So, what's /sci/'s opinion on the sauchie case? I've

Telepathy has been extensively studied repeatedly with a lot of time and funding, and yet there is still no proof that it exists. Very few things have gotten as many chances to be validated, but it has failed time and again.

The main problem with believing in telepathy is that it's testable, and it has been tested, and it has failed those tests. Telepathy is not real.

>>8726146
And the case?

>>8726153
It was made up by fake news papers to sell issues. Do you think Bat Boy is real too?

>>8726129
OP, you can research meta-analyses of parapsychology, which have found that there is a non-zero factor involved in the results of experiments and studies.
I don't know about the case you wrote about because I'm going to sleep, but you wonder about telepathy. I have been trying to critically study these experiences first-hand and analyse them objectively, without wishful thinking. Think of these situations experienced by everyone: you think of someone, and right the next moment that someone is calling you.
You may say "yeah, you're only recalling these events only when they happen, but you don't recall the million times when it doesn't happen". Stick with my hypothesis a little.
We probably all lived those moments. But here's the thing. Notice that when that person "enters your mind", it's a different feeling than when you're actively recalling something or someone from memory. The latter is more dull and lifeless, while the other is a living perceptive sensation.
Whatever this mechanism of transmission is, mental field, or whatever, it is quite subtle. And as with all things considered supernatural in the past, this too may probably be explained in the framework of naturalism which has proven itself time and time again to be the only accurate worldview. It may be magnetic fields that allow us glimpses of information from some place or another, which the brain briefly percieves. Afterall, most animals except for us use the magnetic field for something. (There is a debate here, some say we use it too, albeit for something unrelated.) Maybe the correct theory lies within the hard problem of consciousness.(cont)

>>8726257
Space/matter itself may have the property of (proto)consciousness and phenomenalism. Much like entagled particles communicate in an instant regardless of distance, this shows that non-local communication can exist. By extension, if matter itself has the property of expressing consciousness, paranormal phenomena can be compared to neurons being linked together in a non-local space much like entagled particles are, allowing them to share and access information instantly.

Obviously, I didn't do my best job at explaining a complex hypothesis through a 4chan post, but you should strive for an accurate epistemology and consider the possible explanations.

Pardon me for fucking up the paragraphs in the first post. Have a good day

>>8726257
> non-zero factor

That means nothing. Any study of an event that isn't real is going to have a non-zero factor just from random chance. If the belief was held that a perfectly balanced coin will land heads 3/4ths of the time, then there would be some tests that confirm this is true just due to random chance making it end up that way. Same thing with "psychic" phenomenon.