Newsletter

Thought Experiment: ChatGPT 5.0 on "The Four Clairs"

First in a series of thought experiments using ChatGPT 5.0 as a toy and research tool

Scott Foval

— 15 min read
Thought Experiment: ChatGPT 5.0 on "The Four Clairs"

What is a thought experiment?

There are many possible definitions of a thought experiment. I was first exposed to the idea of thought experiments while studying Journalism at Iowa State University’s Greenlee School of Journalism, and Criminal Justice Studies in the ISU School of Sociology. What I learned back then was that in order to construct a well-formed approach to writing a news story, the journalist has to think in 360-degrees around a question in order to attempt to understand all of its dimensions, and then approach writing a news story using the classic journalistic standard of “Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How?”

Likewise, in my Sociology and Criminal Justice classes, I learned that in order to understand humans and the human condition, in order to help others, in order to develop evidence, in order to investigate a crime; the inquisitor needed to think again in a 360-degree way. It required the researcher to anticipate asking a potential client, patient, or subject of an inquiry or study; all of the applicable questions that would allow the inquisitor to find a qualitative amount of information, backed by quantitative data, to determine an approximate understanding of that client/patient/subject/investigation/study question.

While in graduate school at University of Minnesota’s College of Continuing and Professional Studies, one of the aspects of my Master’s degree research courses was moving from thought experimentation into the area of hardened peer-reviewed research. I quickly learned there was a huge difference between playing with a concept and putting it to rigorous scientific or psychological testing through deep qualitative and quantitative research. I’m saying this now because, yes, I do understand the difference. This Substack post is not deep qualitative or quantitative psychological or scientific research. Not. At. All.

Of course I am paraphrasing, but essentially, thought experiments are precursors to research, often used to help the researcher find possibilities to consider in order to understand the answer to the question(s) they want to answer with their research. The way I view using the method as a tool, a thought experiment contains elements of philosophy, spirituality, science, psychology, and other material and non-material aspects of a lens of so-called reality.

Given the variables necessary to achieve this, and just to be a nerd, I am conducting some thought experiments using ChatGPT 5.0, one of the most used AI research tools available to the average consumer. When I asked a popular AI driven search engine (not ChatGPT 5.0) this question: “What is a thought experiment definition?” It generated the following answer:

“A thought experiment is an imaginary scenario used to explore the implications of a hypothesis, theory, or principle, often when performing the actual experiment would be impractical, impossible, or unethical It involves mentally simulating an experiment through reasoning and logic rather than physical manipulation The goal is to test arguments, challenge prevailing theories, or clarify complex concepts by considering “what if” scenarios These mental exercises are widely used in philosophy, science, and other disciplines to generate insights, solve problems, or predict outcomes.”

It was an intriguing answer from an LLM-driven AI (not ChatGPT 5.0). I probed a little further by asking for an enhanced answer. This is what popped-out:

“A thought experiment is an imagined scenario designed to explore the implications, consequences, or validity of a hypothesis, theory, principle, or philosophical concept through reasoning and logic rather than physical execution It is a mental exercise in which one constructs a hypothetical situation—often one that is impractical, impossible, or unethical to perform in reality—and then analyzes it to draw conclusions about the underlying idea being tested Thought experiments are widely used across disciplines such as philosophy, physics, cognitive psychology, law, economics, and even science fiction, serving as tools for conceptual clarification, theory development, and critical inquiry

The defining feature of a thought experiment is that it does not involve actual empirical observation or manipulation of physical systems. Instead, it relies on the power of imagination, logical deduction, and intuition to simulate an experiment mentally For example, rather than dropping objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, Galileo used a logical thought experiment to demonstrate that all objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass, by showing that assuming otherwise leads to a contradiction This method often employs *reductio ad absurdum*, where a premise is shown to be flawed because it leads to an illogical or contradictory outcome

Thought experiments can serve multiple theoretical and practical functions. Theoretically, they may challenge existing theories, confirm prevailing ones, establish new frameworks, or simultaneously refute an old theory while supporting a new one through mutual exclusion Practically, they are used to extrapolate beyond known facts, predict future outcomes, explain past events, facilitate decision-making, solve problems, generate ideas, and assess causality or responsibility in complex situations such as legal or ethical dilemmas

