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

[Vortex]

I agree with this observation. If I may add, I think that there are many well meaning psychologists who just want to avoid the mess and indignity of being involved in a controversy that isn't important to their line of research. In the psi wars, mud slinging goes in all directions. These days, you can be attacked for being a skeptic as well as being a proponent. Either way you will be attacked.

During my workhours, I'm sometimes recruiting people for the cause of psi. ;)

I have a lot of highly intelligent and well-educated people around me to chat with. One of them is a professional technologist and electronics engineer, who is also is a remarkable polymath-erudite, and one of the smartest and most knowledgable people I know. His interests are much wider that hi-tech and natural sciences: he is strongly interested in social sciences, humanities and arts as well; but his two special intersts is philosophy of mind and philosophy of science.

I had a lot of complex talks and discussions with him, and learned that he, despite his vast lore in the mind-realted fields, knows next to nothing about psi. Once I gathered my courage and told about the academic parapsychology. He was deeply surprised: "Ilya, but all this psychic stuff is disproven by science, isn't it? And now you're telling me about psi research in academia. I never heard about it. How is this possible?" "Well, I have a book which contain answer to this question of yours, and to may other questions which may arise," said I. And I gave him the Russian translation of Dean Radin's "Conscious Universe".

In a pair of weeks, he contacted me in a quite shocked state. "Ilya, I have read the book... and it's amazing. There are a lot of scientific evidence presented. Not weird anecdotes of psychic powers, but meta-analyses of laboratory experiments with highly significant results. There is a real, hardcore science behind all this stuff. I can't understand: how it is possible that such a strong evidence is rejected persistently? How it is possible that it is forced to keep such a low profile that many people - like me - never, ever heard about it? It is a real game-changer, and it is being constantly supressed. Why?"

Well, I told him about the bias and prejudice in academia. He was upset. He had a stong belief in a mainstream science - and now it is shaken...

 

[Vortex]

thx... transcriber error.

BTW, Alex, what about the interview with Loyd Auerbach? AFAIR, you were going to publish it in October. I hope Loyd didn't change his mind, and will give a Skepiko interview one day, will he?

 

[Bruce Siegel]

I don't think this was the point of her new work.

Thanks for clarifying this -- I see now that my grasp of the experiment was not entirely accurate. I'm really looking forward to a fuller explanation when she publishes.

 

[Sharon Rawlette]

Sharon, it seems to me there are ways to determine basic mathematical competence that would make it difficult or impossible for the subject to use telepathy. For example: written tests, or computer or video "games."

Right! So my question is, are these the methods that were used to come to this conclusion? And if these same methods are used to present more complex calculations to the same person, what happens then?

 

[JKMac]

Right! So my question is, are these the methods that were used to come to this conclusion? And if these same methods are used to present more complex calculations to the same person, what happens then?

Keep in mind however that these subjects are usually very limited cognitively and emotionally. For example- the tests that we are discussing now were specifically modified to accommodate the subject's need for a certain test format. Unfortunately there are limited degrees of freedom when testing these people due to their various limitations.

Additionally there are very few available subjects.

So one can't just design a test and then go out and find a bunch of people to study. Wouldn't it be nice if this wasn't so? We could get to the bottom of these mysteries relatively quickly with comprehensive and various tests given to a large sampling of people who exhibit similar skills. Unfortunately these skills seem to be both rare and varied. All of which is bad news for researchers...

 

[Chris]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the main potential problem with (or objection to) the experiments that have been done so far is that the person holding this stencil is also the "sender", so that there could be a possibility of cueing.

Given the claimed strength of the effect, surely it shouldn't be difficult to test whether similar results can be obtained with someone other than the sender holding the stencil, either with the sender visually screened from both the stencil-holder and the receiver, or else with the sender outside the room altogether. If the answer is yes, I'd imagine Dr Powell would find it much easier to raise funding for further research. But I can't see that much funding is needed to answer it - or really any funding to speak of at all.

 

[Craig Weiler]

Keep in mind however that these subjects are usually very limited cognitively and emotionally. For example- the tests that we are discussing now were specifically modified to accommodate the subject's need for a certain test format. Unfortunately there are limited degrees of freedom when testing these people due to their various limitations.

Additionally there are very few available subjects.

So one can't just design a test and then go out and find a bunch of people to study. Wouldn't it be nice if this wasn't so? We could get to the bottom of these mysteries relatively quickly with comprehensive and various tests given to a large sampling of people who exhibit similar skills. Unfortunately these skills seem to be both rare and varied. All of which is bad news for researchers...

