ABOUT US
CONTACT US
INVESTIGATIONS
EVENTS/CLASSES
IS IT A GHOST
ALIENS
YOUR GHOST STORIES
BOOK INTERVIEWS |
One of
the common urban legend that has
become a "Fact" to most people in
the world of paranormal research is
that Thomas Edison was working on some
type of device that would allow
communication with the dead.
This legend was started by an
interview with Mr. Edison that
appeared in the October 30, 1920 issue
of Science magazine.
He was quoted as saying “If
our
personality survives, then it is strictly
logical and scientific to assume that it
retains memory, intellect, and other
faculties and knowledge that we acquire
on this earth. Therefore, if personality
exists after what we call death, it's
reasonable to conclude that those who
leave this earth would like to communicate
with those they have left here. . . . I am
inclined to believe that our personality
hereafter will be able to affect matter.
If this reasoning be correct, then, if we
can evolve an instrument so delicate as to
be affected, or moved, or
manipulated . . . by our personality as it
survives in the next life, such an
instrument, when made available, ought to
record something......"
This quote became the basis of the current
claims of many different types of ways to
have two way communication with the dead.
However the most important fact behind
this interview has been lost or ignored by
those who are using it to add credibility
to their otherwise nonsensical devices. In
a later interview Mr. Edison made a
statement as he was being interviewed by
another publication that he could
not believe that the story had been
printed and that he was not describing
anything that he was working on or ever
would. He stated that it was more of a
comical statement than a statement about
his research.
The curators of the Thomas Edison National
Historic Site have stated: "This seems to
be another tall tale that Edison pulled on
a reporter. In 1920 Edison told the
reporter, B.F. Forbes, that he was working
on a machine that could make contact with
the spirits of the dead. Newspapers all
over the world picked up this story. After
a few years, Edison admitted that he had
made the whole thing up. Today at Edison
National Historic Site, we take care of
over five million pages of documents. None
of them mention such an experiment.
" They have told us at Rocky
Mountain Paranormal that this is the most
requested document that they do not have
and has never existed.
So the answer to the question "What
machine was Thomas Edison working on to
communicate with the dead?" can be very
easily answered...... He was not.
This story points out once again that
people involved in paranormal research
need to stop following the stories
that have been told to them and
actually do some research, and not
rely on what other "researchers".
What
did Edison think about the human
soul and afterlife?
From his autobiography:
THE
REALMS BEYOND
XXXIII - LIFE
AFTER DEATH
The thing which first struck me
was the absurdity
of expecting “spirits” to waste
their time operating
such cumbrous, unscientific media
as tables, chairs,
and the ouija board with its
letters. My convinced be-
lief is merely that if ever the
question of life after
death, or psychic phenomena
generally, is to be solved,
it will have to be put on a
scientific basis, as chemis-
try is put, and withdrawn from the
hands of the char-
latan and the “medium.”
My business has been, and is, to
give the scientific
investigator---or, for that
matter, the unscientific----
an apparatus which, like the
compass of the seaman,
will put their investigations upon
a scientific basis.
This apparatus may perhaps most
readily be de-
scribed as a sort of valve. In
exactly the same way as a
megaphone increases many times the
volume and
carrying power of the human voice,
so with my
“valve”, whatever original force
is used upon it is in-
creased enormously for purposes of
registration of the
phenomena behind it. It is exactly
on the lines of the
tiny valve which in a modern
power-house can be
operated by the finger of a man
and so release a hun-
dred thousand horse-power.
Now, I don’t make any claims
whatever to prove
that the human personality
survives what we call
“death.” All I claim is that any
effort caught by my
apparatus will be magnified many
times, and it does
not matter how slight is the
effort, it will be sufficient
to record whatever there is to be
recorded.
Frankly, I do not accept the
present theories about
life and death. I believe, rightly
or wrongly, that life
is indestructible, it is true, and
I also believe that
there has always been a fixed
quantity of life on this
planet, and that this quantity can
neither be increased
nor decreased. But that does not
mean that I believe
the survival of personality has
been proved---as yet.
Perhaps it may be one day. Perhaps
some apparatus
upon the lines of my “valve” may
prove it, but that
day is not yet, nor have I as yet
secured any results to
definitely prove such survival.
What I believe is that our bodies
are made up of
myriads of units of life.
Our body is not itself the unit
of life or a unit of life. It is
the tiny entities which may
be the cells that are the units of
life.
Everything that pertains to life
is still living, and
cannot be destroyed. Everything
that pertains to life
is still subject to the laws of
animal life. We have my-
riads of cells, and it is the
inhabitants in these cells,
inhabitants which themselves are
beyond the limits
of the microscope, which vitalize
and “run” our body.
To put it in another way, I
believe that these life-
units of which I have spoken band
themselves to-
gether in countless millions and
billions in order to
make a man. We have too facilely
assumed that each
one of us is himself a unit, just
as we have assumed
that the horse or dog is each a
unit of life. This, I am
convinced, is wrong thinking. The
fact is that these
“life-units” are too tiny to be
seen even by the most
high-powered microscope, and so we
have assumed
that the unit is the man which we
can see, and have
ignored the existence of the real
life-units, which are
those we cannot see.
There is nothing to prevent these
entities from car-
rying on the varied work of the
human body. I have
had the calculations made, and the
theory of the elec-
tron is, in my view, satisfactory,
and makes it quite
possible to have a highly
organized and developed
entity like the human body made up
of myriads of
electrons, themselves invisible.
Further, I believe that these
life-units themselves
possess in exactly the same
pattern again, and with the
same lines as the hand
originally had before the acci-
dent. Now, it would be quite
impossible for those hun-
dreds of fine lines to be
meticulously reproduced if
there were no memory for detail
behind the rebuild-
ing of them. The skin does not
grow that way and in
exactly the same pattern again “by
chance.” There
is no chance.
But are all these life-units, or
entities, possessed of
the same memory, or are some, so
to speak, the build-
ers’ labourers?
It may be that the great mass of
them are workers
and a tiny minority directors of
the work. That is not
a matter about which we can speak
with any cer-
tainty.
But what one can say with some
assurance is that
these entities cannot be
destroyed, and that there is a
fixed number of them. They may
assemble and reas-
semble in a thousand different
forms from a starfish
to a man, but they are the same
entities.
