Autism and telepathy - The Telepathy Tapes

[Muttley]

To be honest, ive had great telepathy with a beech tree when i was on acid one time, so i guess anything is possible.

So there is a genetic link

 

[Rorschach]

To be honest, ive had great telepathy with a beech tree when i was on acid one time, so i guess anything is possible.

Trees talk to each other. Why not you?

 

[Gutter Boy]

Trees talk to each other. Why not you?

Yeah, i went full mycorrhizal that afternoon

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Hey man. Sorry dude. I didn't mean to attack you if it felt that way. And all data is anecdotal in reality. It is always the insight which requires nuance and context.

My work is in analysing precisely this kind of info so I take a keen interest but I will admit I am not open minded with stuff like this.

I'm not trying to draw you out here as I do like you and respect you. But how does what you said above go with being religious.

No animosity and don't want to hijack the thread.

 

[Daisuk]

A good stance to have is to believe that a stranger with "information" is out to con you. It may be free on Spotify but they will get cash for appearances on the likes of JRE/radio/TV/Amazon prime/speaking events etc, not to mention YouTube.
It may not be the worlds biggest grift, but it only needs to keep them from doing a hard days work, you only need to have a look at the likes of secureteam10 and the cash/notoriety they were getting.

I would like to point out that I am one of those poor autistic parents.

I would agree if this was the work of TeleDave294 on Youtube, but when you hear the people involved in the recordings, the stories they share, the communication we hear from the autistic people themselves, it's hard for me to understand how this could possibly be some sort of scheme to fool people. What would they gain from it apart from ruin their reputations if it was indeed a hoax? If you hear the interactions with the people in it, especially between parents and children, you would have to be an extreme cynic to believe it was all just flimflam. But I do get, it's anecdotal and not hard evidence (whatever that is outside of mathematics). I didn't mean to imply that parents of kids with ASD should be pitied, by the way, (although I definitely have had a lot of compassion for a few parents I know).

Let me give you a greater context as well.

I'm actually extremely fascinated by ASD because of my nieces. Like most people, I hate the D in it. I prefer C condition, but often deliberately use T for talent. As an example, I have one niece that lip reads. Doesn't know how she does it and we don't know whether it is a natural or nurtured state in her lifetime. She also has a condition called selective mutism where sometimes she wants to talk but physically is unable. She shuts down.

I have a lot of respect for people like yourself who have gone through a difficult diagnosis journey as you shared with us the other day. Not ASD in your case obviously. In my case, I've observed 3 kids in my family (nieces) who are taking their own journey. I see a society who isn't ready to adjust to what their condition brings. Go and talk to any parent who has tried to get their child an EHCP (educational health care plan) due to their child's autism and you see a whole world of pain. You see blockers everywhere in our society trying to treat these kids as "normal", not that there is such a thing.

The leading scientists in the world are learning about autism, but have a long way to go. My recommendation would be to spend the money, time and energy there rather than go after these sensationalist stories like telepathy. Also, to put autistic children through a clinical trial process would be cruel in my opinion. That is, especially for those who have PDA (pathological demand avoidance) layered into their autistic condition. That is a factor as well.

So you can imagine what I'd like to do to these people if this is a scam and they are riding the autism bandwagon. I really hope they aren't.

I agree regarding the D! I know the condition selective mutism, I've seen it in a few of the kids I've worked with over the years (I've worked with people with various disabilites, including autism, for the past 15 years). I strongly agree with the blockers you're describing, it really is at every level. I think the various social and educational services we offer over here (Norway) is abysmal, but it's what you get when there's no funding, in a field that is not seen as the least bit important. It's usually a case of "if it floats, it's good enough".

I think we should definitely work hard to study autism to understand it better, but I don't see that clashing with investigating cases like this podcast series are presenting. The implications of these stories being true, are simply too great to ignore. One of the guys with autism in the series spells out with his spell board that he would love to prove his abilities to the world, as it could change so many people's lives for the better. Now, him saying that could possibly be a scam, of course, but if you hear the recordings, again, you'd be hard pressed to say "this is definitely flimflam". It's well worth investigating, in my opinion.

They are making a documentary from the footage they've got from making the podcast. It won't be scientific proof, of course, but I reckon you will see that the relationships involved (especially parents/kids), and the things the kids can do, will be showcased pretty clearly.

