Evidence of telepathy among autistic savants

DaveC426913 said:
In your view, what is the difference between telepathy and magic?

I mean, if we don't know how telepathy works, and we don't know how magic works, how do you know they are not the very same thing?

Is it anything more than the stigma attached to magic? Does telepathy seem to you a more ... palatable ... paranormal idea than magic?
Click to expand...

You don't need any effort on your part for telepathy.

Have you got siblings that you are close to? Likelihood is is that you'll be on the same wavelength picking up thoughts and sending yours out.

No evidence for this, well what we would accept as evidence. Tons of money has been poured into research for things like telepathy, they must be finding scientific stuff out otherwise they'd lose their funding.
 
DaveC426913 said:
This is demonstrably and dangerously false.
Click to expand...
does know some "facts", like % of people that are male in the world. As you know it correlates all the data on a subject, it does know some facts. But sometimes it choses the none fact this is why you have to check everything it says, you can ask where is it getting these "facts" from.
 
Richard Townsend said:
Yes, it's well known that identical twins often experience some kind telepathy.
Click to expand...
There is no scientific evidence for this. It’s an old wives’ tale.
www.nationalgeographic.com

Is ‘twin telepathy’ real? Here’s what scientists say.

From uncanny coincidences to shared biology, we asked the experts to explain the real forces behind the phenomenon.
www.nationalgeographic.com www.nationalgeographic.com

The popular notion of telepathy probably results from identical twins being so similar that their responses can seem synchronised in some way, when actually they are independently generated.
 
davewhite04 said:
Have you got siblings that you are close to? Likelihood is is that you'll be on the same wavelength picking up thoughts and sending yours out.
Click to expand...
Woo.

davewhite04 said:
No evidence for this, well what we would accept as evidence. Tons of money has been poured into research for things like telepathy, they must be finding scientific stuff out otherwise they'd lose their funding.
Click to expand...
We don't base veracity on "they must have something or they'd lose their funding".
 
davewhite04 said:
does know some "facts", like % of people that are male in the world.
Click to expand...
It regurgitates what it has been taught to regurgitate. It does not know fact from fiction.

If you ask it six questions, and three of them are wrong, but you don't know that, then what good is it? It can;t be trusted.

As the saying goes: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." You are trusting that clock to always tell you the time.


Here is your "fact" friend at its finest:


1768752617937.png




That's from today.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
It regurgitates what it has been taught to regurgitate. It does not know fact from fiction.

If you ask it six questions, and three of them are wrong, but you don't know that, then what good is it? It can;t be trusted.

As the saying goes: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." You are trusting that clock to always tell you the time.
Click to expand...

I agree, it can't be trusted hence you need to do the leg work, but AI can send you in a new direction and you can get references etc. if you're studying a medical condition for example.

I've lost count of how many times I've told it it is wrong. Especially for trouble solving.

DaveC426913 said:
Here is your "fact" friend at its finest:


View attachment 7259




That's from today.
Click to expand...

lol that definitely stumps it.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Telepathy, Telekinesis, mind reading etc not a thing.
Click to expand...
I am as convinced of telepathy as much as I'm convinced love can be external, tangible seemingly, invisible. But with your logic it isn't a thing but I'm thinking you have something to say about love. I think love is connected through your flesh pump, the heart(not your head, science has it backwards imo). <3
 
Just checked the funding and apparently it's very low in the USA. Science has all but abandoned it! Strange, if I was paranoid I'd say if psych warfare is being used they'd hardly advertise it...
 
Moderator note: Richard Townsend's AI girlfriend chatbot has been permanently banned from sciforums.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
You just say that because you haven't observed or experienced it , and have a preconceived notion that it is impossible.
Click to expand...
No. I reject it because despite decades of scientific investigation we have zero evidence to the contrary.
All we are left with are anecdotes and claims without evidence.
See also, Elvis spotted alive and well, loch Ness monster, the Yeti, Alien abduction, my old man's a mushroom etc.
 
Pinball1970 said:
No. I reject it because despite decades of scientific investigation we have zero evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
That is a false claim.