No man today can set the line as
to where “life”
begins and ends. Even in the
formation of crystals we
see a definite ordered plan at
work. Certain solutions
variation. It is not impossible
that these life-entities
are at work in the mineral and
plant, as in what we
call the “animal” world.
In connection with the problem of
life after death,
the thing that matters is what
happens to what one
may call the “master”
entities---those that direct the
others. Eighty-two remarkable
operations on the brain
have definitely proved that the
seat of our personality
lies in that part of the brain
known as the fold of
Broca. It is not unreasonable to
suppose that these en-
tities which direct reside within
this fold. The su-
preme problem is what becomes of
these master enti-
ies after what we call death, when
they leave the
body.
The point is whether these
directing entities remain
together after the death of the
body in which they
have been residing, or whether
they go about the uni-
verse after breaking up, If they
break up and no
longer remain as an ensemble, then
it looks to me
that our personality does not
survive death; that is,
we do not survive death as
individuals.
If they do break up and do not
remain together
after the death of the body, then
that would mean
that the eternal life which so
many of us earnestly
desire would not be the eternal
life and persistence
the individual, as individual, but
would be an imper-
sonal eternal life---for, whatever
happens to the life-
units, or whatever forms they may
assume, it is
at least assured that they
themselves live forever.
I do hope myself that personality
survives and that
we persist. If we do persist upon
the other side of the
grave, then my apparatus, with its
extraordinary deli-
cacy, should one day give us the
proof of that per-
sistence, and so of our own
eternal life.
VIII-1922
XXXIX
- LIFE”S FLASHBACKS
We Do Not Remember, A certain
group of our little
people do this for us. They live
in that part of the
brain which has become known as
the “fold of Broca.”
Broca discovered and proved that
everything we call
memory goes on in a little
strip not much more than a
quarter of an inch long. That is
where the little people
live who keep our records for us.
Some of the little peoples who
enable us to remem-
ber things do nothing else during
our entire lives but
watch moving picture shows.
Everything that comes
in through the eyes comes in the
form of moving pc-
tures. These pictures come so
rapidly that, like the
pictures on a screen, they seem to
be but one picture,
but in fact they are millions. The
optic nerves bring
the pictures through the small
holes in the front of
our skulls into our brains where
the little peoples
whose function it is to remember
can see them. We
do not remember everything we see
because every-
thing is not worth remember.
Little Peoples, like
“big peoples,” are of various
degrees of intelligence.
Some will choose to remember what
others will choose
to forget. But whatever their
intelligence, they all
seem to be impressed by the
startling and the unusual.
The thing is remembered that makes
an impression.
When a human being is young and
his little memory-
people have empty record cases,
many things make an
impression. That is why so many
childhood memories
linger throughout our lives.
A man was here the other day who
had recently
visited the school-house he
attended when he was five
years old. He told me that as he
approached the place
everything seemed much as he had
left it almost half
a century before: the hill down
which he used to
coast had somewhat flattened out;
it was not the little
Matterhorn, the memory of which he
had carried
with him so many years, but a very
gentle slope. As
he drew nearer the little building
his mind was was flooded
with memories; this thing, that
thing, and the other
thing---there they were just as he
had left them. But
when he approached one of the side
windows and
looked into the room where he
learned the alphabet,
he got a great shock. Something
was wrong with the
windows! They were too low. As he
looked through
the little panes of glass he
became distinctly uncom-
fortable. What was the matter?
Then the answer
came to him. The last time he had
looked through
that window he was so short that
he had to grab hold
of the sill to pull himself
up. He had grown so tall that
his eyes were perhaps three feet
above the sill.
Now see what had happened.
For more than forty
years some of the little people in
this man’s brain had
carried about with them a certain
recollection about
those window sills. The
recollection was that the sills
were so high one could not look
through the windows
without pulling himself up. Waking
or sleeping,
wherever he went during those
forty-odd years, that
recollection was with the
man, though he did not
know it. During this time, the
substance of his body,
including his brain, had changed
several times, but
the little peoples that live in
the cells had not changed.
The moment the little peoples in
that man’s optic
never began to see moving
pictures of those old win-
dow sills and sent the message
back to the brain, some
of the little people in the fold
of Broca began to stir.
they had heard about those window
sills before.
they were so high that nobody
could look through
them without pulling himself up!
There may be twelve or fifteen
shifts that change
about and are on duty at different
times like men in
a factory. I infer this from the
fact that we sometimes
have to send for the particular
ones that have the rec-
ords we want. That is what we do,
I think, when we
cudgel our memories for the things
we want to recall.
We have forgotten a man’s name,
for instance. We
ask the shift of little peoples
who happen to be on
duty, “What is that man’s name?”
They were not on
duty when the name was given to
them to remember
and they don’t know. After a
while, suggestion or
something else summons the shift
that has the name
and they give it. I therefore take
it that the posses-
sion of what is called a good
memory really means the
possession of the ability to
summon the particular
groups of little peoples who have
the records we want.
Haven’t you noticed that when you
get in touch with
the right group the thing you want
to recall comes
crashing into your consciousness
with no evidence
whatever of impaired vitality? The
little peoples, who
have remembered perfectly, seem
almost to shout at
you the information you want.
Therefore it seems
likely that remembering a thing is
all a matter of
getting in touch with the shift
that was on duty when
the recording was done.
These little intelligences inhabit
human bodies just
to get experience. They seem to
crave it. As I see it,
something like this happens:
Billions of little peoples,
perhaps, come together in a
certain individual. Some
want to do one thing and some
another. Some have
high ideals and some have not. For
a while, they fight
out their differences and then the
stronger group takes
charge and this group dominates
the man’s life. If the
minority is willing to be
disciplined and to conform
there is harmony or at any rate
something that ap-
proximates it. But oftentimes the
minority is not will-
ing to conform. It is outraged at
what it conceives to
Minorities then sometimes say, “To
hell with this
place; let’s get out of it.” They
refuse to do their ap-
pointed work in the man’s body, he
sickens and dies,
and the minority gets out, as does
too, of course, the
majority. They are all set free to
seek new experience
somewhere else.
