160 LOLA 



must say that I do not believe in it, and that I feel 

 compelled for scientific reasons to examine every 

 other hypothesis before having recourse to this one. 



And again, " Intelligence in others/' ? This may 

 be so, but it is not necessary to suppose that the 

 intelligence is in others alone. I mean that a few of 

 the manifestations may within narrow limits probably 

 be rightly attributed to the intelligence of the animal, 

 (but, I repeat, the arithmetical facts must be con- 

 sidered by themselves). 



If all the manifestations were to be attributed to 

 the intelligence of others and none to the animal, we 

 should have to accept the supposition of an absolutely 

 mechanical automatism in the animal itself of the type 

 suggested by Neumann (8) x as the result of his experi- 

 ments with Rolf, when, for instance, the dog 

 mechanically kept on tapping an unlimited number 

 of times on the cardboard, which Neumann held out 

 to it without, as far as possible, moving it. 



This negative result of Neumann's is capable of various 

 possible explanations, and in no way gives any clear 

 indication (just because it is negative) as to how a positive 

 result is at all possible ; that is, we cannot conclude from 

 it any better than before, whether the apparently " me- 

 chanical " behaviour of the animal was intentional, and 

 therefore whether the animal itself could or could not 

 have behaved otherwise ; whether, given the impossibility 

 of the animal behaving differently, we should say that this 

 impossibility was absolute or only happened to occur on 

 this occasion ; whether perchance the action of some 

 psychical factor unknown to Neumann between the animal 

 and himself may not have been omitted ; and whether 

 such factor was not in operation when the animal was 

 working with its late mistress, etc., etc. In this connexion 



1 NOTE. The numbers in the text refer to the Bibliography at 

 the end. 