It's not bad news for researchers so much as it is bad news for people looking for the One Great Proof That No One Can Deny. Psi is already proven by any sane evidentiary standard, so more proof of its existence is not necessary. What Dr. Powell is doing is interesting, but it's not a game changer.

No scientific testing is ever perfect or is ever going to meet everyone's standards of evidence. At some point, people have to individually decide for themselves whether it is enough without relying universal agreement.

 

[KMarantz]

It's not bad news for researchers so much as it is bad news for people looking for the One Great Proof That No One Can Deny. Psi is already proven by any sane evidentiary standard, so more proof of its existence is not necessary. What Dr. Powell is doing is interesting, but it's not a game changer.

No scientific testing is ever perfect or is ever going to meet everyone's standards of evidence. At some point, people have to individually decide for themselves whether it is enough without relying universal agreement.

There are plenty of areas and ideas in science that most people agree upon NOW whereas initially, they were considered fantasy, lunacy, false or satanic. They just have to go through the process of acceptance. This usually requires overwhelming evidence that can be repeated again and again to get rid of all the what ifs, coincidences, anomalies so it will. change the minds of skeptics. I don't believe PSI has seen it's share of overwhelming evidence yet. I maintain that what Dr. Powell is proposing from what again she claims on Alex's show, would be a game changer.

 

[JKMac]

There are plenty of areas and ideas in science that most people agree upon NOW whereas initially, they were considered fantasy, lunacy, false or satanic. They just have to through the process of acceptance. This usually requires overwhelming evidence that can be repeated again and again to get rid of all the what ifs, coincidences, anomalies so it will. change the minds of skeptics. I don't believe PSI has seen it's share of overwhelming evidence yet. I maintain that what Dr. Powell is proposing from what again she claims on Alex's show, would be a game changer.

Agreed.

I just hope she uses a test design that could not only prove a mind reading hypothesis ("basic" psi) but might also tease out some other (I believe more compelling and deeply meaningful) aspects of the phenomena which may be there just under the surface waiting to be uncovered.

 

[Chris]

I maintain that what Dr. Powell is proposing from what again she claims on Alex's show, would be a game changer.

I agree. I don't understand the point of view that this is no different from things like Ganzfeld experiments. The kind of results described simply couldn't be written off as statistical flukes, selective reporting, the file drawer effect or whatever. If it could be repeated under properly controlled conditions, it would have to be either out-and-out fraud on the part of the experimenter or a genuine effect. And if it could be repeated with sceptics scrutinising the conduct of the experiment, the former possibility could be ruled out.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I agree. I don't understand the point of view that this is no different from things like Ganzfeld experiments. The kind of results described simply couldn't be written off as statistical flukes, selective reporting, the file drawer effect or whatever. If it could be repeated under properly controlled conditions, it would have to be either out-and-out fraud on the part of the experimenter or a genuine effect. And if it could be repeated with sceptics scrutinising the conduct of the experiment, the former possibility could be ruled out.

The challenge here is I suspect skeptics won't get positive results. What I hope is they get failures far below the rate of chance, which would indicate something interesting in itself.

 

[JKMac]

The challenge here is I suspect skeptics won't get positive results.

As we've seen many times in the past- scientists usually end up confirming their hypothesis or something close to it. Often it take lots of trial and error and "fixing" of problems with their test design, but they usually "succeed" eventually. : ) I'm sure for a time, this case will be no different.

Case in point- the myriad of conceptual tweaks needed to continue to keep those pesky planets orbiting the earth in the early to mid 1500's. Eventually science (and more importantly the church) acknowledged the fact and implication of retrograde motion, and finally a much simpler, but for many quite unsettling, truth was finally accepted.

I guess we'll all watch this play out in eager anticipation...

My prediction?- rather than a dramatic climactic series of illuminating and disrupting events, we will see a rather subdued set of marginal findings presented with little fanfare, with arguments and assertions on both sides (materialistic and non) and eventually peace and quiet, as those who weren't ignoring it all anyway, gradually forget what was uncovered. That's the way things have been in this field for many decades.

We who don't share the mainstream view need to get used to being seen as a bit different,,, because that's the way it will be for some time to come.

 

[Chris]

The challenge here is I suspect skeptics won't get positive results. What I hope is they get failures far below the rate of chance, which would indicate something interesting in itself.