I should like to think that the
recollections of ex-
periences in one human life are
carried forward
through an endless succession of
other lives. If the
same little peoples were forever
grouped together we
should then have immortality and,
what is perhaps
more important, we should be able
to begin each new
experience with all the wisdom
that we had gained
during the ones that
precceded it. This, however,
is
not what happens. Each generation
is not able to
profit from the mistakes of its
ancestors. Each genera-
tion commits most of the same
follies that have been
committed since the beginning of
time.
Nevertheless, I believe that some
of our experi-
ences are carried forward into
succeeding generations.
How else shall we account for what
we may call in-
herited wisdom? Put your finger in
a sleeping baby’s
hand. What does the baby do? It
closes its hand on
your fingers. Why? Because some of
the little peoples
in this baby remember the time
when their fore-
fathers lived in trees and it was
neccessary, to keep
from falling and breaking their
necks, to close their
hands. upon the limbs of trees.
What we call “inborn traits” are
recollections of
earlier experiences that the
little peoples have brought
along with them. Take an Indian
baby, for instance.
No matter how hard or how long you
may try, you can
never make a white man out of that
baby. The little
peoples in the baby will not
permit you to do so. They
have their ideas, gained from
preceding experiences,
of what a human being should do.
You may repress
these little peoples to the point
where you believe you
have made an Indian into a white
man, but, when you
least expect it, they will jump
out at you and startle
you with a war whoop. Of course,
what you do to the
red little peoples will constitute
part of the recollec-
tions that they will carry on into
their next life-experi-
ence; and when there have been
enough such experi-
ences the Indian’s “inborn traits”
will have been
changed.
That is about the way I look at
it. I do not see how
there could be any such thing as
carrying from one
person to another the bulk of the
recollections that
the little peoples have as they go
along. These minute
intelligences that carry our
records would become so
burdened, if they did not forget
most of their experi-
ences, that they would have no
further capacity for
memorizing. And inasmuch as the
same little peoples
never reassemble in another body,
there can be no
such thing as the perpetuation of
the individual in
another earth-life. Such things
can happen, as they
say, “only in the movies” or in
literature. Rudyard
Kipling, in one of his best
stories, had a London bank
clerk get a glimpse of a former
incarnation when he
was a Greek galley slave. That was
literature, but it
was not science.
III-21-1925
xxx ∙ MEMORY UNITS
IF MY THEORY IS CORRECT----that
the machine called
man is only a mass of dead matter
and that the real
life is in the millions of
individual units which navi-
gate this machine, and if on the
destruction of the
machine these individual units
keep together, includ-
ing those which have charge of
memory (which is our
personality)---then I think it is
possible to devise ap-
paratus to receive communication,
if they desire to
make them. It will be very
difficult, as each individual
unit, as to size, is beyond the
limit of our present mi-
croscopes.
When I was a little boy,
persistently trying to find
out how the telegraph worked and
why, the best ex-
planation I ever got was from an
old Scotch line re-
pairer who said that if you had a
dog like a dachshund
long enough to reach from
Edinburgh to London, if
you pulled his tail in Edinburgh
he would bark in Lon-
don. I could understand that. But
it was hard to get at
what it was that went through the
dog or over the
wire. II-8-1921
XXXXI - THE MYSTERY OF LIFE
I believe all the old and accepted
theories of the
origin of life to be fundamentally
wrong.
Down in Florida, where I have a
place, there is
a bush which grows in the
ocean---that is, it seems to
be a bush. Really it is animal
matter built into bush
form by the efforts of thousands
of insects; it is the
work of highly organized
individuals massed in a
crowd for the purpose of the
building. The unin-
formed who see it, native whites
and negroes, believe
this insect-aggregate to be a
vegetable individual---a
sea-tree.
Almost all men, even those whom we
accept as
best informed, make a similar
mistake with regard to
that which we denominate as a cat,
or an
elephant. We think the man a unit,
that he is just a
man; we think the cat a
unit, that he is just a cat; we
think the elephant a unit, that it
is just an elephant.
I am convinced that such thinking
is basically in
error. Like the “bush” in the sea
near my Florida
home, the man, the cat, the
elephant are collections of
units. The man does. The cat does.
The elephant
does. But it is only seeming.
Each is made up of many
individuals gathered in a
community, and it is the
community. The unit which
makes it up may be too small even
for the microscope
to see. Everything which we can
see is a manifesta-
tion of community, not of
individual effort.
The mystery of life would be
inexplicable were it
not for this. We say a man dies.
Perhaps, in a sense,
the term is accurate when the
aggregate which we
have called a man ceases to
function as an aggregate
and therefore no longer can be
called a man; but the
expression is not at all accurate
if by it we mean that
the life which kept that man at
work or at play ceases
to exist. Life does not cease to
exist.
The life-units which have formed
that man do
not die. They merely pass out of
the unimportant
mechanism which they have been
inhabiting, which
has been called a man and has been
mistaken for an
individual, and select some other
habitat or habitats.
Perhaps they become the animating
force of some-
thing else or many other things.
The theory which generally
maintains about the
origin of life seems to me to be
unreasonable. We can’t
get something out of nothing. Life
can’t make life.
Life is. It is not made.
Another thing which continually
puzzled me, for a
long time, was that nature seemed
to be so horribly
cruel. I could not acount for it .
Finally, I have come
to the conclusion that it is not
true.
It is only apparent. Really those
things which seem
to be manifestations of
nature’s cruelty are merely
episodes of competition between
groups which covet
one another’s machines, one
feeling that the possession
of another’s might help it better
to meet the
exigencies of the environment with
which it finds
itself surrounded. Take the
supposed cruelty of the
shark toward the cod for example;
it probably is
the effort of the vast swarm of
individuals which
make up the shark to obtain for
its own purposes
the mechanism of the group which
inhabits the
cod, has built the cod, and has
given it the appear-
ance and the functions of what we
call “individual
life.” Real life is not lost at
all in such a struggle.
Thus, I believe that really it is
not cruelty at all
when the battle brings a complete
and not merely a
partial victory, when the victim
is “killed,” as we er-
roneously say and think, and not
wounded and left
“living” and in pain.
