tors. Our result is founded upon the following
_observations _taken during frequent visits to the exhibition of
Maelzel. {*5}

I. The moves of the Turk are not made at regular intervals of time, but
accommodate themselves to the moves of the antagonist--although
this point (of regularity) so important in all kinds of mechanical
contrivance, might have been readily brought about by limiting the time
allowed for the moves of the antagonist. For example, if this limit were
three minutes, the moves of the Automaton might be made at any given
intervals longer than three minutes. The fact then of irregularity,
when regularity might have been so easily attained, goes to prove that
regularity is unimportant to the action of the Automaton--in other
words, that the Automaton is not a _pure machine._

2. When the Automaton is about to move a piece, a distinct motion is
observable just beneath the left shoulder, and which motion agitates in
a slight degree, the drapery covering the front of the left shoulder.
This motion invariably precedes, by about two seconds, the movement of
the arm itself--and the arm never, in any instance, moves without this
preparatory motion in the shoulder. Now let the antagonist move a piece,
and let the corresponding move be made by Maelzel, as usual, upon the
board of the Automaton. Then let the antagonist narrowly watch the
Automaton, until he detect the preparatory motion in the shoulder.
Immediately upon detecting this motion, and before the arm itself begins
to move, let him withdraw his piece, as if perceiving an error in his
manoeuvre. It will then be seen that the movement of the arm, which,
in all other cases, immediately succeeds the motion in the shoulder, is
withheld--is not made--although Maelzel has not yet performed, on the
board of the Automaton, any move corresponding to the withdrawal of
the antagonist. In this case, that the Automaton was about to move is
evident--and that he did not move, was an effect plainly produced by the
withdrawal of the antagonist, and without any intervention of Maelzel.

This fact fully proves, 1--that the intervention of Maelzel, in
performing the moves of the antagonist on the board of the Automaton, is
not essential to the movements of the Automaton, 2--that its movements
are regulated by _mind--_by some person who sees the board of the
antagonist, 3--that its movements are not regulated by the mind of
Maelzel, whose back was turned towards the antagoni