 

[johnola]

I’ve got a twin brother and some other siblings. We’re very different, were not in the same classes at school etc etc.

However one night I woke up with a really strong feeling something bad had happened to him. Went down to seem him first thing and no, he was absolutely fine.

 

[Cundies undies]

I would agree if this was the work of TeleDave294 on Youtube, but when you hear the people involved in the recordings, the stories they share, the communication we hear from the autistic people themselves, it's hard for me to understand how this could possibly be some sort of scheme to fool people. What would they gain from it apart from ruin their reputations.

For lot of scammers it doesn't matter about reputation, they just need to keep the grift going. Zohar stargate as an example, for most ppl its holy fudge who would fall for that, for those that do fall for it they give a monthly patreon and pay for early access to movies and pay to attend lectures.

Pls try to see things from the other side, especially when the other side doesn't gain anything, not like a podcaster/youtuber that gains unseen cash/sponsorship.

I'd like to add here, my step sister has Downs Syndrome. I have never met a sweeter, more forgiving person in my life. My step father and mother paid a fortune to bring her to be cured by swimming with dolphins etc.

It's a complete grift, but it does have some value, Sam will never know about the hardships endured by her family to take her there, she will however see that her superdad commanded the dolphins to swim with her.

 

[Grays_1890]

This stuff is like alot of things for me, some will be better at picking up on things that others in some ways abit like a blind man who has a better sense of smell because he is more tuned in. I don't believe in the mystical/magical aspect of it all anymore than I really believe some bloke parted the red sea

 

[Daisuk]

For lot of scammers it doesn't matter about reputation, they just need to keep the grift going. Zohar stargate as an example, for most ppl its holy fudge who would fall for that, for those that do fall for it they give a monthly patreon and pay for early access to movies and pay to attend lectures.

Pls try to see things from the other side, especially when the other side doesn't gain anything, not like a podcaster/youtuber that gains unseen cash/sponsorship.

I'd like to add here, my step sister has Downs Syndrome. I have never met a sweeter, more forgiving person in my life. My step father and mother paid a fortune to bring her to be cured by swimming with dolphins etc.

It's a complete grift, but it does have some value, Sam will never know about the hardships endured by her family to take her there, she will however see that her superdad commanded the dolphins to swim with her.

I'm aware that there are scammers, obviously. Some people buy expensive shoes thinking they are better than cheaper shoes, when the quality is worse, for instance. I just very much doubt that that's the case here, for the reasons I've mentioned. It is possible to believe things are true without it being scientifically "proven" - most things I do in everyday life I just do without questioning whether it's scientifically proven - why does apple juice taste good, why is it brownish, why is an apple green and not purple, and why do I crave apple juice in the morning? I'm gonna demand a scientific explanation of it very soon! Then another one two months later as the first wasn't statistically significant! Otherwise I must give up juice drinking. There are phenomenons in this world that science can't explain yet, a whole fudging lot of them. I'm not necessarily saying this is one of them, but I'm open to that being true, instead instantly labeling something as "SCAM!" just because it sounds strange. There is such a thing as quantum physics for instance. A smart phone would have sounded like magic 70 years ago. But you know, I don't say people have to be open to this stuff, just saying there's a reason some people are.

Then we have the people with autism that are socalled savants. They have skills that we can't properly explain, but seeing as we can see it manifesting before our very eyes, we accept them. So, seeing as these people exist and have extraordinary talents we accept as real, that we can't really explain, is it such a stretch to entertain the thought of something akin to telepathy?

 

[Cundies undies]

Then we have the people with autism that are socalled savants. They have skills that we can't properly explain, but seeing as we can see it manifesting before our very eyes, we accept them. "Oh, its just....some people can write pi with infinite decimals that he sees as colored shapes in his mind, oh and learn Icelandic in a week - nothing to see here!"

I was going to engage with you, being a curious individual myself, but frankly fudge you and the horse you rode in on.

 

[Daisuk]

I was going to engage with you, being a curious individual myself, but frankly fudge you and the horse you rode in on.