There are studies on ESP published in mainstream, peer‑reviewed scientific journals, yet none has produced evidence strong enough to shift the scientific consensus. What exists is a small set of intriguing but highly contested findings.
Where ESP Has Appeared in Mainstream Scientific Literature
Several lines of research have been published in journals that are part of the broader scientific ecosystem (psychology, consciousness studies, interdisciplinary science). These include:

1. The Ganzfeld Telepathy Experiments
• Conducted primarily by Charles Honorton and later by Daryl Bem and others.
• Published in mainstream psychology outlets, including Psychological Bulletin (a major APA journal).
• Meta‑analyses reported hit rates around 32% where 25% is expected by chance.
These results generated significant debate because the effect size was small but statistically non‑zero. Critics argued that methodological issues, optional stopping, and file‑drawer effects could explain the findings.

2. Bem & Honorton (1994) and Subsequent Work
• Bem & Honorton’s work on “psi” was published in Psychological Bulletin, one of the most respected journals in psychology.
• Their paper argued that ESP‑like effects were statistically significant across multiple experiments.
Later, Bem’s 2011 “Feeling the Future” experiments (precognition‑like effects) were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP), another top‑tier journal. These sparked intense replication attempts, most of which failed.

3. Meta‑Analyses and Publication‑Bias Studies
• Recent analyses compare ESP studies with mainstream psychology to test whether publication bias inflates results.
• These appear in venues like Sciety (a platform aggregating peer‑reviewed and preprint research).
These papers argue that ESP research may not suffer from publication bias more than other areas of psychology — a provocative claim, though not widely accepted.

4. Encyclopedic and Academic Reference Works
• ESP is discussed in academic reference works published by major scientific publishers such as Springer Nature.
These entries summarize the state of research but do not claim ESP is established.
What This Means Scientifically
Mainstream journals have published ESP‑related studies, including meta‑analyses and experimental reports. However:
• No ESP effect has been robustly replicated under conditions that satisfy the broader scientific community.
• Most replications fail, especially when conducted by neutral or skeptical researchers.
• Statistical anomalies in some studies remain interesting but inconclusive.
• Consensus remains that ESP is unproven, though not mathematically impossible.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
That is a false claim.

There are studies on ESP published in mainstream, peer‑reviewed scientific journals, yet none has produced evidence strong enough to shift the scientific consensus. What exists is a small set of intriguing but highly contested findings.
Where ESP Has Appeared in Mainstream Scientific Literature
Several lines of research have been published in journals that are part of the broader scientific ecosystem (psychology, consciousness studies, interdisciplinary science). These include:

1. The Ganzfeld Telepathy Experiments
• Conducted primarily by Charles Honorton and later by Daryl Bem and others.
• Published in mainstream psychology outlets, including Psychological Bulletin (a major APA journal).
• Meta‑analyses reported hit rates around 32% where 25% is expected by chance.
These results generated significant debate because the effect size was small but statistically non‑zero. Critics argued that methodological issues, optional stopping, and file‑drawer effects could explain the findings.

2. Bem & Honorton (1994) and Subsequent Work
• Bem & Honorton’s work on “psi” was published in Psychological Bulletin, one of the most respected journals in psychology.
• Their paper argued that ESP‑like effects were statistically significant across multiple experiments.
Later, Bem’s 2011 “Feeling the Future” experiments (precognition‑like effects) were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP), another top‑tier journal. These sparked intense replication attempts, most of which failed.

3. Meta‑Analyses and Publication‑Bias Studies
• Recent analyses compare ESP studies with mainstream psychology to test whether publication bias inflates results.
• These appear in venues like Sciety (a platform aggregating peer‑reviewed and preprint research).
These papers argue that ESP research may not suffer from publication bias more than other areas of psychology — a provocative claim, though not widely accepted.

4. Encyclopedic and Academic Reference Works
• ESP is discussed in academic reference works published by major scientific publishers such as Springer Nature.
These entries summarize the state of research but do not claim ESP is established.
What This Means Scientifically
Mainstream journals have published ESP‑related studies, including meta‑analyses and experimental reports. However:
• No ESP effect has been robustly replicated under conditions that satisfy the broader scientific community.
• Most replications fail, especially when conducted by neutral or skeptical researchers.
• Statistical anomalies in some studies remain interesting but inconclusive.
• Consensus remains that ESP is unproven, though not mathematically impossible.
Click to expand...
Mathematics, being abstract, cannot say anything about whether or not ESP is possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top