A soldier's tale

In his book The History of Spiritualism, Vol. II, Arthur Conan Doyle relates the following story. (This material appears in Chapter 9, "Spiritualism and the War.")

Of the many cases recorded of the return of dead soldiers, the following stands out because the particulars were received from two independent sources. It is related by Mr. W. T. Waters, of Tunbridge Wells, who says that he is only a novice in the study of Spiritualism:

In July last I had a sitting with Mr. J. J. Vango, in the course of which the control suddenly told me that there was standing by me a young soldier who was most anxious that I should take a message to his mother and sister who live in this town. I replied that I did not know any soldier near to me who had passed over. However, the lad would not be put off, and as my own friends seemed to stand aside to enable him to speak, I promised to endeavour to carry out his wishes.

At once came an exact description which enabled me instantly to recognize in this soldier lad the son of an acquaintance of my family. He told me certain things by which I was made doubly certain that it was he and no other, and he then gave me his message of comfort and assurance to his mother and sister (his father had died when he was a baby), who, for over two years, had been uncertain as to his fate, as he had been posted as "missing." He described how he had been badly wounded and captured by the Germans in a retreat, and that he had died about a week afterwards, and he implored me to tell his dear ones that he was often with them, and that the only bar to his complete happiness was the witnessing of his mother's great grief and his inability to make himself known.

I fully intended to keep my promise, but knowing that the lad's people favoured the High Church party and would most likely be absolutely sceptical, I was puzzled how to convey the message, as I felt they would only think that my own loss had affected my brain. I ventured to approach his aunt, but what I told her only called forth the remark: "It cannot be," and I therefore decided to await an opportunity of speaking to his mother direct.

Before this looked-for opportunity came, a young lady of this town, having lost her mother about two years ago, and hearing from my daughter that I was investigating these matters, called to see me, and I lent her my books. One of these books is "Rupert Lives," with which she was particularly struck, and she eventually arranged a sitting with Miss McCreadie, through whom she received such convincing testimony that she is now a firm believer. During this sitting, the soldier boy who came to me came to her also. He repeated the same description that I had received, mentioned in addition his name -- Charlie -- and begged her to give a message to his mother and sister-the selfsame message which I had failed to give. So anxious was he in the matter, that at the close of the sitting he came again and implored her not to fail him.

Now, these events happened at different dates -- July and September -- the same message exactly being given through different mediums to different persons, and yet people tell us it is all a myth and that mediums simply read our thoughts.

When my friend told me of her experience I at once asked her to go with me to the lad's mother, and I am pleased to state that this double message convinced both his mother and his sister, and that his aunt is almost brought to the truth if not quite.

Now, at first glance this seems like quite a strong case, but when we look more closely, its evidential value is harder to establish.

For one thing, apparently no one in the soldier's family actually knew how (or even if) he had died, so the detailed report of his capture by the Germans and subsequent death cannot be verified.

Second, the soldier had been missing for two years, so it was probably safe to assume he was dead.

Third, in a relatively small town, word of the family's predicament would have spread to strangers. (Tunbridge Wells today has a population of 56,000; probably it was even smaller in Doyle's day.)

Fourth, the two mediums could have been in collusion. In his book The Psychic Mafia, M. Lamar Keene (a reformed fake medium) reports that unscrupulous mediums routinely exchange information.

On the other hand, the case does have its interesting features. Note that the dead soldier was "the son of an acquaintance of [the sitter's] family." This connection is close enough to explain why the spirit chose to come to this particular sitter, yet distant enough to make it unlikely that the medium could have known about it.

Also, the second sitter had no obvious connection to the narrator (unless of course she mentioned him to the medium), yet she got the same message.

It's also perhaps of interest that the soldier's name was not given in the first séance but was supplied in the second. If the first medium had already researched the family, why hold back this piece of evidence? But if genuine communication was going on, the absence of the name makes more sense, since names are often the most difficult facts to receive (and some mediums are better with names than others).

Overall, the case shows both the strengths and weaknesses of reports of this kind. It helps us see why spiritualism became so very popular during the First World War, but also why the doubts of skeptical critics were never quite assuaged.

Doyle also makes some interesting points about reports of mediumship by the early Fathers of the Christian Church. We'll cover that next time. 

Comments

[jack]

"...since names are often the most difficult facts to receive..."
This seems to be a relatively recent problem. Back in the "old days" when ouija boards were used there were few problems getting a name spelt out.
It seems somewhat peculiar that the more "advanced" mediums woul not revert to using this method to obtain a name.
Perhaps this has been discussed before and you could refer me to the article(s).
Thanks

[Michael Prescott]

I don't know of any articles to refer you to, but possibly mediums are reluctant to use a ouija board becase the boards are said to attract "low level" or "earthbound" spirits, who can be deceitful and malicious.

[Michael Prescott]

I should add that mediums in an earlier era often were trance mediums, while mediums today usually do not learn how to go into trance. Trance mediumship can produce more evidential results, especially when combined with automatic writing. But considerable training is required to become a trance medium, and mediums nowadays seem to lack the patience. Michael Tymn's forthcoming book The Articulate Dead addresses this issue in detail, I believe.