That's partly why I suggested sceptics could scrutinise it, rather than running the whole thing. For example, suppose a sceptic set up the room, cameras, microphones etc, and perhaps generated the target numbers and words, but otherwise Dr Powell ran the experiment. If there were an "experimenter effect", how do people think it might operate in those circumstances?

 

[David Bailey]

Experimenter effects may well be real, in the sense that if ψ is real, it probably implies that all involved in an experiment communicate to some extent by non-physical means, and maybe experimenters even connect with their equipment by PK. It also means that all scientific experiments are to some extent suspect because they involve experimenters who usually desperately want the experiment to 'succeed' - whatever they mean by that. Possibly some sceptics are dimly aware of the real significance of experimenter effects, so they try to represent these proposed effects as fraud or carelessness of some sort.

I do think sceptics should try to reproduce experiments using some of the techniques they propose. I mean, it is far easier to invent supposed experimental weaknesses than to actually demonstrate them.

One idea might be for sceptics to move in after an experiment is over, with their own team of people including someone (presumably not autistic) to 'play' the girl in question. Their task would be to obtain similar results using whatever was available. If they were to succeed, that would be a real challenge to Dr Powell's results, but somehow I don't think they will try this out :)

I don't think most sceptics are really interested in what is going on in ψ experiments - they seem to have defined their role as winning their case come what may.

Having seen something of the global warming issue, I don't think science as a whole is that interested in being right any more. I think some individual scientists are interested in the truth, and they are tolerated in the system unless they find something inconvenient. Most scietists are interested mainly in their career, and they either avoid contentious issues, or tow the party line.

David

 

[JKMac]

Experimenter effects may well be real, in the sense that if ψ is real, it probably implies that all involved in an experiment communicate to some extent by non-physical means, and maybe experimenters even connect with their equipment by PK.

I'm assuming most Skeptico readers are aware that some time ago Prof William Tiller at Stamford published test results which demonstrated that not only can investigators significantly influence their tests, but he went a step further and showed that he could condition a space to affect test results, and then went one step further and developed a device which, when placed in a space which previously showed "nominal" test results, after a short conditioning time, converted the space to one which is conditioned to affect test results in a specified manner. The effects are small but unmistakable. See the following link...

http://theintentionexperiment.com/the-power-of-ph.htm

Prof Tiller's findings, seem to be generally ignored by most researchers presumably because the implication is, they can't fully trust any test results, which means all science is brought into question. Which actually is my point. How can science ever get to the bottom of something like psi, that seems to operate with such subtlety or at such minuscule energy levels? These are precisely the type of things that can be affected so much by intention per Prof Tiller's findings.

It feels like a catch 22. The harder one looks at the test to ascertain the truth, the more one is liable to impact the test. Seems like the same thing scientists ran into when playing with the double slit experiment over the last 10 decades, while trying to differentiate between wave and particle behaviour. Ultimately they found it was impossible to make the distinction because the act of looking affected the results. Perhaps it may also be the act of "intending": because really that's the foundation of the scientific method- to create a hypothesis and then to prove it. The hypothesis IS an intention....

 

[RHC]

Just listened to the podcast and read all the comments. My first reaction is that bishop is right and many of you are being to jaded. Taking her at her word (and why not at this point?) this experiment is at least an order of magnitude more important than anything that we have had before. This isn't some small statistical effect that people can argue over calculating methodology, --- close to 100% accuracy!

"And there was a period of about ten minutes of where she gave – out of 162 random numbers, and I was generating these with a random number generator, out of 162, she only made 7 errors. And each one of those she corrected on the second try."

Thats a correct 6 digit response once a second on average for 10 minutes straight. On video from 5 angles no less.

This is either:
1) a total scam.
2) Gives whole new meaning to the concept of subtle cueing. How can you possibly convey 6 digit numbers though subtle body movements that you are unaware of. Give me a break!
Or
3) Real and accuracy levels like this HAVE to be repeatable. Very unlikely experimenter effect could overwhelm an ability that this child has thats on the level of sight or hearing. Bring on Wiseman.

Lastly we have every reason to assume this ability is associated with autism and unfortunately there is a large enough population of autistic children so that it is reasonable to predict that the results will be replicated across multiple subjects.

Another aspect that makes this experiment uniquely important is that there is something very deeply emotionally compelling about children, especially special needs kids that is going to soften a lot of intellectual filters when people examine the data on this, especially the video.

Remember folks to change the paradigm the Randi's of the world dont need to be convinced. Its the reasonably humble skeptical majority that will be open to the accuracy levels this high. And as been mentioned here many times, once one phenomena like this gains respectability, its going to open a floodgate reevaluation of past results. Everything will change.

