and the emergence of hidden human faculties; from clairvoyance, or the alleged perception of objects without the use of the ordinary channels of sense, to dowsing, or the finding of under-ground water and metallic lodes with the so-called divining-rod; from the reported hauntings of certain places to the mischievous pranks of poltergeists (or boisterous but harmless ghosts whose asserted freaks may have given rise both to fetishism and fairies); from the inexplicable sounds and movement of objects without assignable cause to the thaumaturgy of the spiritualistic séance; from the scribbling of planchette and automatic writing generally to the alleged operation of unseen and intelligent agents and the possibility of experimental evidence of human survival after death."

(Psychical Research, p. 10).

In view of the heterogeneous nature of this list I do not think it practicable to frame any hard and fast definition of Psychical Research. Moreover certain of the phenomena which it once studied—such as Hypnotism—have been largely taken over by "orthodox" science, and others, such as Telepathy and Clairvoyance, although of great intrinsic interest and some relevance, may ultimately be regarded as comparatively remote from the main body of psychic phenomena.

Roughly speaking, the characteristic feature of the latter is a suspicion, or prima facie appearance, or allegation that they emanate from, or are in some way connected with the activities of extra-mundane intelligences—notably the "spirits of" the deceased.

It is this feature which has caused their rejection by the sciences with which they would naturally appear to be associated and although our studies may in many cases show that the appearance is wholly spurious it must be remembered that, until every phenomenon is so disposed of and relegated to its appropriate "orthodox" science, the ultimate problem of Psychical Research is largely a matter of the provision of answers to such questions as:—

"Is there any scientifically valid reason for supposing that Individual Human Personality survives bodily death?"

"If so, under what conditions does it persist?"

"What is the relation between these new conditions and those with which we are acquainted?"

Any investigation into Human Personality of a scope less than this can be included under the heads of Physiology or Psychology which are prepared to investigate any conceivable intricacy in the mental or bodily states of the living.

It is only when the investigator refuses to be limited by bodily death that Psychic science differentiates itself as a separate study.

I do not propose to consider here whether psychical research has yet given any satisfactory answer to the above mentioned questions or even whether there is any considerable chance of its ever being able to do so.

I merely wish to point out the nature of the problems with which it is concerned and which alone distinguish it as a separate science.

It follows that any hypothesis advanced with a view to co-ordinating the observed facts may find itself called upon to give an intelligible explanation of discarnate personalities, that is to say of human personalities not functioning through the flesh and blood bodies in which we are accustomed to meet them.

So far as our present knowledge goes and on the balance of all the available evidence I am inclined to think that this necessity is at least imminent.

The adoption of some form of working hypothesis is moreover imperative in the light of scientific history.

All who are interested in psychical research will agree that it is in the highest degree desirable that it should be recognised as a Science of a dignity commensurate with its intrinsic importance and on a level with the sciences more generally accepted as such.

That it has not, hitherto, attained this position in the eyes of the world in general is largely due to the fact that it has not yet fully reached that stage of development which chiefly distinguishes a science properly so called from mere speculatory observation.

This is no reflection on the many able and genuinely scientific men who have worked on the subject ever since it first became prominent in modern times some seventy years ago but is, on the contrary, a necessary and inevitable stage in the growth of any science whatsoever.

The processes of acquiring scientific knowledge are as invariable as those of logical thought. Just as all accurate reasoning may be reduced to a series of syllogisms, so the process of acquiring exact knowledge may be reduced to a series of analogous sequences.

These are:—(1) Observation.
(2) Induction.
(3) Deduction.
(4) Experiment.—A special form of observation.

I do not say that this sequence of operations is always consciously performed any more than when "thinking a thing out" we always consciously reduce our reasoning to its simplest syllogistic constituents.

But every time we acquire a new item of knowledge it would be possible to reduce the process by which we acquired it to a series of the sequences mentioned above.

It is worth while considering these steps in slightly greater detail.

OBSERVATION in the last analysis means no more than the recording and classifying of sensations, which are the only form in which we get any information as to the outer world.

INDUCTION means the process of concluding from a study of the observed and collected facts that there is some specific co-ordinating principle at work by virtue of which the facts exist. This is the process known as forming a working hypothesis.

DEDUCTION. In this stage we consider more closely the working hypothesis which we have formulated, and we conclude that if it be true certain other consequences must inevitably follow.

EXPERIMENT. This simply means that we turn again to the outside world and examine it to see whether these deduced results do actually obtain in practice.