That is the only theory which
seems reasonable to
me with regard to that which we
have denominated
the “life-and-death struggle.”
Then, if the individual is not the
unit, what is? Ob-
viously, the unit must be the
smallest complete entity
among those which make up the
aggregate which we
erroneously have called the
individual. Very well.
Then how small can a unit be and
how compli-
cated?
That must depend upon the fineness
of matter.
Smallness of units must accord
with the ultimate fine-
ness of matter. And life is
individual to the unit and
not to the aggregate of units. It
is probable that the
units are so small that, as yet,
no microscope powerful
enough to distinguish them as
individuals has been
created.
If we accept this as fact, another
question arises:
Is matter fine enough to permit
units of such minute
size to be very complicated?
We need not worry about that. The
electron theory
gives to it a reply which is
wholly satisfactory. I have
had the matter roughly calculated
mathematically
and have at hand the data of the
calculation. I am
sure that a highly organized
entity, consisting of mil-
lions of electrons, still
remaining too small to be vis-
ible through any existing
microscope, is possible.
Ink your fingers, as the police
might that of a crimi-
nal, and then press it upon paper,
thus recording the
many tiny whorls which indent its
skin. Then seriously
burn it, so as to take the skin
all off, and when it
heals----that is, when the forms
anew---ink it
again and again press it upon
paper. It will record
whorls precisely similar to those
which you had burned
away. Who built the
new in duplicate of the old?
Nature?
No. Nature would not take the
trouble to remem-
ber such unimportant details. The
new were built by
thev units of the swarm, and the
exactness with which
the old were reproduced is due to
the fact that the
swarm has memory.
If a bridge falls, we rebuild it.
If there should come
along an outsider, say, a man from
mars with eyes
so coarse in their functioning (a
reasonable thought)
that he could not see anything so
small as a human
workman, but acute enough so that
he could see the
the ruins of the old bridge and
the new structure
erected to take its place, he
would say that the old
bridge had died and nature had
grown a new one.
Again, If this creature, unable to
see anything as
small as a man, but able to see
big things, like our
larger ships and say,
sky-scrapers, were to examine
our world, he would think the
ships and sky-scrapers
were natural growths. He never
would dream that
man had built them, for he never
would be able to
see man. The fact that we
attribute to nature so many
creative achievements is proof of
our ignorance and
the inadequacy of our power of
observation.
The individuals in the aggregate
which we call a
“man,” the members of the swarm
which (to some
extent by chance) have collected
to make that man,
are ninety-five per cent workers
and five per cent
directors. The workers cannot loaf
or stop, even
though something may compel them
from their
habitat, that which has been the
“body.” of a “man.”
They must go to something else to
build, as, for in-
stance, to corn, a tree,
grass---whatever may be---al-
ways working under the direction
of the higher type
among them. These, by the way,
will be responsible,
as they dominate or fail to, or in
accordance with their
aspirations, for the character of
that which now is
built.
In the case of a “man,” for
example, he may be
“bad” or “good,” in accordance
with the trend of
these dominant individuals or in
accordance with the
majority quality of the
individuals which have gath-
ered, more or less by chance, in
the swarm which
makes him up. He is “good” if
“good” individuals are
more numerous in it and dominate,
and “bad” if the
reverse occurs. The theory
explains many things.
Among these is the hitherto
mysterious force called
the “subconscious mind.”
Instances of startling ability,
such as that, for e
ample, which characterizes a
Rockefeller, are begin
ning to indicate to me the chance
gathering into
swarms of individuals in which
qualities of a certain
kind are paramount.
In the institute which bears the
Rockefeller name,
and which, by the way, was endowed
with some of
the millions which the collective
genius of the assem-
bled Rockefeller intelligence has
gathered, parts of
a chicken “killed” years
ago---that is to say then dis-
membered so completely
that,werethe oldbeliefs
accurate, the process must have
caused death and
must have been followed by decay
unless some method
of artificial preservation had
been resorted to----still
“live” and “grow” in
gelatine-filled glass jars pro-
vided for the purpose of the
experiment. The cells--
that is, the communes or groups of
individuals which
originally built that
chicken---still are sending out
workers, and these continue
building. This is because
the environment surrounding them
is kept constantly
favorable to their work despite
the “death” of the
“individual”----the aggregate
called a “chicken”s.
Now, let us think about that
chicken’s origin. The
accepted age-old theory is that it
was the develop-
ment of an egg to which the life
of the mother hen
had imparted part of itself, and
that this developed
until, within the egg, an
embryonic chick was formed,
which, growing, became perfect and
strong, broke
the shell, and appeared, a fully
developed baby fowl.
As a matter of fact, if the theory
upon which I work
is accurate, the egg from which
the chicken came held
the nucleus indeed, but held
nothing which could
be responsible for all that
afterward brought about
the formation of the chicken.
That, I am beginning
to believe, entered this egg from
the outside.
It is generally contended that all
which is neccessary
in order that a chicken may be
built is fertilized egg,
and that, under favorable
conditions, this egg devel-
ops into the chicken through the
working of forces
within itself. I do not believe
this. I believe that what
I have called a “swarm,” liberated
from something
else, finds this nucleus from the
outside, and, accept-
ing it as its new home, goes into
it and starts to build
this or that kind of chicken
according to the indica-
tion of the nucleus.
Then comes the inevitable
question: “Can life
come out of life in
unlimited reproduction?”
Already
I have expressed a negative
opinion, with regard to
this by saying: “Life can’t make
life. Life is.” I do not
believe the affirmative reply,
which so generally is
accepted. Had that affirmative
theory been accurate,
the earth long since would have
been covered and
smothered with all kinds of life.
It is obvious that
there must be some limit to
reproduction. “Bad years”
and “good years” for corn, for
instance, could not
explain the situation as it really
is.
We don’t know what the units of
life are or what
the requisites of their existence.
It maybe that they
can live and prowl about in the
ether of space and do
not in the least require our
atmosphere or soil. If so,
earth-life can have accessions
from the mysterious
realms beyond our atmosphere.
Probably that is how
we got here in the first place,
how life got here. The
thought that life originated on
this insignificantly
little and comparatively
unimportant sphere to me
seems inconceivably egotistical.