[Hope Rivers]

There's risks involved with trance mediumship that deter many mediums training in this area.

Firstly the most obvious being attachment of malicious spirits, which can not only present a mental torment aspect but can add to the difficulty of everyday living (poltergiest type activity and harrassment to friends/family).

The other being a physical danger to the mediums health, most trance mediums of the past died relatively young often somehow related to their psychic work in one way or another. ( A malicious spirit can instigate forces to warrant accidents/tragedies).

As I see it it can become a sacrifice of life for science, pretty much like being a guinea pig.

Since some corners of science and religion is still quite hostile to psychic phemonena, most mediums are subject to ridicule and harrassment from the "unbelievers", so there seems alot of things that can deter one from developing this ability.

Most mediums just want to live a simple life and not subject their families to ridicule and intimidation from the skeptics by becoming a "recognised trance medium".

[william]

In the book “no living person could have known” by Neech a dead German officer in full uniform with shoulder holster and pistol comes back from the grave in Poland and dictated a letter to a polish woman to send to his wife in Germany that it was ok for her to remarry. (p96)

In the letter the German officer stated he had been killed and where he was buried. The officer’s grave was exhumed at the request of his wife and sure enough that was the grave of the German officer. His wife who traveled from Germany to witness the exhumation and also the ministry of war and the ministry of foreign affairs witnessed this exhumation.

The German officer was buried in full uniform with a shoulder pistol exactly as the polish woman had seen him when he knocked on her door and demanded she send the letter he dictated to her.

The widow was then able to remarry after seeing that her husband had indeed died and was buried exactly where he said he was buried in the letter.

As a side note to this story when an ultra skeptic asked me what proof I had of life after death I stated he may want to read the book “no living person could have known” for some evidence that suggests that life after death may exist. Once he saw the name of the publisher of the book “the psychic book club” he stated some scornful remarks and refused to even consider reading the book.

Oh the power of beliefs that often leads to prejudice and bias. (I.e. closed mind) The book was written from a series of articles in an English newspaper in response to skeptics such as Kenneth Walker that stated “no message of any value to humanity has ever been delivered at a séance.”

The R 101 airship story is also in the this book which many consider the best evidence for life after death.

Why this obsession with evidence from mediums? Surely you believe by now. If your intention is to convince skeptics, then your wasting your time.

[Leo MacDonald]

keith Augustine calls out the dualists

I would like to ask the robust dualists posting here some questions, if they can answer them:

If the mind is something independent of the brain, and is something that is so complex that the brain must "filter" it in some vague sense, then why does performance of complex mental tasks--like doing a math problem, or lying (since lying requires knowing the truth, inventing a lie, and then covering up any evidence of the truth to be consistent with the lie)--require more brain activity than when individuals are not engaged in such tasks? This can be measured with MRIs--in fact, they are being appealed to as lie detectors (currently being reviewed in a particular court case) for their very ability to measure the increased activity of lying.

If mental tasks are something that the immaterial mind can do best when "unconstrained" by the brain, wouldn't complex mental tasks be correlated with less or at least the same amount of brain activity as when such tasks are not being done? In other words, if it is my immaterial mind that does math and lies, why would increasing brain activity assist it? Wouldn't it do better without the brain's "interference" or filtering or "transmission"--i.e., less brain activity? Wouldn't more brain activity constrain it further?

It seems to me that the fact that the more complex the mental task, the more brain activity required, is pretty good evidence that the brain is what does the thinking, and not some immaterial mind. Why does the brain require more glucose or oxygen to burn it the more complex the mental task, unless that processing is being done by the brain itself, and not by the independent mind?

Perhaps a dualist might hold that when the mental task becomes more complicated, the "radio/television" of the brain has to extend its antenna a little more since it can't boost the mind's signal itself, and the increased activity is the tuner trying to get a better picture. Maybe the extra energy the mind puts into answering the math question means it has to lower its normally 50000-watt-signal and so sends a weaker signal to the brain--and the brain must adjust by fine-tuning its receiver, and that fine tuning requires extra brain activity.

But then why the localization--why does this area of the brain light up in mathematical problems, another area light up during creative writing, and so on? And why do more intelligent animals have much more complicated brains than simpler ones? The simpler the brain, the less resources that brain has to "limit" or "filter" or "constrain" the mind--so shouldn't simpler brains be more intelligent, and the most complex brains correlated with lower IQs, since brains merely "suppress" an otherwise unlimited mind?

Why doesn't damage to the visual cortex improve visual processing (assuming the eyes are left in tact), if the brain merely limits the soul's unlimited visual abilities? (As implied if we take out-of-body and near-death experiences at face value.) Why does damage to a specific area of the left hemisphere result in aphasia, a mental deficit, instead of improving an individual's understanding of language? Is it not true that on the transmissive hypothesis, the less brain activity, the better the mental processing? Mental processing, after all, is held to be something that an immaterial soul does, not something a brain does--else it wouldn't be mental processing on dualism. But in fact the opposite has been found to be true. Doesn't all of this make much more sense on the notion that the brain is doing the mental processing--i.e., that mind/consciousness/self/personality/what-have-you are simply simplifying words for specific brain processes?