I'm sorry, man, I guess I'm just replying in the tone of the arrogance this kind of stuff is usually met with, and reading over it now, it doesn't really sit right with me either. I can get a little bit carried away sometimed. It wasn't directed at you, at all, and reading over it now I really sounded like an idiot. Totally get that you won't be bothered engaging with that, of course, but did not mean that as an attack against you at all. I've edited out the last part to sound less like a dingdong, just wanted to point something I find interesting out.

 

[thfcsteff]

I will check this out.
Thank you for being brave enough to post something which you doubtless knew would draw cynicism.

 

[scaramanga]

I would agree if this was the work of TeleDave294 on Youtube, but when you hear the people involved in the recordings, the stories they share, the communication we hear from the autistic people themselves, it's hard for me to understand how this could possibly be some sort of scheme to fool people. What would they gain from it apart from ruin their reputations if it was indeed a hoax? If you hear the interactions with the people in it, especially between parents and children, you would have to be an extreme cynic to believe it was all just flimflam. But I do get, it's anecdotal and not hard evidence (whatever that is outside of mathematics). I didn't mean to imply that parents of kids with ASD should be pitied, by the way, (although I definitely have had a lot of compassion for a few parents I know).

There's two layers to this.

The parents believe. They genuinely believe and they probably don't know (or don't want to know) that they're creating signals and suggestions during these trials.

The rest almost certainly don't and are almost certainly scammers. It takes a fair amount of work to set up trials to show that something which doesn't exist, statistically does. I say almost, because every now and then, people who don't understand evidential requirements such as double blinding and statistical significance manage to stumble upon some results that are only wrong because of their methods.

But to get to this stage with the level of criticism they'll have received by now, it would be almost impossible for them not to know how to turn their trials into something evidential. They either don't want to or they have and didn't like the results.

 

[Daisuk]

There's two layers to this.

The parents believe. They genuinely believe and they probably don't know (or don't want to know) that they're creating signals and suggestions during these trial.

The rest almost certainly don't and are almost certainly scammers. It takes a fair amount of work to set up trials to show that something which doesn't exist, statistically does. I say almost, because every now and then, people who don't understand evidential requirements such as double blinding and statistical significance manage to stumble upon some results that are only wrong because of their methods.

But to get to this stage with the level of criticism they'll have received by now, it would be almost impossible for them not to know how to turn their trials into something evidential. They either don't want to or they have and didn't like the results.

I read the article you linked to earlier, and although I find some of the criticism hard to believe (particularly the part where the parents are supposedly cuing their kids while the testing goes on, as you mention), I obviously understand the general critcism, and the usual big claims need big evidence.

I hope they get to the testing stage at some point as well, although I'm not sure anyone in the scientific community would want to touch it.

As a thought experiment: In a different dimension, very similar to our's, only in this dimension telepathy do exist, but like us, they haven't proved it yet. Let's say there was such a thing as telepathy, and a case for it was being presented (which of course scientist would outright just say no to, never, of course, it's been tested before and doesn't make sense in their view). Let's say it was tested and shown to be true. Would the scientists observing the trials just concede that they were wrong and that these new findings are indeed real, and thereby putting their careers and integrity on the line? Would the next in line scientists that are supposed to review the findings do the same? Or would they turn every rock trying to find some sliver of doubt to discredit the findings i order to not only save their reputation but also their worldview? In this dimension, almost exactly similar to our's, would a scientist under this "materialist" paradigm, if you will, actually dare concede such a thing? Let's say the findings of it being real being published, all kinds of people reading it would be able to see that the data seem to prove it being real, but the scientists don't think it holds up, so the belief in it not being real goes on.

A strawman argument, I know, but just as a thought experiment. "But it doesn't exist so there's no point entertaining the idea" - that may be, but our understanding of the universe keep expanding. Who knows what is really out there and what is possible? Why not be open to something maybe being true (there is a difference between a flying spaghetti monster and say telepathy) without completely trashing it based on what we think we know? "Can people fly?" - no, but who knows what we can in the future! Sounds ridiculous to us now, but try explaining the internet to someone in 1882. Be skeptical of your own skepticism!

I'm rambling. Again though, I'm also excited to see them try to do this in a more controlled environment, and yeah, they definitely have to at some point.