If they do we argue that our hypothesis is, probably, a correct one and we retain it until it is shown that if it be correct some result must inevitably occur which in fact does not.

There is a difference between a valid hypothesis and a true one—or, as the latter is commonly termed, a Law.

Any hypothesis is valid which explains the observed facts or at least explains some of them and contradicts none. But the epithet "true" can only properly be applied when it has been shown that all necessary deductions are invariably borne out in practice. As a matter of fact we can never say this with absolute certainty for it is always conceivable that some exception may some day be found which would necessitate the remoulding of the hypothesis.

The most we can say is that certain hypotheses have stood the test in such a very large number of cases without a single failure that there is a very high degree of probability that they are really true.

The hypothesis that the Chemical "Atom" was the ultimate and indivisible unit of matter was a perfectly valid one in the light of the facts that had been observed at the time of its formation and of its apparent proof by Lavoisier and others.

It is only the facts which have been elicited by the study of Ionisation, of Radio-active substances and similar phenomena that have proved it to be untenable and necessitated the substitution of the electronic theory.

Again the Corpuscular theory of light affords a very pertinent illustration of the point I wish to make.

A number of facts regarding the phenomena of light were observed and classified and it was found that these could be explained by the hypothesis that light consisted of a stream of very minute particles moving at very high speed which impinged upon the eye and thus gave rise to the sensations observed. Up to a point this explanation was perfectly satisfactory and for a long time it held the field, partly because of the great prestige of Newton to whom much of its development was due and partly because it continued to explain subsequently observed facts without much straining.

But among other things it was demonstrated that in order to account for the observed phenomena of refraction it was necessary to suppose that the "Corpuscles" travelled faster in water than in air.

At first there was no means of determining directly whether this was so or not. But later the researches of Foucault made it possible to settle the point by direct measurement. When the velocity of light in air and water respectively was measured directly by Foucault's method it was found that the velocity in water was less than that in air. The Corpuscular theory was therefore untenable.

It is only by this process of forming, testing and, if necessary, rejecting hypotheses that we gradually attain to exact knowledge. As Prof. Richet says:

"La science n'a jamais été qu'une serie d'erreurs, approximations constamment evoluant constamment boulversé, et cela d'autant plus vite qu'elle était plus avancée."

(Annales des sciences psychiques, 1905, p. 15.)

From this brief resumé of the steps involved in scientific progress it is clear that the formation of a working hypothesis, by inductive reasoning from the observed facts, is a normal, necessary, and invariable step in the progress of any science whatsoever.

For this reason I do not think it likely that Psychical research will attain any widespread recognition as a science until it is in possession of a valid working hypothesis capable of explaining at least the more important of the observed facts. I believe that the higher space hypothesis fulfills this condition and if so it is clearly worth while adopting, purely provisionally and tentatively of course, by those who concern themselves with the subject.

I have said that I think that the conception of higher space has a bearing on the relations between Religious and Scientific thought.

I shall reserve for a later chapter the treatment of the question from the purely religious stand-point, and shall only examine here the reasons which seem to me to have led so many sincere and able scientific men to a position at variance with the religious and spiritual point of view.

This is, of course, closely bound up with the whole topic of the various attempts which have been made to satisfy the perennial demand for light on the mysteries of life and death and on the spiritual and non-material aspects of the universe.

It is out of the question for me to attempt to classify here the countless religions, sects, and philosophies which have arisen from time to time. But they do seem to fall into three main groups and although it is impossible to label these in any really satisfactory manner I think one may say that the Materialistic Scientists are the representatives of one school, the Orthodox Theologians of another, and the Occultists of a third.

By the Materialistic Scientists I mean those who see in matter or ether the ultimate and only permanent reality and who attempt to explain every experienced phenomenon in terms of matter and ether and of these only.

According to their view, Thought, Emotion, Consciousness, are no more than electro-chemical changes in the protoplasmic constituents of the brain cells. "The brain secretes consciousness as the liver secretes bile."

The idea of "spirit" is inconceivable to them; for the whole essence of Spirit is that it is not matter nor, so far as we can imagine, ether.

Now although this attitude is utterly repugnant to me, I can yet easily understand and sympathise with the state of mind which occasions it. I, too, feel that if there is one thing above all others to which one's intellect must cling at all costs it is the general proposition of the coherence and continuity of the universe—in other words the great Law of Causation. If ever we let go of that we find ourselves in chaos—which is insanity.

Within the "ring-fence," so to speak, of matter and energy the law holds good, but anything outside appears to the scientist as "discontinuous" and therefore, quite rightly, revolting. As against this point of view my contention is that it is quite possible to form an intelligible concept of Reality, different from and yet perfectly continuous with, the physical reality of the scientist.

