Читать книгу A Theory of the Mechanism of Survival: The Fourth Dimension and Its Applications - W. Whately Smith - Страница 6

Table of Contents

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.