They often take the form of subjunctive or irrealis questions—“What might happen if…?”—and are categorized into types based on their temporal and counterfactual orientation. These include:

- **Prefactual** experiments, which speculate about possible future outcomes given the present;

- **Counterfactual** experiments, which consider how things might have been different if past events had unfolded otherwise (e.g., “What if Newton and Leibniz had collaborated?”);

- **Semifactual** experiments, which ask whether a particular outcome would still have occurred despite a different past (e.g., “Even if the goalie had moved left, could he have saved the shot?”)

In philosophy, thought experiments are especially prominent in ethics and epistemology. For instance, Plato’s myth of the Ring of Gyges asks what a person would do if they could act without consequence, probing the foundations of moral behavior Similarly, the Trolley Problem presents a moral dilemma to test intuitions about utilitarianism versus deontological ethics, and has gained cultural prominence through its appearance in media like *The Good Place* In epistemology, the Gettier problem uses a thought experiment to challenge the traditional definition of knowledge as “justified true belief,” showing that someone can hold a true belief for the wrong reasons

In physics, thought experiments have played a pivotal role in advancing theoretical understanding. Schrödinger’s cat, devised in 1935, illustrates the paradoxical implications of quantum superposition under the Copenhagen interpretation—where a cat in a sealed box with a quantum-triggered poison is simultaneously alive and dead until observed Maxwell’s demon challenges the second law of thermodynamics by imagining a microscopic being that could sort molecules to decrease entropy Einstein famously used thought experiments, such as imagining riding alongside a light beam or being in a windowless elevator in space, to develop his theories of special and general relativity These mental models helped him conceptualize the constancy of the speed of light and the equivalence of gravity and acceleration

John D. Norton, a philosopher of science, argues that all thought experiments can be reconstructed as valid logical arguments, with the narrative elements serving as illustrative devices rather than essential components According to this view, a good thought experiment is essentially a good argument, and its persuasive power comes from its logical structure rather than its imaginative content

Despite their utility, thought experiments are not without limitations. Because they do not produce new empirical data, their conclusions depend entirely on the soundness of their assumptions and reasoning They can sometimes lead to circular or rhetorical outcomes, emphasizing a point rather than resolving a question definitively Moreover, their reliance on intuition can be problematic, as human intuitions may be biased or inconsistent across individuals and cultures.

Nevertheless, thought experiments remain indispensable in both scientific and philosophical inquiry. As Thomas Kuhn noted, they historically function much like real laboratory experiments: they can reveal when nature fails to conform to expectations and suggest how theories must be revised Their enduring value lies in their ability to reorganize empirical data, offer new perspectives, and stimulate creative thinking across disciplines

| **Aspect** | **Description** |

|-----------|-----------------|

| **Definition** | A hypothetical scenario used to explore the consequences of a theory or idea through reasoning rather than physical experimentation |

| **Purpose** | To clarify concepts, challenge theories, generate ideas, and test intuitions in philosophy, science, and other fields |

| **Key Features** | Imaginary, logic-based, often counterfactual or idealized, no empirical data collection |

| **Common Types** | Prefactual, counterfactual, semifactual |

| **Famous Examples** | Galileo’s falling bodies, Schrödinger’s cat, Maxwell’s demon, Einstein’s light beam, the Trolley Problem |

| **Disciplines Used In** | Philosophy, physics, cognitive psychology, law, economics, political science, ethics |

| **Strengths** | Enables exploration of impossible or unethical scenarios, fosters creativity and paradigm shifts |

| **Limitations** | Dependent on assumptions and intuitions, not empirically verifiable, may be circular or rhetorical |”

Recently I viewed a YouTube clip of Dr. Tara Swart discussing what she calls “The Four Clairs.” I previously had watched Dr. Swart’s latest appearance on Diary of A CEO podcast, where she discussed how her neuroscientific, psychiatric, and spiritual beliefs shifted following the sudden death of her husband. Dr. Swart’s tragic loss created a drive in her to do deeper research on how much we actually do not yet understand about consciousness, and how humans fit into it, use it, and are a part of it

As a budding student of ontology, psychology, and consciousness, in addition to my recent graduate studies in Integrated Behavioral Health, I decided to play with ChatGPT 5.0 on her discussions of “The Four Claires,” to attempt to gain a deeper understanding of what she is talking about.