 

[scaramanga]

I read the article you linked to earlier, and although I find some of the criticism hard to believe (particularly the part where the parents are supposedly cuing their kids while the testing goes on, as you mention), I obviously understand the general critcism, and the usual big claims need big evidence.

I hope they get to the testing stage at some point as well, although I'm not sure anyone in the scientific community would want to touch it.

As a thought experiment: In a different dimension, very similar to our's, only in this dimension telepathy do exist, but like us, they haven't proved it yet. Let's say there was such a thing as telepathy, and a case for it was being presented (which of course scientist would outright just say no to, never, of course, it's been tested before and doesn't make sense in their view). Let's say it was tested and shown to be true. Would the scientists observing the trials just concede that they were wrong and that these new findings are indeed real, and thereby putting their careers and integrity on the line? Would the next in line scientists that are supposed to review the findings do the same? Or would they turn every rock trying to find some sliver of doubt to discredit the findings i order to not only save their reputation but also their worldview? In this dimension, almost exactly similar to our's, would a scientist under this "materialist" paradigm, if you will, actually dare concede such a thing? Let's say the findings of it being real being published, all kinds of people reading it would be able to see that the data seem to prove it being real, but the scientists don't think it holds up, so the belief in it not being real goes on.

A strawman argument, I know, but just as a thought experiment. "But it doesn't exist so there's no point entertaining the idea" - that may be, but our understanding of the universe keep expanding. Who knows what is really out there and what is possible? Why not be open to something maybe being true (there is a difference between a flying spaghetti monster and say telepathy) without completely trashing it based on what we think we know? "Can people fly?" - no, but who knows what we can in the future? Sounds ridiculous to us now, but try explaining the internet to someone in 1882. Be skeptical your own skepticism!

I'm rambling. Again though, I'm also excited to see them try to do this in a more controlled environment, and yeah, they definitely have to at some point.

Of course they'd continue testing. Science is iterative and based on slowly, incrementally growing knowledge.

It's fairly simple to design a test that's double blinded. Parent holds a sign with one of two symbols on the side they can see. They don't know what's on the other side and neither do the testers (randomly selected using a computer program). Child sees the symbol on the other side and chooses the one the parent is thinking of.

You won't see that kind of test because it means those doing the testing can't put their fingers on the scales.

 

[Daisuk]

Of course they'd continue testing. Science is iterative and based on slowly, incrementally growing knowledge.

It's fairly simple to design a test that's double blinded. Parent holds a sign with one of two symbols on the side they can see. They don't know what's on the other side and neither do the testers (randomly selected using a computer program). Child sees the symbol on the other side and chooses the one the parent is thinking of.

You won't see that kind of test because it means those doing the testing can't put their fingers on the scales.

I'd say this is basically what it (sounds like) they are doing. Kid is sitting with a blanket over himself with his ipad outside the blanket (it's in the trailer), so no one else is touching his ipad. They have a random number and word generator app on a phone, that the mother clicks on three times (just to make sure it's random, according to the presenter), she sees the word, and the kid punches the word in on his ipad. So, if someone else, by remote, controlled the random generation of the words on the app (an app that has been documented to be truly random, as far as that is possible), or say some other device approved to be able to generate random words - and say the mother was in a separate room or behind a wall so the son and her could not see one another - wouldn't that be the same concept only even more challenging for the kid? Because it does sounds like that is what they are already doing (well, except for the remote part and approved app).

 

[scaramanga]

I'd say this is basically what it (sounds like) they are doing. Kid is sitting with a blanket over himself with his ipad outside the blanket (it's in the trailer), so no one else is touching his ipad. They have a random number and word generator app on a phone, that the mother clicks on three times (just to make sure it's random, according to the presenter), she sees the word, and the kid punches the word in on his ipad. So, if someone else, by remote, controlled the random generation of the words on the app (an app that has been documented to be truly random, as far as that is possible), or say some other device approved to be able to generate random words - and say the mother was in a separate room or behind a wall so the son and her could not see one another - wouldn't that be the same concept only even more challenging for the kid? Because it does sounds like that is what they are already doing (well, except for the remote part and approved app).

Both the parents and the testers have to be unable to influence the subject.

So that means the parent not being able to be felt or seen by the child and the testers not knowing what the parent has seen/written.

Otherwise the option to suggest answers is far too open.