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

It's a matter of emphasis, KMarantz. David Bailey and I are responding to the fact that, in general, you downplay the role of emotions in experiments of this kind, and in science in general.

As when David said: "A good experiment in this context would care greatly about the emotional state of the girl."

And you replied: "Ah, but emotions SHOULDN'T take part in it, but of course they do. I am saying they need to be held to an absolute minimum."

I think it makes more sense to say that emotions play a proper role in ALL human endeavors, and to try to minimize their presence or their effects is unrealistic and counterproductive.
 
It's a matter of emphasis, KMarantz. David Bailey and I are responding to the fact that, in general, you downplay the importance of emotions in experiments of this kind, and in science in general.

As when David said: "A good experiment in this context would care greatly about the emotional state of the girl."

And you replied: "Ah, but emotions SHOULDN'T take part in it, but of course they do. I am saying they need to be held to an absolute minimum."

I think it makes more sense to say that emotions play a proper role in ALL human endeavors, and to try to minimize their presence or their effects is unrealistic and counterproductive.

I'm not speaking ethically. I think you are missing my point yet again.
 
I'm surprised you read it that way. In writing that comment, ethics weren't on my mind in the least.

I was referring to the David's quote. You are still talking about emotions in a different respect. In that regard, I agree to a point. As long as they don't affect results.
 
what? of course caring about someone's emotional state is a matter of ethics. that certainly falls into the health and well being. not considering how an experiment may traumatize her would be unethical.
 
Hey Alex,
If you're monitoring this thread I'd be curious to see if your stance has changed at all, or if you think the feedback here has been of little to no value.
 
Perception would be impossible without telepathy.

In this world of apparently separate objects, all knowing/perceiving occurs on a foundation of the Oneness (or Unity) of subject and object.

thx for this Don... great stuff. how can we tease it out and bring it home with some concrete examples:
- Radin presentiment experiments point in this direction.
- Sheldrake's Dogs That Know and Sense of Being Stared at do too.
- physiology of hitting a 100mph fastball just doesn't add up (I've seen this broken down but can't find the
source... anyone know?)
- others?
 
Hey Alex,
If you're monitoring this thread I'd be curious to see if your stance has changed at all, or if you think the feedback here has been of little to no value.
I'm all for tighter controls... but such a discussion has to be framed within the absurdity of the mind=brain craziness this experiment pushes against. i.e. would we be having a different discussion if this idiotic paradigm was not hanging over everyone's head?
 
thx for this Don... great stuff. how can we tease it out and bring it home with some concrete examples:
- Radin presentiment experiments point in this direction.
- Sheldrake's Dogs That Know and Sense of Being Stared at do too.
- physiology of hitting a 100mph fastball just doesn't add up (I've seen this broken down but can't find the
source... anyone know?)
- others?

Regarding the 100mph fastball I found this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...in-tracks-a-100-mph-fastball-55036022/?no-ist

At that speed, some weird stuff is happening that requires the brain/mind to anticipate what will happen and react well before normal reaction times. This goes for the pitcher, who must tell his hand to release the ball well before it's in the proper position because of motor control lag time, to the batter who must begin his swing early for the same reason. We are anticipating the location of moving objects, which our brains are designed to do. It's just that at that speed, it looks like magic.
 
I'm all for tighter controls... but such a discussion has to be framed within the absurdity of the mind=brain craziness this experiment pushes against. i.e. would we be having a different discussion if this idiotic paradigm was not hanging over everyone's head?

No. And this is the reason I disagree with so many other members on this board. To me, with my experience, psychic ability seems to be the easier and the more logical choice as the reason for the results. I have experienced that, but not super-cueing, which I have never seen nor experienced. That hypothesis therefore seems fantastical to me.
 
The whole discussion reminds me of the Sheldrake's banned TEDx talk controversy. You may quickly recall that Sheldrake described the government funding of alternative medicine as non-existent. Critics immidiately accused him with making a false claim, pointing that, while government funding of alternative medicine is microscopic, it does exist.