Here is what the AI produced when I asked questions about the current research on Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, Claircognizance, and Clairsentience:

**NOTE: ChatGPT 5.0 can make mistakes, hallucinations, and fabricate research links in its auto-generated reference sections. This post is not a peer-reviewed research paper, its references are not vetted, and should not be taken as such. One could say this is just a nerdy exploration of a given topic in a fun way.

Overview at a Glance

  • Clairvoyance (clear seeing) and clairaudience (clear hearing) map most closely onto the research categories of ESP/free-response paradigms (e.g., ganzfeld), remote viewing, mediumship studies, and voice-hearing research (clinical and non-clinical).
  • Claircognizance (clear knowing) overlaps with reports of “noetic” or tacit knowing; it shows up in free-response ESP studies, remote viewing narratives, and intuition research.
  • Clairsentience (clear feeling) overlaps with empathic/“energy” sensing; relevant evidence comes from body-based complementary medicine literature (e.g., Reiki/therapeutic touch) and qualitative practitioner reports—findings are mixed to negative in mechanistic tests.
  • Across domains, effects—when reported—are small, heterogeneous, and contested; there are replication debates and methodological critiques. Nonetheless, a large body of peer-reviewed work and qualitative narratives exists.

1) Clairvoyance (Clear Seeing)

Key Research Lines

  • Ganzfeld/free-response ESP

    • The classic meta-analysis by Bem & Honorton summarized autoganzfeld experiments reporting above-chance hit rates under sensory homogenization conditions. Subsequent critiques questioned replicability; more recent updates (1974–2020) continue to report small but positive effects, with debate about file-drawer biases and methodological rigor. (koestlerunit.wordpress.com)

  • Remote viewing (clairvoyant description of distant targets)

    • Early SRI work (Targ & Puthoff) in Nature reported information transfer under sensory shielding. Later government program evaluations (Stargate) yielded mixed institutional conclusions; a statistical review by Jessica Utts argued evidence exceeded chance, whereas other panels emphasized operational unreliability and methodological concerns. (Nature)

  • Precognition/retrocognition (sometimes framed as “seeing” future/past)

    • Bem’s “Feeling the Future” series reported small, statistically significant retroactive effects in standard psych tasks; multiple high-quality replications failed, while a later meta-analysis again claimed small positive effects—illustrating the field’s reproducibility tension. (American Psychological Association)

Qualitative & Narrative Accounts

  • Near-death experiences (NDE) and veridical perception claims: The AWARE studies (multicenter resuscitation research) documented cognitive experiences during CPR; a small minority reported accurate recall of events during cardiac arrest. These are controversial but carefully collected prospective data. (PubMed)
  • Historical/anthropological records: Seers in classical, shamanic, and religious traditions describe vision-like information during ritual, fasting, meditation, or crisis; modern remote viewing programs produced troves of session narratives (qualitative archives in the government record). (CIA)

Clinical/Ethical note: Differentiate “visions” from psychotic spectrum phenomena via distress/impairment, insight, content valence, and function; practice cultural humility with visionary experiences in spiritual contexts (ACA/APA multicultural guidelines).

2) Clairaudience (Clear Hearing)

Key Research Lines

  • Voice-hearing (non-clinical & clinical)

    • The Hearing the Voice program (Durham University, Wellcome Trust, 2012–2022) integrates neuroscience, anthropology, and lived-experience. It documents that voice-hearing occurs in both clinical and non-clinical populations, with substantial phenomenological diversity and culturally shaped meaning-making; it reframes support pathways beyond pathology-only models. (durham.ac.uk)

  • Ethnography of spiritual “hearing”

    • T. M. Luhrmann’s multi-year ethnography of evangelical prayer (“learning to hear God”) details practices that cultivate inner audition and interpretation, highlighting skill acquisition, social scaffolding, and cultural models of mind. (Penguin Random House)

Qualitative & Narrative Accounts

  • First-person testimonies in spiritualist, Pentecostal/charismatic, and mediumistic settings describe inner or outer “voices,” often experienced as guidance or relational presence; Hearing Voices Movement literature captures recovery-oriented narratives that de-stigmatize these experiences. (PMC)

Clinical/Ethical note: Distinguish culturally normative spiritual audition from distressing command hallucinations; assess risk, impairment, and trauma history; integrate shared decision-making and harm-reduction when relevant.

