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

. If one of these guys can go off the Gregorian calendar, that is pretty impressive - particularly if they are otherwise mentally impaired to the degree of Kim Peak.

David

It is not very impressive if the subject is both mentally capable to do the calculations AND understands the historical details of the calendar.

http://scimath.unl.edu/MIM/files/MATExamFiles/Millerd_FINAL.pdf

I believe the subject in this case had neither the skill or the knowledge. Many of these "math" savants can't add two small numbers together...
 
I think this person was profoundly impaired as well. I'll try to find the detail and share it.

Problem is- I "read this" in a audio book during a trip last week. Unfortunately this makes it hard to thumb through the book to find the reference.... : (

Does anyone out there have the book to provide the details?

Not the book, but this paper (linked from a Wikipedia page) mentions one "calendrical savant" who was able to give correct answers for the Julian calendar before the change:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1522/1417.long

Apparently that was the only case of that the authors knew of. They cite other examples of savants either not accounting correctly for century years that aren't leap years in the Gregorian calendar, or else applying the Gregorian calendar to the period before it was adopted in England.
 
Many of these "math" savants can't add two small numbers together...

I'm confused by this, as it relates to Diane Powell's mind-reading hypothesis. Why wouldn't a mathematical "savant" who is actually reading minds be able to read off the answer to an addition problem involving small numbers as well as large ones?

There may very well be a psi-compatible explanation for this, but it strikes me as an anomaly that's going to need to be explained by those advocating the mind-reading hypothesis--or, for that matter, those advocating any hypothesis about how these savants get their solutions. What's the critical difference between a simple mathematical calculation and a more complex one that makes these folks capable of getting answers only to the latter? Is there a difference in the way the questions are posed to the savants? Or a difference in the way the person posing the question is thinking about the solution? Or a difference in motivation for the savants?
 
Why wouldn't a mathematical "savant" who is actually reading minds be able to read off the answer to an addition problem involving small numbers as well as large ones?

The "answer attained by mind reading" hypothesis is actually easy to eliminate since all you need to do is calculate the answers AFTER getting the answers from the subject. And even if you did pre-calculate why would you EVER give the answers to the tester? Makes no sense to me. Afterall what purpose does it serve to have the questioner know the answer? Seems like only bad things can come of this such as: leading or hinting by inflection, which unnecessarily introduces additional and extraneous physical or psi effects. Any scientist knows to limit the number of variables where possible so as to be able to focus as tightly as possible on the hypothesis being studied.

Don't know why the researchers wouldn’t do these things as a matter of course in ANY test scenario. Seems like a "rookie mistake" for such a seasoned expert in these matters. No wonder materialist sceptics have such an easy time refuting this stuff.

Come-on researchers: tighten up your game! Didn't you learn this stuff in Psych 101? It's not like this is your first rodeo... Is it?
 
Last edited:
The "answer attained by mind reading" hypothesis is actually easy to eliminate since all you need to do is calculate the answers AFTER getting the answers from the subject. And even if you did pre-calculate why would you EVER give the answers to the tester?

My question is about what's going on when people claim that a presumed savant "can't do simple math." I assumed people were talking about math so simple that most people would know the answers without having to calculate: for instance, with a problem like 5 + 6. If a savant can't answer this kind of question correctly, that seems like a problem for the mind-reading hypothesis, since presumably anyone posing that question would automatically have the answer in mind, ready to be "read."
 
My question is about what's going on when people claim that a presumed savant "can't do simple math." I assumed people were talking about math so simple that most people would know the answers without having to calculate: for instance, with a problem like 5 + 6. If a savant can't answer this kind of question correctly, that seems like a problem for the mind-reading hypothesis, since presumably anyone posing that question would automatically have the answer in mind, ready to be "read."

Well, to be fair, we have little idea how telepathy works. And I'm not sure if we necessarily have those answers ready, we might just do the calculations fast enough.

That said, I think scanning the brains of savants while they perform their feats would help enlighten us as to what's going on. AFAIK this hasn't been done - was recommended in Irreducible Mind as I recall.
 
I enjoyed that podcast for once, Alex didn't do so much of the talking, although I was left even more confused by Diane's experiment than I was before... as best as I could understand it appeared that the subject was provided with mathematical problems to solve, but it wasn't really clear how this was achieved... so I guess I will have to wait for the paper... although I'm starting to think that the paper won't enlighten me anyway.
 
That said, I think scanning the brains of savants while they perform their feats would help enlighten us as to what's going on. AFAIK this hasn't been done - was recommended in Irreducible Mind as I recall.