As a matter of fact, the manner of
the genesis of
life upon this earth, I think, was
this: After the earth
cooled of the great heat of its
assemblage,life-units
came to it through space, into
which they had been
thrown from some other more
developed sphere or
spheres. Reaching the earth, they
adapted themselves
to the environment they found
here; and then began
the evolution of the various
species as we have them,
each “growing” individual being a
collection of cell-
communes.
I think this theory will explain
special abilities
better than any other. It will rid
the world of harmful
superstitions such as those of
spiritualism. It will
bring order out of the chaos of
much of that puzzle-
ment which we endeavor to accept
as reasoning with
regard to the creation and the
genesis of man.
I have spoken about extraordinary
developments
of so-called genius in
individuals. Special ability must
result if, by some fortuitous
chance, a collection, or
swarm (I find myself accepting
that word as de-
scriptive) chances to be made up
of entities of vary
high class along one particular
line. Affinity, the at-
traction of like for like,
probably plays its part i the
formation of such collection.
There have been hun-
dreds of cases of extraordinary
significance.
Another question which must be
answered before
I can proceed on the intelligent
development of this
theory is: “Could such a little
thing as I have in mind
travel through the ether of space
or only through the
air?” If it could travel through
the air only, then its
progress would be slow. If it
could travel through the
ether, it could proceed at the
rate of a hundred and
eighty thousand miles a second,
going, a distance
equivalent to the circumference of
the earth in one-
four-hundred-and-twentieth of a
minute. There, as
elsewhere in the general problem,
is work for a math-
ematician who is very expert.
There is work here, also, for an
expert botanist,
because the line between animal
and vegetable life
is so very narrow. And there
remains for determina-
tion the line between “live” and
“dead” matter and
between movable and fixed life.
In the early moments of this
paper, I spoke about
what seems to be but is not a
“sea-bush” that grows
in the water near my winter place
in Florida. A cer-
tain class of organized, living
beings, large enough
even to be seen with the naked
eye, builds structures
which appear to be but are not
plants, being nothing
more nor less than swarms of
insects gathered in that
form in order that they may get
food conveniently.
Consider the sponge. It seems
vegetable, but is ani-
mal. Investigate further, and you
will find it to be an
aggregate which has been built by
a group of insects.
It is impossible to accept as fact
all the apparent
testimony of appearances. In
geological ages, all of a
certain type of crustacean
creatures suddenly dis-
appeared, and quite a different
type came into being.
The swarms that had built the
first had not been
annihilated, but the environment
had changed, and,
in order to meet its new
conditions, they built mecha-
nisms of another pattern. One
mechanism has been
replaced by another of a different
type many times
in the world’s history. Changed
conditions not only
require but force new forms. When
a new evniron-
ment replaces an old one, old
forces build in new
ways, in order to adapt themselves
to altered circum-
stances.
Doubtless something of the sort
will happen many
times again. Certain animals that
we know much
about have been changed entirely
in order to meet
altered environment, and of this
we have incontro-
vertible evidence. For instance,
the elephant used to
be a woolly beast. He ceased to
be. He didn’t change
himself. The animal doesn’t know
anything about
such changes. It is the group
which changes him,
working quite beyond his
consciousness. The indi-
vidual members of the swarm---that
is, its leaders---
realize the new necessities and
begin to meet them
gradually and with invariable
intelligence. They stop
building the old forms; they
stopped building wool
on the outside of the elephant
when the elephant’s
environment became tropical. When
the swarm finds
wool unnecessary, wool, then, is
dispensed with.
Swarms do it all. The daisy has
been the same for,
say, fifty thousand years. Then
comes a variation.
Perhaps the daisy becomes blue.
How could one daisy
do that? Some disturbance of the
swarm that built
that daisy must be responsible for
the change.
The absurdity of our present
theories seems pitiful
to me. “Nature does it!” What of
that remark? It
really means nothing, takes us
nowhere. Botanists
and allied scientists may prove me
to be all wrong
in saying that. That will not
worry me if they will
produce something which really
will be reasonable.
It will take thought, deep
thought, and that high
mathematical skill which I have
mentioned to dis-
cover how many individuals can
live in each cell;
for a cell cannot be the
unit of organized matter; it
must be a group of organisms---a
fixed commune.
I want some one to start
along a new line of
thought with regard to these and
kindred subjects.
We have been accepting
old-established theories
a complacency unworthy even of our
present imper-
fect mental grasp. We need fresh
brain-energy among
our scientists, new bravery,
new initiative. Einstein
has shown the world the sort of
thought it needs, and
it needs it along many lines. The
more Einsteins we
can get, the better . I wish we
had an Einstein in every
branch of science.
Many great discoveries remain to
be made. We
must start anew in many
things, rejecting the old
theories as Einstein did, building
along new lines as
Einstein did, fearing nothing any
more than Einstein
did.
It is not impossible that, when we
find the ultimate
unit of life, we shall learn that
the journey through
far space never could harm it and
that there is very
little that could stop it.
Remember that it is smaller,
infinitely, than anything the
microscope can see . I
believe the ultimate life-particle
could go through
glass with the greatest case, and
that not the highest
or the lowest temperature known to
human science
could harm it. Such units of life
could have come,
and possibly still are coming,
without injury through
the cold of space. We know of
microbes which will
endure through four degrees above
absolute zero, and
some are so small that they can be
forced through
porcelain.
We human beings are colloids, not
crystals; and we
are in the best possible general
environment for col-
loids. We never use crystals in
our body-building if
we can avoid them.
It is quite conceivable that these
entities with which
life starts have intelligence
sufficient for the initiation
of new lines of endeavor from time
to time, as occa-
sion or necessity for new lines
arises. There is that
hairless elephant; there is that
blue daisy; there are
countless changed and changing
forms. That is the
De Vries theory, which opposes the
Darwinian theory
of the origin of species.
The little entities are fine
chemists. They can make
an alkali so strong that it will
displace from its salts
the chemist’s master alkali,
potassium, and they must
be close to ultimate matter, for
they decompose
salt into sodium and hydrochloric
acid. Obviously,
will take great chemical as well
as great mathemati-
cal knowledge to cope with the
problems which they
offer, but the world has, or will
have, men who can
do it. Even now there is the
wonderful Japanese,
Takamini, who discovered
adrenalin, that extraordi-
nary astringent which is
manufactured by a gland
and controls blood-pressure.
