Mod+ 257. DR. DIANE POWELL FINDS TELEPATHY AMONG AUTISTIC SAVANT CHILDREN

F
#21
I thought the description Dr. Powell gave was reasonably clear:

"I wrote them down on pieces of paper after generating them and then I put them in the stack, face down, and handed them to the therapist. And she picked them up one by one,"
... there's more, but no need for me to paste it here. If you want the rest, listen to the podcast or read the transcript.
So from this description:

Right, and one of the reasons I know it is [telepathic] not… doing this because she is a mathematical savant is based on a couple of errors that the therapist made. The therapist isn’t someone who knows math. So the therapist, when she looked at the piece of paper that had the equation that was asking for the cube roots, and this happened on two of the occasions… she is mistook the cube root symbol for meaning divide by three. So she asks the girl, “What’s the first number?” then she gives this long number and then she says and what is it divided by, and the girl says three, and then she asks, “And what’s the answer?” and the girl gives the answer for the cube root, she doesn’t give the answer for dividing that number by three.
What is happening? Is the girl guessing both the six digit number, the divisor and giving the answer? I don't find it all that clear.
 
#22
Thanks, I listened to the podcast twice and wasn't sure, after looking at the transcript I'm still not sure exactly what is happening.

I'm sure it will be spelled out bit by bit when the video is made public.
 
#23
When you submit a paper for publication, you have to state that it has not been previously published elsewhere. So you have to remain quiet about the main content until publication. That's standard.
(Sorry off topic) Hi, K9 Do you have any thoughts on why Parnia's publication (in his book) of the two NDE's in the paper didn't affect his acceptance for the journal ?
 
#24
So from this description:

What is happening? Is the girl guessing both the six digit number, the divisor and giving the answer? I don't find it all that clear.
If I may (because I understand what she is trying to say)...

Dr. Powell writes down some numbers in a way which shows the relationship between those numbers (729,∛, 9) and hands the paper to the therapist who then goes into the room with the girl. Instead of just asking the girl to list off three different numbers, the therapist asks for those numbers as though it is an assignment, in order to make it interesting:

"What's the first number?"
"What root do you take?"
"What's the answer?"

The girl answers:

"729"
"3"
"9"

But if the therapist misreads the symbol and says, "What do you divide by?" instead of "what root do you take?", the girl still answers "9" instead of "243".

Dr. Powell uses this example to show that it's not a case of savant-like calculation abilities, as is seen in other autistic-savants. If the child was calculating the answer based on the therapist's questions, she would give a different answer when the therapist made a mistake in what she asked. (Note: The numbers Dr. Powell wrote down were longer than the ones I used in this illustration.)
 
#25
(Sorry off topic) Hi, K9 Do you have any thoughts on why Parnia's publication (in his book) of the two NDE's in the paper didn't affect his acceptance for the journal ?
The paper was giving the basic data on a number of cases as it's main focus. The book did not publish those results. Not to mention the fact that an individual account of a patients experience is not subject to changes in the process of peer review. If you read the instructions journals give authors when submitting papers, it's hard to know just how much can be mentioned elsewhere, so it's better to err on the side of caution.

I've had to sign nondisclosure forms at times when working in research because the senior scientists wanted to make very sure that everything was as it seemed before going to publication. And keep in mind that the peer review process provides feedback that may help you improve the work, so you may not want your original rough draft to be confused with the polished final publication version. That is especially true when it comes to a new model of how things operate. I agree with Dr Powell that it makes sense to let things go through peer review before presenting them to the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
#26
The paper was giving the basic data on a number of cases as it's main focus. The book did not publish those results. Not to mention the fact that an individual account of a patients experience is not subject to changes in the process of peer review. If you read the instructions journals give authors when submitting papers, it's hard to know just how much can be mentioned elsewhere, so it's better to err on the side of caution.

I've had to sign nondisclosure forms at times when working in research because the senior scientists wanted to make very sure that everything was as it seemed before going to publication. And keep in mind that the peer review process provides feedback that may help you improve the work, so you may not want your original rough draft to be confused with the polished final publication version. That especially true when it comes to a new model of how things operate. I'd agree with Dr Powell that it makes sense to let things go through peer review before presenting them to the rest of us.
Thanks, K9 that's very interesting.
 
#28
A quick notice: in the text of the podcast, "psi" is repeatedly printed as "psy". I don't think this is a proper writing of the word. Well, maybe I'm wrong and both variants are possible?
Vortex, you're right that "psy" is an improper variant.

I think whoever transcribes the podcasts first uses transcription software whose output they have to clean up afterwards. If you've ever used the CC (closed captioning) option with YouTube videos, you'll know how much work this cleanup involves. Unfortunately, the transcribers for many of Alex's podcasts don't appear to have much background in the subject matter of the podcasts, or they would have caught some rather obvious errors that have been spotted over the years. Despite the flaws, however, they've done a decent job, for volunteers.

Doug
 
Last edited:
#29
For me this podcast was the strongest evidence yet of anomalous communication. I am an agnostic sceptic but I want to be convinced as I want to believe very much about the survival of consciousness. Dianne's study will be very hard for hard core materialists to deny. I wonder what they will come up with? I hope her research continues and we get the paradigm shift we need. Meanwhile I have moved a little further down the path towards belief but I am not there yet.
 