That's what was done in the paper I posted a link to above. The title is:
"Do calendrical savants use calculation to answer date questions? A functional magnetic resonance imaging study"
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1522/1417.long
 
My question is about what's going on when people claim that a presumed savant "can't do simple math." I assumed people were talking about math so simple that most people would know the answers without having to calculate: for instance, with a problem like 5 + 6. If a savant can't answer this kind of question correctly, that seems like a problem for the mind-reading hypothesis, since presumably anyone posing that question would automatically have the answer in mind, ready to be "read."

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."
 
Afterall what purpose does it serve to have the questioner know the answer?

I don't understand your point. If the questioner doesn't know the answer, how can the subject reach into the questioner's mind and pull out that answer? And what else would provide evidence for telepathy?
 
I don't understand your point. If the questioner doesn't know the answer, how can the subject reach into the questioner's mind and pull out that answer? And what else would provide evidence for telepathy?

The person asking the question doesn't need to know the answer at the time of asking the question. This only begs the sceptical inquiry, "did the subject read the mind of the researcher"? Better to have the question asked "blind" and have the answers tallied after the data is collected from the subject.

So restated,, my question is- of what benefit is having the answer available to the researcher at the time of the test? It cannot have any positive impact on the testing,, only negative.
 
The person asking the question doesn't need to know the answer at the time of asking the question. This only begs the sceptical inquiry, "did the subject read the mind of the researcher"? Better to have the question asked "blind" and have the answers tallied after the data is collected from the subject.

So restated,, my question is- of what benefit is having the answer available to the researcher at the time of the test. It cannot have any positive impact on the testing,, only negative.

JK, one of us must be confused about the nature of this experiment. And I say that without sarcasm, because it could be me.

I thought what was being tested here was whether the subject could read the questioner's mind. Am I wrong about that?
 
That's what I was thinking earlier.

Why does the helper have to know the answer at the time of asking the question, then no-one would have the answer if telepathy was being used. Then when the helper gets the answer by calculator or whatever, it would surely be more evidence of telepathy if the girl then 'suddenly' knew the answer too ?

The only thing with this would be the 'undermining' of the girl, or does she know what is being tested and what she is 'famed' for, or does she think she is a maths 'genius'?

I'm probably missing the point, but that was my thinking.
 
JK, one of us must be confused about the nature of this experiment. And I say that without sarcasm, because it could be me.

I thought what was being tested here was whether the subject could read the questioner's mind. Am I wrong about that?

Actually I don't think the main premise of the test was to confirm the mind reading skill.. If so, it could have been done just by asking "what number am I looking at right now". No,, I think it was more to sort out overall the mechanism behind he savant's unexplainable skills This gets back to the number of variables in the test setup...

The subject demonstrated the ability to "read the tester's mind" by the fact that they knew the numbers which needed to be used in the calculations. (Actually this may be some other effect and not mind reading but that will need to wait for a different test setup to sort out. For example, they could ask the savant what the numbers are without the tester knowing the info at that moment. Or they could choose the numbers AFTER the savant provided the info. This would eliminate "mind reading" from the scenario). As I've previously stated: having the tester knowing the final answer adds no additional information since you had already confirmed the what might be "mind reading".
 
Last edited:
That's what I was thinking earlier.

it would surely be more evidence of telepathy if the girl then 'suddenly' knew the answer too ?

Yes,, if the girl didn't know the answer until after it was calculated by the tester it might confirm a mind reading type skill. But this sort of thing has been tested many many times with other savants, and what has been found is that the subject knows the answer without the tester yet knowing it.

This stuff has already been figured out... Which is why I don't think this was the point of her new work.

The questions on the table now are primarily: is the savant doing rapid calculations based on some learned or biologically pre-wired algorithm? Or searching their memory for some previously memorized information? Mind reading? Or, as might be theorized by a researcher of more esoteric non-physical phenomenon: could they be accessing information that is available as part of some universal non-physical source?

We can design a test set-up that might differentiate between these various mechanisms,, but it will take a lot more nuanced test design than what we are seeing here. This operation requires a sharp scalpel, not a blunt club. Unfortunately these test subjects are VERY rare, and also unfortunately they might be affected in some odd ways by the fact that they were previously tested. And this might effect what future tests on the same subject might uncover. Just a guess.

As any fine carpenter knows- when working with expensive (or lets say "rare") materials: it is always best to measure twice, and cut once. By which I mean: one should spend the vast majority of one's time designing the test,,, not executing it. NASA started pioneering this approach over 50 years ago and it has served them well..
 
Last edited:
I got the ambivalent thing going listening to this. Having an n = 1 is always very shaky. And the idea that it evolved from a math error also raises red flags. The way science is supposed to work is: 1. Present theory, 2. Measure theory, 3. Show how well data fits theory. So, accidents shouldn't factor in during the measurement stage. The measurements in fact should be tightly constrained by the theory when one designs the experiments.