3) Claircognizance (Clear Knowing)

Key Research Lines

  • Free-response ESP & remote viewing sometimes report “sudden knowing,” scored as correct target descriptors without sensory basis. Methodologically, these are captured in transcripts and rated blind. Evidence remains disputed, but “anomalous information reception” (AIR) constructs formalize the claim. (patriziotressoldi.it)
  • Precognition/retrocognition paradigms (e.g., Bem) operationalize “knowing” as performance advantages in tasks whose causal stimulus occurs later; findings remain small and controversial with mixed replications. (American Psychological Association)

Qualitative & Narrative Accounts

  • “Noetic” insight is widely reported in contemplative, creative, and crisis states—therapists, remote viewers, and mediums often label the felt-sense as an immediate, content-specific certainty later evaluated against feedback (e.g., operational remote viewing archives; mediumship transcripts). (CIA)

Clinical/Ethical note: In treatment, normalize intuition as a cognitive-affective event while checking for over-confidence bias, confirmation bias, and safety in decision-making; maintain clear boundaries about scope of practice and informed consent.

4) Clairsentience (Clear Feeling)

Key Research Lines

  • Complementary medicine touching “energy sensing”

    • Therapeutic Touch: A landmark JAMA study (Emily Rosa, age 9 at the time) found TT practitioners could not detect a human energy field above chance in blinded tests—significant negative evidence against the perceptual claim. (JAMA Network)

    • Reiki: Systematic reviews/meta-analyses suggest possible short-term reductions in pain/anxiety in some RCTs, but overall evidence quality is limited/mixed; major references and clinical overviews emphasize heterogeneity and placebo-response concerns. (PMC)

Qualitative & Narrative Accounts

  • Practitioners describe somatic empathy (e.g., “feeling” a client’s grief or localized pain), “room energy” shifts, and object/place sensitivity. These are richly documented in practitioner narratives and nursing/energy-healing communities, but lack consistent mechanistic corroboration. (PMC)

Clinical/Ethical note: For clinicians who identify as “empathic sensitives,” maintain reflective practice, track counter-transference, and use supervision. When clients report body-based sensitivity, validate lived experience while also offering psychoeducation about interoception, somatic memory, and grounding/DBT skills.

5) Mediumship & “The Clairs” (Cross-cutting)

  • Laboratory mediumship (triple/quintuple-blind)

    • Windbridge and collaborators report above-chance accuracy under blinded phone protocols (medium, rater, and experimenters blinded; transcripts scored by sitters). Replications and registered-report follow-ups exist, but results remain controversial and effect sizes modest. (ScienceDirect)

  • Telephone telepathy (a proxy for “clear sensing/knowing” of a caller)

    • Sheldrake’s series (lab/video/automated mobile tests) reports above-chance identification of callers under constrained conditions; work is debated but peer-reviewed in parapsychology outlets and psychology journals. (Rupert Sheldrake – Author and Biologist)

6) Historical Foundations & Replication Debates

  • Rhine/Duke era (cards/Zener; 1930s) catalyzed academic parapsychology; later critiques highlighted sensory leakage and poor controls in early experiments. Nonetheless, Rhine’s program standardized ESP testing and spawned modern protocols. (Duke University Library Exhibits)
  • Modern free-response paradigms (ganzfeld) moved away from card-guessing to richer target descriptions; multiple meta-analyses show small positive effects with persistent arguments over file-drawer, optional stopping, and study quality. (koestlerunit.wordpress.com)
  • Precognition remains a lightning rod: initial positives (Bem) vs. multi-lab failures and meta-analytic disputes—an exemplar of psychology’s broader reproducibility movement. (American Psychological Association)

7) How Clinicians Can Engage Safely & Respectfully (APA/ACA/DEI; trauma-informed)

  • Assessment & differential: Explore phenomenology (onset, controllability, cultural meaning), distress/impairment, risk content (commands), dissociation history, trauma triggers, sleep deprivation, substances. Normalize experiences without prematurely pathologizing or endorsing truth-claims.