There is a significant instance,
an illustration! It
is the product of a gland not an
effort of intelligence,
which controls blood-pressure. The
brains of men
have little to do with the control
of the bodies of
men. Tell me that our brains are
the sole seat of
our intelligence? Why,
seven-tenths of the action of
our bodies is quite
automatic---that is, entirely be-
yond and dissociated from
brain---control. The brain
does not control the circulation
of the blood, the
action of the lungs, stomach, or
bowels, growth of
any of the vital processes. It is
controlled by them.
Nothing could be more absurd than
to regard the
brain as the exclusive seat of
knowledge. Knowledge
is everywhere throughout our being
and throughout
all other beings, inanimate,
perhaps, as well as ani-
mate.
It is everywhere. In the animal,
human or other-
wise, the head is merely the chief
office in which
orders are originated and from
which they are dis-
tributed. The five senses realize,
understand, and
meet the conditions which exist
outside the body.
The brain is occupied by the
high-class workers.
They have charge. The balance are,
I might say, the
proletariat. But it is dangerous
(as many politicians
have discovered ) to assume that
any proletariat is
without intelligence. Those among
this proletariat
who show special ability may
achieve promotion,
moving upward to the higher tasks,
I think, as men
developing special talents in
industry may move up-
ward. Perhaps it is this process
which slowly is mak-
ing us more civilized.
Now, I shall express another
thought which may
seem startling. I believe these
swarms, or, at least,
the individuals which make up
these swarms, live
forever. Individuals among the
entities which form
them may change their habitat,
leaving one swarm
and joining another, so to speak,
building corn, for
instance, to-day and chickens
to-morrow, in accord-
ance with the material which they
find at hand to
work with. It is not impossible
that the chief workers
may keep together, from time
to time changing their
environment as circumstances may
dictate, but I
think evidence exists that the
workers separate when
a job on which they have been
occupied is finished,
and go to find new tasks with
little or no regard for
old companionships. This simply is
a repetition, and
perhaps the fundamental pattern of
those processes
which we find necessary in our
ordinary lives. The
personality-swarm abides within
the fold of Broca,
which, from eighty-two surgical
operations, is known
to be the seat of memory. If this
swarm keeps together
after body-death, our personality
still lives.
It is the most complicated of
subjects, opening up
very novel lines of reflection.
That thought of the
swarms is fascinating. A swarm,
any swarm, easily
might contain beings which knew
how to build us as
we were when we were chimpanzees
or even as we
were when we were fishes; I
understand that in one
period while we are in embryo we
have the gills of
fish, which slowly slough away
before our actual
birth.
I think it is certain that, if our
environment in
future changes as materially as it
has in the past,
alterations as great as that from
fish to man and
from gills to noses will occur in
the course of future
ages. Then what shall we be?
I have very vivid recollections of
a motor journey
through Switzerland not long
before the World War
began. As it progressed, I saw the
effect of environ-
ment upon myself. If we went to a
hotel in a small
town far from steam- or
water-power,and therefore
without electric light, we found
everyone in it going
to bed at half-past eight or nine
o’clock. In other
towns, where there was
electric light, product of
developed water-power from the
Alps, the people
didn’t go to bed till half-past
eleven or midnight .
They were alive and very
likely out on the streets
during those extra hours. We are
virtually dead when
we are asleep; that is, that is,
we then have no productive
mental life,and no mental life
which is not produc-
tive counts. Where there was
light, we lived longer
in the same length of time. Put a
developed human
being into an environment where
there is no efficient
artificial light and he must
degenerate. Put an un-
developed human being into an
environment where
there is artificial light and he
will improve.
Environment makes immense changes
in animals,
and it is interesting and hopeful
to note that the en-
vironment of human beings is
improving more rap-
ily than that of other animals.
Perhaps, for an ant
or a gnat, it is not changing at
all, although primary
changes are progressing in the
world itself. Earth-
quake shocks, like those which
recently occurred in
Mexico, prove that the world is
shrinking . They are
the convulsions attending
permanent alterations in
the earth’s size and shape, and
indicate the release
of strains.
A Great Deal is being written and
said about spiritu-
alism these days, but the methods
and apparatus
used are just a lot of
unscientific nonsense. I don’t
say that all these so-called
mediums are simply fakers
scheming to fool the public and
line their own
pockets. Some of them may be
sincere enough. They
may really have gotten themselves
into such a state
of mind, that they imagine they
are in communication
with spirits.
I have a theory of my own which
would explain
scientifically the existence in us
of what is termed
our “subconscious minds.” It is
quite possible that
those spiritualists who declare
they receive communi-
cations from another world allow
their subconscious
minds to predominate over their
ordinary, everyday
minds, and permit themselves to
become, in a sense,
hypnotized into thinking that
their imaginings are
actualities, that what they
imagine as occurring,
while they are in this mental
state, really has occurred.
But that we receive communications
from another
realm of life, or that we
have---any means, or
method through which we could
establish this com-
munication is quite another thing.
Certain of that
methods now in use are so crude,
so childish, so un-
scientific, that it is amazing how
so many rational
human beings can take any stock in
them. If we ever
do succeed in establishing
communication with per-
sonalities which have left this
present life, it certainly
won’t be through any of the
childish contraptions
which seem so silly to the
scientist.
I have been at work for some time
building an
apparatus to see if it is possible
for personalities
which have left this earth to
communicate with us.
If this is ever accomplished, it
will be accomplished,
not by any occult, mysterious, or
weird means, such
as are employed by so-called
mediums, but by sci-
entific methods. If what we call
personality exists
after death, and that personality
is anxious to com-
municate with those of us who are
still in the flesh
on this earth, there are two or
three kinds of appa
ratus which should make
communication very easy.
I am engaged in the construction
of one such appa-
ratus now, and I hope to be able
to finish it before
very many months pass.
If those who have left the form of
life that we
have on earth cannot use, cannot
move, the appa-
ratus that I am going to give them
the opportunity
of moving, then the chance of
there being a hereafter
of the kind we think about and
imagine goes down.
on the other hand, it will, of
course, cause a tre-
mendous sensation if it is
successful.