That said, there is also such a thing as serendipity, where one stumbles into a new phenomena. But even this often occurs because one has gone into some experiments with theory "X" and they end up seeing theory "Y", and recognizing "Y" after the fact.

The overall idea, that at least some autistic kids might be using psychic powers (sorry I am old fashioned and prefer this term), is at least plausible, and novel too.

But again, with all this stuff I fall back on the "putting the cart before the horse" issue. How can we say what "mind reading" is if we don't know what the mind is? What is the mechanism of the information transfer?

I know this is all quite curmudgeonly, but again, call me old fashioned.

Don
I'm a little late to this party, but wanted to join in.

I don't really see how the "mistake" matters. The mathematical calculation (whether dividing or determining the cube root) was a ruse to keep the subject interested... it had no bearing on the effect being measured... they we just counting the digits correctly "guessed."
 
Last week I was reading the book One Mind by Larry Dossey. In it he relates MANY stories that cover a whole range of Psi and what we might call “mystical” phenomena. I was particularly struck by one story in particular that, through an unintended anomaly shed light on some very subtle aspects of savant behaviour.

Everyone is familiar with Kim Peek (Rainman): he had amazing memory skills where he has memorized thousands of books, phone numbers, addresses etc. And also he could tell you the day of the week and even weather and notable events of any date. And we've all heard of the many cases of savants with language and music skills, where the person has acquired the skill in some unexplained manner.

These cases are indisputable, but have been explained away using materialistic models. In Kim Peek's case, for example, one might simply conclude that his physical brain is wired in such a manner as to provide amazingly increased memory capacity. As for the day of the week? Well perhaps his physical brain is also wired in such a way as to provide incredible calculation speed,,, right? No need to consider nonphysical origins here.

Keep in mind that when asked, most savants deny performing any mental calculations or operations,, they simply say something like “ I just know the answer”. Others describe what appears to be a form of synaesthesia where information is presented as forms, shapes and colors: all of which, with a little arm waving, can be materialistically explained away.

How does one materialistically explain those cases of unexplained acquisition of language and music skills? Well,, perhaps you could say that the person was exposed in some fashion, and then developed the advanced skill through coaching and prodding by others. Yes, they may have an exceptional capacity to learn,, but does that necessarily come from a metaphysical source? Perhaps not really.

So the story that struck me from the book One Mind was the story of person who, like Kim Peek, could tell you the day of the week for any date. Apparently they tested dates up to 40,000 years in the past and future. Nothing new here right? Again, perhaps this could be due to a physical brain anomaly which allows rapid calendar calculations.

Here's the unanticipated game changer.... When they asked the day of the week for a year sufficiently old and for certain European locations, they were provided days which didn't match calculations based on the modern calendar. For these earlier years they were provided days which on the pre-Gregorian calendar! This savant didn't have the knowledge of these subtleties or perhaps even the capacity to understand such details.

Apparently these dates even confused the testers (at first) because they hadn't anticipated this aspect of calendar calculations.

So how do we explain this away? This was beyond the knowledge of the subject, so it wasn't a matter of calculation speed. It was unknown to the tester, so it wasn't “mind reading” which can be explained away by some.

To me, this is a great example of behaviour that has no explanation in materialism.

Unfortunately these things are nearly one-offs and as such are hard to reproduce. Once the
subject is aware of the effect, a sceptic can then simply and correctly say that it is still merely a (more advanced) calculation.
wow... really cool. thx for sharing this.
 
I'm a little late to this party, but wanted to join in.

I don't really see how the "mistake" matters. The mathematical calculation (whether dividing or determining the cube root) was a ruse to keep the subject interested... it had no bearing on the effect being measured... they we just counting the digits correctly "guessed."

I think I agree... Let's see-

I agree that it doesn't invalidate any of the findings...

However it serendipitously changed the test structure such that the problem verbally given by the tester did not match the intention of the researcher, nor did it match the written instructions being held by the tester. This introduces a whole new, and to me much more subtle, aspect to the test.

To me it's a no-brainer that telepathy exists in many forms. This has been proven to my satisfaction many times...

What this "mistake" teases out is a much more profound aspect of the phenomenon, which is the intention of the researcher, vs "simple" telepathy. As I've beaten to death,, the design of the experiment which gave the tester the answer stood in the way of potentially illuminating something profound.

Imagine if the tester didn't have the answer, and the subject responded with the cube root, rather than the mistakenly requested divide by three? This would mean the subject might have been responding to the intention of the researcher! Of course they also might have been responding to the visual data in the tester's mind... I wonder though if the subject even knows what a cubed root symbol is? If not, then telepathically "seeing" the cubed root symbol would have no effect.

A new test leveraging some of these variable scenarios would provide the answer though... !
 
Back
Top