One last point. Given all the above, and the history of how researchers in psi are treated by the general scientific community, is it any wonder that Dr. Powell is being a little awkward or unusual in handling the public release of this data? She probably lays in bed at night worrying about not f_ning it up. Like some have commented the worst part about the data is that it is to good!

 

[mybell]

It feels like a catch 22. The harder one looks at the test to ascertain the truth, the more one is liable to impact the test. Seems like the same thing scientists ran into when playing with the double slit experiment over the last 10 decades, while trying to differentiate between wave and particle behaviour. Ultimately they found it was impossible to make the distinction because the act of looking affected the results. Perhaps it may also be the act of "intending": because really that's the foundation of the scientific method- to create a hypothesis and then to prove it. The hypothesis IS an intention....

Correct if wrong, but scientific methods are also about repeatability, which, given the concept of the 'observer effect' would then throw all so-called scientific studies into the 'land of woo'. Yes, No, Maybe so?

 

[fire]

Everything will change.

What is going to change? In what way is everything going to change? What is the everything that will change? Please be specific. Thanks.

 

[David Bailey]

I'm assuming most Skeptico readers are aware that some time ago Prof William Tiller at Stamford published test results which demonstrated that not only can investigators significantly influence their tests, but he went a step further and showed that he could condition a space to affect test results, and then went one step further and developed a device which, when placed in a space which previously showed "nominal" test results, after a short conditioning time, converted the space to one which is conditioned to affect test results in a specified manner. The effects are small but unmistakable. See the following link...

http://theintentionexperiment.com/the-power-of-ph.htm

Prof Tiller's findings, seem to be generally ignored by most researchers presumably because the implication is, they can't fully trust any test results, which means all science is brought into question. Which actually is my point. How can science ever get to the bottom of something like psi, that seems to operate with such subtlety or at such minuscule energy levels? These are precisely the type of things that can be affected so much by intention per Prof Tiller's findings.

It feels like a catch 22. The harder one looks at the test to ascertain the truth, the more one is liable to impact the test. Seems like the same thing scientists ran into when playing with the double slit experiment over the last 10 decades, while trying to differentiate between wave and particle behaviour. Ultimately they found it was impossible to make the distinction because the act of looking affected the results. Perhaps it may also be the act of "intending": because really that's the foundation of the scientific method- to create a hypothesis and then to prove it. The hypothesis IS an intention....

I certainly didn't know about this experiment - thanks for linking to it!

I am rather sceptical about this statement:

Using a simple black box, the size of a remote control, with an electrically erasable, programmable, read-only memory (EEPROM) component, he has ‘charged’ these devices with human intention and then used them to affect a variety of chemical processes. His experiment rests on the unthinkable assumptions that thoughts can be imprisoned in a bit of electronic memory and later ‘released’ to affect the physical world.

I mean, maybe the EEPROM just acted as something people could focus on, but surely we are not saying that such an effect could be stored as a string of ones and zeros!

I wish he had included some more details. The pH of water is far more sensitive to pollutants at about 7 than it would be at - say 2 or 11. I wonder if he sealed his samples or if they were open to the air.

David

 

[Bucky]

I'm assuming most Skeptico readers are aware that some time ago Prof William Tiller at Stamford published test results which demonstrated that not only can investigators significantly influence their tests, but he went a step further and showed that he could condition a space to affect test results, and then went one step further and developed a device which, when placed in a space which previously showed "nominal" test results, after a short conditioning time, converted the space to one which is conditioned to affect test results in a specified manner. The effects are small but unmistakable. See the following link...

http://theintentionexperiment.com/the-power-of-ph.htm

Prof Tiller's findings, seem to be generally ignored by most researchers presumably because the implication is, they can't fully trust any test results, which means all science is brought into question. Which actually is my point. How can science ever get to the bottom of something like psi, that seems to operate with such subtlety or at such minuscule energy levels? These are precisely the type of things that can be affected so much by intention per Prof Tiller's findings.

Interesting, I think I remember the study from McTaggart's book.
I am not sure to follow your implications very well though. Are you still referring to the experiment where a group of meditators were able to imprint their intention on some kind of device which in turn was used to alter the PH of water?

Has this test been replicated independently somewhere else?
Are we sure that non meditators would be able to provide the same effects? According to the experiments conducted on the "Intention Experiment" website non-meditators produced little to no effect, while more trained "intenders" seemed to be able to produce some effects.

Can you clarify your conclusions about the implications you have alluded to?

cheers