So I leave it to you: Which is it? Does the brain cause our mental activity or does it merely "suppress" it, as implied by the "transmissive hypothesis"? Ask yourself which seems more likely given the neurophysiological data, putting your presuppositions either for or against dualism aside. If you answer honestly you'll see my point. Answering "But what about out-of-body experiences?" and so on does not answer the question--it simply aims to defuse the evidence by appealing to different evidence. Ignoring such other evidence for the moment, can you honestly say that dualism is just as good an explanation of what we know about mind-brain correlations than the position that mental processes are brain processes?

Incidentally, since it has come up in this thread and Irreducible Mind, I would like to know how robust dualism itself explains supposed instances of Alzheimer's patients regaining their cognitive faculties just before dying. After all, a dying patient still has that pesky brain "constraining" its unlimited abilities. If someone is dying and can still talk, obviously the brain is still "constraining" the mind at that point. It is the other body organs that are failing--the liver, say--at that point. It is only when brain activity ceases or is at least diminished to the point of causing unconsciousness that the "filter" of the brain is no longer holding back the mind--but then the patient cannot move or talk or do any physical activity normally allowed by the brain. (Since the brain is the instrument which allows the soul to control bodily movements, like moving one's lips to talk.) If a dying patient can raise his arm and hold a conversation, clearly the brain is still "filtering" things, is it not?

That's all for now--I just wanted to throw that out for you all to chew on.

I don't think Augustine implies exactly what's going on. It's not that the brain is a pure constraining device for the mind, but rather, the mind sort of goes in to it like a video cassette goes in to a VCR. Because the mind has taken up residence in the brain, brain damage WILL still cause problems in the personality. It's not like there's a direct relationship between brain state and mind functioning; not in the slightest. Even the very first thing William James said was very much acknowledging the very information that Augustine is trying to use to debunk, but trying to work the theory around this fact. All he has done is introduced an extremely simplistic view of dualism, one that no honest dualist (which I am not even one of) could consider tenable.

Augustine puts up yet another straw man.

As for his Alzheimer's remark... I'd honestly like to see HIS side explain that one. We'd expect a deteriorating brain affected by Alzheimer's/meningitis to certainly not recover as it has (especially since his side takes the position that the memory has been DESTROYED); and it can be more parsimoniously explained as the brain's constraint on the mind weakening.

As an aside, I wonder what he thinks of Orch-OR. Orch-OR allows for both the brain to be the cause of personality and the subsequent damage to the personality but yet still very well allows for survival. He'd probably dislike it simply for the latter.

It's really not as black and white as dualism versus monism.

[Michael Prescott]

>Why this obsession with evidence from mediums?

Everybody needs a good obsession. It's what keeps us young.

>Surely you believe by now.

I don't believe in the sense of being 100% convinced. I am pretty much 100% convinced of some psi phenomena - ESP, for instance. Life after death is not as much of a sure thing to me. I think the evidence points to that conclusion, but I still have doubts.

>If your intention is to convince skeptics, then your wasting your time.

No, I gave up trying to persuade militant skeptics awhile ago. Besides, the case cited here has the weaknesses I noted, which means it would not be very convincing anyway.

[Art]

If we knew absolutely for sure that there was some kind of life after death (and God) we wouldn't mourn the loss of loved ones quite near as much, and death would lose a lot of it's power as a lesson in separation. If we knew that one day we were going to be reunited with our loved ones death would lose some of its' sting. We are here to experience separation, and death of a loved one is the ultimate lesson in separation.

[william]

“Why this obsession with evidence from mediums? Surely you believe by now. If your intention is to convince skeptics, then you’re wasting your time.”

This statement fails to understand the human mind. Obsession? This has been the most fascinating research I have ever done. Yes it started out as a search to see if life after death exists but research into spiritualism and the evidence they bring forth is to me little known evidence by the masses of the world.

And some of these advanced spirits that come through with intelligence that challenges our existing view of reality. My entire life my mind has been like a sponge and loves to discover new information.

“Surely you believe by now.” Even Harlow with all of the evidence he collected in his life and all the experiences he had even “apparently?” his deceased sister breaking a glass ink well perfectly in half when he mentioned her name to a student and hearing her voice say “is that clear cut evidence” from an agreement they had made to one another that the first one that dies tries to come back and leave “clear cut evidence.”

And Harlow in the final chapter in his book “life after death” stated some doubt. What honestly.

One must in time learn the difference between realization and discovery due to research. One is intellectual and one is a knowing beyond knowing and removes “all” doubt. World of difference in how these two different experiences “remove” doubt.

As far as skeptics I seldom now if ever discuss such things with them as they think they already know (positive ignorance) but once in a while I do as I am fascinated by our (yes mine also) human mind and how it perceives experiences and data that does not agree with its existing and often conditioned paradigms.

This was an old story that happened several years ago that I wanted to share as further evidence how we humans tend not to read anything that does not agree with our existing beliefs. Politics and religion are great examples of this majestic and divine but I suspect necessary phenomenon for personal perceived identities to exist and interrelate.

How else could oneness express itself without this positive and negative ignorance?