This first purely materialistic school admits of fairly easy delimitation whereas the other two schools mingle together and diverge within themselves in so complex a manner that it is much more difficult to distinguish them from each other than to separate either of them from the first. But I think the difference is something of this kind. The school of which the Occultists are typical seem to me to tend to replace logically coherent explanation by mere descriptive nomenclature. On the other hand the Orthodox Theologians, while dogmatically asserting the existence of spirit and constantly emphasising the supreme importance of the spiritual life, are apt to ignore the intellectual demand for intelligible explanation altogether.

It is merely foolish to ignore or to ridicule on 'a priori' grounds the statements of those who claim to have investigated the problems with which we are concerned by the cultivation of abnormal or commonly latent faculties.

If such faculties exist, as is very possible, it is clearly no more than common sense that they should be exercised to the full in the solution of problems which present especial difficulties to the more normal methods of investigation. The results might be of the very highest possible value. Indeed, it may well be that the cultivation of such faculties is by far the best way of attacking the whole question. I am by no means prepared dogmatically to deny it. None the less I think we are entitled to expect that those who claim to have attained knowledge by these means should take some pains to make their results continuous with existing knowledge and to eliminate needless obscurities.

At present the application of the word "Science" to the utterances of the Occult schools—as commonly presented—is a complete misnomer.

In Theosophical literature, for instance, we are confronted with a scheme of things built up of such terms as "Astral Plane," "Etheric Double," "Causal Body," "Karma" and so forth.

With all due deference to my Theosophical friends I submit that this is not scientific explanation and cannot be so unless its exponents are prepared to tell us what is the relation between the astral plane and the physical world, between the etheric double and the body as known to physiologists.

Thus it is intellectually unsatisfying and little calculated to arouse the sympathetic interest of the strictly logical thinker.

I do not mean to say that none of the words of the type quoted have any real significance. On the contrary I think it very probable that many of them have and that they do represent real parts of the actual scheme of things. The trouble is that they are only names; and to name a thing is not the same as to explain it. In common fairness I ought, however, to admit that in several passages Mr. Leadbeater—one of the best known Theosophical writers—makes a distinct effort to escape from this tendency and it has further been opined by a very eminent Occultist that the bulk of contemporary literature on the subject will be out of date in a few years.

I am inclined to suspect that this failing was the cause he had in mind.

I repeat that my primary quarrel is not with the accuracy or otherwise of the statements made. Every word of them may be perfectly correct, but so long as they are expressed in terms wholly unrelated to pre-existing concepts I must, qua scientist, remain unconvinced.

The third school which includes the Orthodox Theologians sometimes resembles the Occultists in the use of unintelligible terms but their chief weakness is their failure to recognise and to cater for the intellectual demand for coherent explanation.

They never weary of insisting, quite rightly, on the paramount importance of Spiritual things, but no effort is made to show the continuity which must, in a sane Cosmos, exist between Matter and Spirit, or to state the "common factor," so to speak, which unites them as parts of a coherent whole.

For myself I refuse to believe that no such common factor is discoverable. As Sir Oliver Lodge says, "I have learned to believe in intelligibility."

This omission on the part of theologians did not so much matter in the days before Physical Science had attained to its present degree of development. Men knew so little about the material Universe that they experienced little difficulty in finding a place in it for Spirit and the Spiritual life. "Heaven" was conveniently represented as being somewhere "above" and "Hell" as somewhere "below." But now things have altered and we know quite a fair amount about the material world. Consequently the scientist demands—not unreasonably, I think—an explanation of "Spirit" which shall not conflict with the fundamental laws of continuity and causation.

So far the theologians have failed to meet this demand and to provide the necessary habitat for consciousness which shall be independent of, and yet causally continuous with, the material world which the scientist knows.

It is this illogical discontinuity which has alienated the sympathies of so many men of scientific mind and forced them to attempt to reduce all mental and spiritual phenomena to terms of matter.

The foregoing should be sufficient to show how important it is that Psychical Research—the connecting link between the study of the material and that of the purely spiritual—should adopt as soon as possible some form of working hypothesis which is not repugnant either to religious or scientific thought. It is only by doing this that we can hope to retain the sympathies of both classes of thinkers and this is surely worth an effort quite apart from all other considerations. Here again I believe that the higher space hypothesis meets the requirements of the case and this is my second chief reason for urging its adoption.

CHAPTER III

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.

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.