Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1917-08-07
THE TELAPATHY PROBLEM
BY H. Addington Bruce
ATELY have been reading singular and un

p ATELY have been reading a singular and un-
commonly interesting book. 1t Is froi:
H. Smile Boirac's La Psychologist lnconnue
entitled in it's American version our hluueh
Forces"
In this book Prof. Boirac deals particularly
though not exclusively, with the phenomena whlcn
we usually have in mind when we speak OF psychl-
cal research. Naturally he has good deal TO say
about telepathy. But, most unfortunately, ne pc
gins his discussion of this borderland problem OF
science by giving a misdefnition of telepathy. 10
be sure, in doing he has the excuse that MS
definition of it is the one commonly accepted ootn
by men of science and by laymen.
Yet the fact is that were not telepathy thus
generally misdefned the skeptical attitude of most
scientific with regard to it might long since
have been overcome.
Here is how Prof. Boirac, following many pre-
decessors, defines telepathy:
''Telepathy is clearly designated to specify tho
action of the transference of thought from one per-
son to another by the exercise of the will "
Now, on this definition of telepathy. 1t ought
to be simple matter to verify its actuahty oy eA
detrimental means. Thousands of telepath1c ex-
periments have been tried, sometimes at great dis
tances.
The results have been Disappointing few
experimenters-notably two English ladies', the
Misses Miles and Ramsden-have, it is true, SEEM
ingly succeeded in definitely establishing telepathH
connection with each other.
But. most experimenters have been obliged 10
report either outright failures inconclusive col
incidences. Consequently scientists, with few ex-
ceptions feel justified in affirming that true tele-
pathic action is nonexlstent.
One thing they have overlooked. AS pointed
out three years ago, in my book Adventures IN
the Psychical they have overlooked the possibility
that the will may not be the dominant factor In
efecting telepathic communication.
Scrutinized closely, the great mass of evidence
which first forced of science tC become inter-
ested in the teepathy probems-the evidence from
dreams, waking Authorizations, and other sponta-
neous phenomena-strongly suggests that actually
telepathy is produced by suhconscious desiring not
by conscious willing.
1t is incredible, for example, to suppose that
A. falling to his death over precipice in the mo-
ment of his fall consciously wiled his wife, B, to
dream of the distant tragedy. 1t is entirely cred
ible on the opposite, to suppose that as he fell his
thoughts might center on her with great emotional
intensity. From that intensity her coincidental
dream of his death would theL result
In my belief, that is to say, the secret of telep-
athy is to be found, not in the volitional sphere,
but in the emotional And if this be the case, II
becomes manifest to quote my own words as found
in the book mentioned:
THAT scientist is doomed to perpetual unbel1et
who boasts that he will never place credence IN
teIepathy until he play with it as he plays with
the chemicals in his test tubes.
lone cannot handle feelings one can handle
a chemical compound. nor can one manipulate at
will the subconscious as though 1t were a physical
substance"
The Boirac definition of telepathy, the popular
definition needs revising. l would revise 1t 20
read:
"By telepathy is meant the action OF transfer