I am working on the theory that
our personality
exists after what we call life
leaves our present ma-
terial bodies. If our personality
dies, what’s the use
of a hereafter? What would it
amount to? It wouldn’t
mean anything to us as
individuals. If there is a
hereafter which is to do us any
good, we want our
personality to survive, don’t we?
If our personality survives, then
it is strictly logical
and scientific to assume that it
retains memory, in-
tellect, and other faculties and
knowledge that we
acquire on this earth. Therefore,
if personality exists,
after what we call death, it is
reasonable to conclude
that those who leave this earth
would like to com-
municate with those they have left
here. Accord-
ingly, the thing to do is to
furnish the best con-
ceivable means to make it easy for
them to open
up communication with us, and then
see what
happens.
I am proceeding on the theory that
in the very
nature of things, the degree of
material or physical
power possessed by those in the
next life must be
extremely slight; and that,
therefore, any instrument
designed to be used to communicate
with us must
be super-delicate ---as fine and
responsive as human
ingenuity can make it. For my
part, I am inclined
to believe that our personality
hereafter will be able
to affect matter. If this
reasoning be correct, then,
if we can evolve an instrument so
delicate as to be
affected, or moved, or
manipulated----whichever term
you want to use---by our
personality as it survives
in the next life, such an
instrument, when made
available, ought to record
something.
I cannot believe for a moment that
life in the first
instance originated on this
insignificant little ball
which we call the earth---little,
that is, in contrast
with other bodies which inhabit
space. The particles
which combined to evolve living
creatures on this
planet of ours probably came from
some other body
elsewhere in the universe.
I don’t believe for a moment that
one life makes
another life. Take our own bodies.
I believe they are
composed of myriads and myriads of
infinitesimally
small individuals, each in itself
a unit of life, and
that these units work in
squads---or swarms, as I pre-
fer to call them---and that these
infinitesimally small
units live forever. When we “die”
these swarms of
units, like a swarm of bees, so to
speak, betake them-
selves elsewhere, and go on
functioning in some other
form or environment.
These life units are, of course,
so infinitely small
that probably a thousand of them
aggregated to-
gether would not become visible
under even the ultra-
microscope, the most powerful
magnifying instrument
yet invented and constructed by
man. These units, if
they are as tiny as I believe them
to be, would pass
through a wall of stone or
concrete almost as easily
as they would pass through the
air.
The more we learn the more we
realize that there
is life in things which we used to
regard as inanimate,
as lifeless. We now know that the
difference between
the lowest-known forms of
animal life and trees or
flowers or other plants is not so
very great.
Small as these units of life are,
they could still
contain a sufficient number of
ultimate particles of
matter to form highly organized
entities or indi-
viduals, with memory, certain
varieties of skill, and
other attributes of living
entities. We, in our igno-
rance of all that pertains to
life, have come to imagine
that if certain things happen to a
human being or
an animal its whole life ceases.
This notion has been
repeatedly disproved in recent
years.
The probability is that among
units of life there
are certain swarms which do most
of the thinking
and directing for other swarms. In
other words, there
are probably bosses, or leaders,
among them, just as
among humans. This theory would
account for the
fact that certain men and women
have greater in-
tellectuality, greater abilities,
greater powers than
others. It would account, too, for
differences in moral
character. One individual may be
composed of a
larger percentage of the higher
order of these units
of life than others. The moving
out of myriads of
what we may call the lower type of
units of life and
the influx of myriads of units of
a higher order would
explain the change which often
takes place in the
personality and character of
individuals in the course
of their existence on this earth.
The doctors long ago told us that
our whole bodies
undergo complete transformation
every seven years,
that no particle that entered into
the composition of
our bodies at the beginning of one
seven-year period
remains in our bodies at the end
of seven years later.
this means that matter is
discarded, new matter
being replaced by the working
life-units or individ-
uals. This rough-and-ready way of
describing the dis-
carding of defective matter that
is constantly going
on in our make-up would not be
inconsistent with the
theory I have evolved.
A common saying is, “We are
creatures of environ-
ment.” This is true, at least up
to a certain point.
We have seen how environment has
wrought changes
upon animals, and even wiped out
certain species
altogether---as the discovery of
numerous skeletons
of mammoth animals of prehistoric
days has proved.
Units of life, it is perfectly
reasonable to deduce,
require certain environment to
function in certain
ways, and when environment
undergoes complete
change, they seek other habitats,
other dwellings, so
to speak, for the carrying on of
their functions.
Numerous experiments conducted by
medical sci-
entists have revealed that the
memory is located in
a certain section of the human
brain called the fold
of Broca. Now, to return to what
is called “life after
death.” If the units of life which
compose an indi-
vidual’s memory hold together
after that individual’s
“death,” is it not within range of
possibility, to say
the least, that these memory
swarms could retain the
powers they formerly possessed,
and thus retain what
we call the individual’s
personality after “dissolution”
of the body? If so, then that
individual’s memory, or
personality, ought to be able to
function as before
I am hopeful, therefore, that by
providing the
right kind of instrument, to be
operated by this per-
sonality, we can receive
intelligent messages from it
in its changed habitation, or
environment.
I CANNOT conceive of such a thing
as a spirit.
Imagine something that has no
weight, no material
form, no mass; in a word, imagine
nothing. I cannot
be a party to the belief that
spirits exist and can be
seen under certain circumstances,
and can be made
to tilt tables and rap chairs and
do other things of a
similar and unimportant natures.
The whole thing is
so absurd.
I have been thinking for some time
of a machine
or apparatus which could be
operated by personalities
which have passed on to another
existence or sphere.
Now follow me carefully; I don’t
claim that our per-
sonalities pass on to another
existence or sphere. I
don’t claim anything because I
don’t know anything
about the subject. For that
matter, no human being
knows. But I do claim that it is
possible to construct
an apparatus which will be so
delicate that if there
are personalities in another
existence sphere who
wish to get in touch with us in
this existence or sphere
this apparatus will at least give
them a better oppor-
tunity to express themselves than
the tilting tables
and raps and ouija boards and
mediums and the
other crude methods now purported
to be the only
means of communication.