So, can we say that Sheldrake made a false statement? If we are living in a computer-like, binary, algorithmic universe, we can indeed. But we're living in a humane, relative, contextual world, where our decisions and evaluations are not restricted by yes-or-no dichotomy. In an actual universe, Sheldrake's statement is almost true - a minor rhetorical exaggeration made to draw public attention to a genuine problem of ridiculously small funding of alternative research and practice.

thx for this analogy... gets at the reality of how this kind of science is done and perceived.

It's absurd (i.e. deifies common sense, rational thinking) to suggest that cueing and leakage could account for these off-the-chart results. the only reason this kind of silliness gets any traction at all is because science-as-we-know-it folks are so determined to find a way to jam everything back into their crazy mind=brain model that they'll grasp at anything that gets them there (classic Apologetics). I mean, come on, do any of you really believe that cueing explains this???

Finally, stack up the natural history of telepathy versus the natural history of this kind of unintentional cueing.
 
Regarding the 100mph fastball I found this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...in-tracks-a-100-mph-fastball-55036022/?no-ist

At that speed, some weird stuff is happening that requires the brain/mind to anticipate what will happen and react well before normal reaction times. This goes for the pitcher, who must tell his hand to release the ball well before it's in the proper position because of motor control lag time, to the batter who must begin his swing early for the same reason. We are anticipating the location of moving objects, which our brains are designed to do. It's just that at that speed, it looks like magic.
cool... but there are sprinkling a lot of magic fairy dust around here... and I still don't think there scenario adds up. perhaps a little bit of PSI might need to be added.

back to Don's point... if we take an honest look at the data we must conclude that psi is ALWAYS at play.
 
cool... but there are sprinkling a lot of magic fairy dust around here... and I still don't think there scenario adds up. perhaps a little bit of PSI might need to be added.

back to Don's point... if we take an honest look at the data we must conclude that psi is ALWAYS at play.

I happen to agree for various reasons. I'm just looking at the data I found and explaining it in a pseudo-materialist way. There is really no way to describe this pitcher/hitter interaction in completely materialist terms.
 
I mean, come on, do any of you really believe that cueing explains this???

Cueing, feedback and predictive text... yes, quite probably, from the recordings I've watched.

Contrast that with Sheldrake's telepathy studies, where he tries to eliminate feedback and cueing etc. in the design of his experiments with Jaytee and N'Kisi, because it's such an obvious problem. He ends up getting some really interesting results too IMO.
 
Cueing, feedback and predictive text... yes, quite probably, from the recordings I've watched.

Contrast that with Sheldrake's telepathy studies, where he tries to eliminate feedback and cueing etc. in the design of his experiments with Jaytee and N'Kisi, because it's such an obvious problem. He ends up getting some really interesting results too IMO.
or consider Beischel's 5-way blinded medium study. the point is that contrary to what mainstream science suggests these kinds of huge effects in field trial results by competent scientists don't disappear when controls are tightened. this myth gets repeated a lot but the data (e.g. Radin, Nelson, Rhine, PEAR, many othes) suggests otherwise.
 
or consider Beischel's 5-way blinded medium study. the point is that contrary to what mainstream science suggests these kinds of huge effects in field trial results by competent scientists don't disappear when controls are tightened. this myth gets repeated a lot but the data (e.g. Radin, Nelson, Rhine, PEAR, many othes) suggests otherwise.

I don't know them, I've peeked at some if Radin's work, but been unconvinced that it tells me what he says it tells him. But I frankly can't stand these statistical studies, I want to see clear and unambiguous data, and Sheldrake showed that with Jaytee.

All I can say is that the results from both good, and badly designed studies can look the same. The point is to look at each study in isolation and decide for yourself. This study (from the published recordings) is a bad one, and the results tell us nothing useful - other than how not to conduct an experiment to investigate telepathy.
 
Back
Top