#30
The results Dr Powell states from her research are amazing. I can understand why some forum participants think they are a little too amazing. She appears to be a well respected and qualified psychiatrist so why hasn't she published the data yet? Surely it is better to publish the data and present the model she has developed explaining how autistic telepathy works prior to asking for money for further research? If her model is a proper scientific model one would guess that it should not only predict why these autistic subjects have such amazing abilities but make new predictions that could prove or disprove her theory. I look forward to seeing the results published in a peer reviewed journal and an outline of her testable model for autistic telepathy. One added note on Alex's cynicism regarding connecting psi research with neuroscience. I agree with Dr Powell that finding brain correlations to parapsychological phenomena is extremely important. Much research done in science is about looking at correlations between certain phenomena even though we may have little understanding of the causal connections between such phenomena. If we do find significant correlations between certain phenomena than the next step is find the causal relations that may explain those connections. Consciousness and brain are clearly strongly correlated, however, whether this correlation is just a brute fact or the manifestation of some underlying causal connection between the two is a philosophical question which may or may not have a scientific answer. I sometimes feel that Alex reacts to attempts to link certain parapsychological evidence to data on brain research with such strident cynicism because he feels that since brain research is not SUFFICIENT to explain consciousness than brain research must also not be NECESSARY to explain consciousness. On the other hand, I would agree that while brain research is not SUFFICIENT to explain consciousness yet it is NECESSARY that we understand the consciousness/brain connection in order to understand not only consciousness itself but its place in the universe.
 
#31
If we can take Dr Powell at her word, which I hope we can given her qualifications and status, this case alone could be one that proves not all crows are black. The paradigm shift to accept that telepathy exists will turn neuroscience on its head (excuse the pun). To make the case however the study controls need to be tightened and replicated by another researcher. It is too important not to ensure it is watertight.
 
F
#32
If we can take Dr Powell at her word, which I hope we can given her qualifications and status, this case alone could be one that proves not all crows are black. The paradigm shift to accept that telepathy exists will turn neuroscience on its head (excuse the pun). To make the case however the study controls need to be tightened and replicated by another researcher. It is too important not to ensure it is watertight.
Presumably, this "type" of autism that creates the fertile soil for telepathy will be present for some time. If so, it should allow the phenomena to be well documented provided it actually exists and if the children and the caregivers remain as willing and honest participants.

I'm not certain I share your feeling that positive proof of telepathy will create a true paradigm shift. What would such a shift look like?
 
#33
Forgive me for asking what may be a stupid question.

Was the child waiting until the other person in the room worked out the answer on a calculator or other device, then reading the mind of the 'helper' ?
I think the tester was given the answer in advance. this would explain how the wrong answer was transmitted telepathically.
 
#34
If we can take Dr Powell at her word, which I hope we can given her qualifications and status, this case alone could be one that proves not all crows are black. The paradigm shift to accept that telepathy exists will turn neuroscience on its head (excuse the pun). To make the case however the study controls need to be tightened and replicated by another researcher. It is too important not to ensure it is watertight.
oh my you must be new to the Skeptics game :)
 
#36
Vortex, you're right that "psy" is an improper variant.

I think whoever transcribes the podcasts first uses transcription software whose output they have to clean up afterwards. If you've ever used the CC (closed captioning) option with YouTube videos, you'll know how much work this cleanup involves. Unfortunately, the transcribers for many of Alex's podcasts don't appear to have much background in the subject matter of the podcasts, or they would have caught some rather obvious errors that have been spotted over the years. Despite the flaws, however, they've done a decent job, for volunteers.

Doug
it's a hard job... they are not volunteers. I'm looking at changing, but have gone thru several. again, if you imagine giving these audio files to someone who doesn't know about any of this stuff you can appreciate how hard it it.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#38
Presumably, this "type" of autism that creates the fertile soil for telepathy will be present for some time. If so, it should allow the phenomena to be well documented provided it actually exists and if the children and the caregivers remain as willing and honest participants.

I'm not certain I share your feeling that positive proof of telepathy will create a true paradigm shift. What would such a shift look like?
Also it's sadly but entirely possible that skeptics attempting to replicate will fail, and only some proponents will get positive replications. What would be great is if skeptics get results far below what chance should allow, and proponents get results far above. Not because of a Trickster but b/c Psi has far fewer invariants than physical phenomena.

Whether this happens is still anyone's guess.
 
#39
[quote="To make the case however the study controls need to be tightened and replicated by another researcher. It is too important not to ensure it is watertight.[/quote]

I think her work is amazing but honestly I have seen many cases of PSI which I think are nearly as convincing, and in any case, I don't need more evidence than I have already accumulated.

Here's my point- I'm pretty pessimistic about the possibility that any demonstration of this type, no matter how "watertight" can convince many remaining hard core sceptics. There will always be one more thing the researcher should have done to make the test satisfactory. And this iteration has no end.

The sad fact of the matter is: there is no number of controls that will make any test irrefutable. Usually, at some point in the infinite iterative process of making the test "watertight", the environment becomes so sterilized that the thing being studied becomes impossible to exhibit. At this point the scientist says "see, I told you so". This strangulation effect, through setting up ever increasing "scientific controls", has been the ruin of most attempts to make these tests stand up extreme scepticism.

My prediction is that, in the end, this will be just one more case that the open minded will point to as an amazing bit of evidence, and that sceptics will refute on one lame point or another. Same old, same old...

It's amazing (and annoying) the great lengths that many will go to in order to keep their world view from crumbling.
 
#40
Presumably, this "type" of autism that creates the fertile soil for telepathy will be present for some time. If so, it should allow the phenomena to be well documented provided it actually exists and if the children and the caregivers remain as willing and honest participants.

I'm not certain I share your feeling that positive proof of telepathy will create a true paradigm shift. What would such a shift look like?
I see what you mean, nothing will convince some one who does not want to know. However who is to say that over time society will not become less materialistic and more open to news ways of looking at the world. We can only hope
 
Top