Mind-Reading versus Muscle-Reading

Abstract

SEVERAL years ago I had the opportunity of witnessing in a private circle of friends some experiments on so-called “thought-reading”, even more striking than those recently described in your columns and elsewhere. An attentive observation of these experiments led me to question the accuracy of that explanation of the phenomenon with which Dr. Carpenter has made us so familiar, namely, unconscious muscular action on the one side, and unconscious muscular discernment on the other. After making the most extravagant allowances for the existence in some persons of a muscular sense of preternatural acuteness, here still remained a large residuum of facts wholly unaccounted for on any received hypothesis. These facts pointed in the direction of the existence either of a hitherto unrecognised sensory organ, or of the direct action of mind on mind without the intervention of any sense impressions. Such startling conclusions could not be accepted without prolonged and severe examination, and it was solely in the hope of stimulating inquiry among those who had more leisure and more fitness for the pursuit than myself that I published the brief record of my experiments which, some years ago, brought derision and denunciation upon me. As no physiologist came forward to give the subject the wide and patient inquiry it demanded, I went on with the investigation, and for five years have let no opportunity slip which would add to the information I possessed. A letter addressed to the Times, asking for communications from those who had witnessed good illustrations of the “willing game”, brought me in, at the time referred to, a fload of replies from all parts of England, and down to the present time fresh cases are continually coming under my notice. Each case that seemed worthy of inquiry was, if possible, visited and investigated either by myself during the vacation, or by a friend on whom I could rely. It is true that many long journeys have been taken and much time has been spent without a commensurate reward, but this was to be expected. Still, after cating out cases which might or might not have been due to “muscle-reading”, there remained abundant evidence to confirm my belief in the insufficiency of Dr. Carpenter's explanation. Until this evidence is published, which it will shortly be, and the accessible cases are examined and reported upon by a competent and impartial committee, I simply ask the public to suspend their judgment on this question. And to show that this is not an unreasonable request on my part, I here give a few particulars of a remarkable case which reached me only a few months ago, and was carefully investigated by myself last Easter.