In truth, it is the crudeness of
the present methods
that makes me doubt the
authenticity of purported
communications with deceased
persons. Why should
personalities in another existence
or sphere waste
their time working a little
triangular piece of wood
over a board with certain
lettering on it? Why should
such personalities play pranks
with a table? The
whole business seems so childish
to me that I frankly
cannot give it my serious
consideration. I believe that
if we are to make any real
progress in psychic in-
vestigation, we must do it with
scientific apparatus
and in a scientific manner, just
as we do in medicine,
electricity, chemistry, and other
fields.
Now what I propose to do is to
furnish psychic
investigators with an apparatus
which will give a
scientific aspect to their work.
This apparatus, let me
explain, is in the nature of a
valve, so to speak. That
is to say, the slightest
conceivable effort is made to
exert many times its initial power
for indicative pur-
poses. It is similar to a modern
power house, where
man, with his relatively puny
one-eighth horse-power,
turns a valve which starts a
50,000-horse-power steam
turbine. My apparatus is along
those lines, in that the
slightest effort which it
intercepts will be magnified
many times so as to give us
whatever form of record
we desire for the purpose of
investigation. Beyond
that I don’t care to say anything
further regarding
its nature. I have been
working out the details for
some time; indeed, a collaborator
in this work died
only the other day. In that he
knew exactly what
I am after in this work, I believe
he ought to be the
first to use it if he is able to
do so. Of course, don’t
of personality; I am not promising
communication
with those who have passed out of
this life. I merely
state that I am giving the psychic
investigators an
apparatus which may help them in
their work, just as
optical experts have given the
miscroscope to the
medical world. And if this
apparatus fails to reveal
anything of exceptional interest,
I am afraid that I
shall have lost all faith in the
survival of personality
as we know it in this existence.
I believe that life, like matter,
is indestructible.
There has always been a certain
amount of life on
this world and there will always
be the same amount.
You cannot create life; you cannot
destroy life; you
cannot multiply life.
The question has been raised that
if these life en-
tities are so small, they cannot
be large enough to
include a collection of organs
capable of carrying on
the tasks which I am about to
mention. Yet why not?
There is no limit to the smallness
of things, just as
there is no limit as to largeness.
The electron theory
gives us a reply which is wholly
satisfactory. I have
had the matter roughly calculated
and have at hand
the data of the calculation. I am
sure that a highly or-
ganized entity, consisting of
millions of electrons yet
still remaining too small to be
visible through any
existing microscope, is possible.
There are many indications that we
human beings
act as a community or ensemble
rather than as units.
That is why I believe that each of
us comprises mil-
lions upon millions of entities,
and that our body and
our mind represent the vote or the
voice, whichever
you wish to call it, of our
entities.
Of course, you say, it is nature.
But what is nature?
That seems to me to be such an
evasive reply. It
means nothing. It is just a
subterfuge---a convenient
way of shutting off further
questioning by merely giv-
ing an empty word for an answer. I
have never been
satisfied with that word “nature”.
The entities are life, I again
repeat. They are
steady workers. In our bodies
these entities constantly
rebuild our tissues to replace
those which are con-
stantly wearing out. They watch
after the functions
of the various organs, just as the
engineers in a power
house see that the machinery is
kept in perfect order.
Once conditions become
unsatisfactory in the body,
either through a fatal sickness,
fatal accident or old
age, the entities simply
depart from the body and
leave little more than an empty
structure behind.
Being indefatigable workers, they
naturally seek
something else to do. They either
enter into the body
of another man, or even start work
on some other
form of life. At any rate, there
is a fixed number of
these entities, and it is the same
entities that have
served over and over again for
everything in this uni-
verse of ours, although the
various combinations of
entities have given us an
erroneous impression of new
life and still new life for each
generation.
The entities live forever. You
cannot destroy them,
just the same as you cannot
destroy matter. You can
change the form of matter; but of
gold, iron, sulfur,
oxygen and so on, here was the
same quantity in
today. We are simply working the
same supply over
and over again. True, we change
the combinations
of these elements, but we have not
changed the rela-
tive quantities of each of the
elements with which
we started. So with the life
entities, we cannot destroy
them. They are being used over and
over again, in
different forms, to be sure, but
they are always the
same entities.
The entities are so diversified in
their capabilities
that it is difficult to identify
their handiwork in all
instances. Thus today the
scientists admit the diffi-
culty of drawing a line of
demarcation indicating
where life ends and inanimate
things begin. It may
be that life entities even extend
their work to minerals
and chemicals. For what is it that
causes certain
solutions to form crystals of a
very definite and in-
tricate pattern? Nature! But what
is nature? Is it not
fair to even suspect that life
entities may be at work
building those crystal? They don’t
simply happen.
Something must cause certain
solutions always to
form certain kinds of crystals.
Now we come to the matter of
personality. The
reason why you are you and I
am Edison is because
we have different swarms or groups
or whatever you
wish to call them, of entities.
After eighty-two re-
markable surgical operations the
medical world has
conclusively proved that the seat
of our personality
is in that part of the brain known
as the fold of Broca.
Now it is reasonable to suppose
that the directing
entities are located in that part
of our bodies. These
entities, as a closely-knit
ensemble, give us our mental
impressions and our personality.
I have already said that what we
call death is
simply the departure of the
entities from our body.
The whole question to my way of
thinking, is what
happens to the master
entities---those located in the
fold of Broca. It is fair to
assume that the other en-
tities, those which have been
doing purely routine
work in our body, disband and go
off in various direc-
tions, seeking new work to do. But
how about those
which have been directing things
in our body? Do
they remain together as an
ensemble or do they also
break up and go about the universe
seeking new tasks
as individuals and not as a
collective body? If they
break up and set out as individual
entities, then I
very much fear that our
personality does not survive.
While the life entities live
forever, thus giving us the
eternal life which many of us hope
for, this means
little to you and me if, when we
come to that stage
known as death, our personality
simply breaks up
into separate units which soon
combine with others
to form new structures.
I do hope that our personality
survives. If it does,
then my apparatus ought to be of
some use. That is
why I am now at work on the most
sensitive appa-
ratus I have ever undertaken to
build, and I await
the results with the keenest
interest.
|
|
|
|