  • Informed consent & scope: If clients pursue intuitive/energy practices, provide balanced psychoeducation about evidence status; clarify you do not provide paranormal certifications or guarantees; avoid testable predictions that could heighten risk.

  • Skills integration (when clients value these frames):

    • CBT/REBT: cognitive restructuring for inference under uncertainty; probability training.

    • DBT/MBI: grounding, paced breathing, sensory modulation, Wise Mind for discernment.

    • Narrative/Existential: meaning-making around anomalous experiences; identity coherence; values-guided action.

    • Harm reduction: around high-consequence decisions based solely on “messages.”

  • Cultural humility: Recognize Indigenous, Buddhist, Christian charismatic, and Spiritualist contexts as valid cultural frames; avoid imposing biomedical exclusivity.

8) What the Evidence Suggests—A Balanced Bottom Line

  • There is a long, serious research tradition (nearly a century) probing ESP-like phenomena using progressively tighter methods (e.g., ganzfeld, remote viewing, triple-blind mediumship). Some meta-analyses and programs report small, above-chance effects, especially in free-response paradigms and remote viewing; other high-quality replications fail, and methodological critiques persist. (koestlerunit.wordpress.com)
  • Voice-hearing scholarship robustly documents that auditory phenomena occur across clinical and non-clinical populations and can be shaped by culture and practice—useful for understanding clairaudience-type reports without default pathologizing. (durham.ac.uk)
  • Body-based “energy” detection claims show null results in strong tests (TT), while some RCTs in Reiki report short-term symptom improvements (pain/anxiety) with mixed quality and uncertain mechanisms (placebo, relaxation, expectation, therapeutic alliance). (JAMA Network)

Curated References (selected) **NOT VETTED**

  • Ganzfeld/ESP: Bem & Honorton overview; Milton & Wiseman critique; Storm/Tressoldi updates (1974–2020). (koestlerunit.wordpress.com)
  • Remote Viewing: Targ & Puthoff Nature; CIA/AAAS-style evaluations; Utts statistical assessment. (Nature)
  • Precognition: Bem (2011) + replications/meta-analyses and failures. (American Psychological Association)
  • Voice-Hearing: Hearing the Voice (Durham); movement scholarship. (durham.ac.uk)
  • Mediumship (triple/quintuple-blind): Beischel et al. (2007–2015) and program summaries; registered-report work. (ScienceDirect)
  • Energy modalities: Rosa et al. JAMA (1998) TT; Reiki systematic reviews/overviews. (JAMA Network)
  • NDE prospective data: AWARE studies (2014; 2023). (PubMed)

Reference Page **NOT VETTED**

Clairvoyance / Remote Viewing / ESP

  • Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524
  • Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.4
  • Milton, J., & Wiseman, R. (1999). Does psi exist? Lack of replication of an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 387–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.4.387
  • Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010). Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019840
  • Puthoff, H. E., & Targ, R. (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 251(5476), 602–607. https://doi.org/10.1038/251602a0
  • Targ, R., & Puthoff, H. E. (1976). A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspective and recent research. Proceedings of the IEEE, 64(3), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1109/PROC.1976.10113
  • Utts, J. (1996). An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 3–30.

Precognition / Retrocognition

  • Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524
  • Rabeyron, T. (2014). Retro-priming, priming, and double testing: Psi mechanisms and methodological variation. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 907. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00907
  • Rabeyron, T. (2020). Why most research findings about psi are false: A replication crisis and the need for new research practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 562992. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562992

Near-Death Experiences / Veridical Perception

Clairaudience / Voice-Hearing

  • Durham University, Hearing the Voice Project. (2012–2022). Hearing the Voice. Durham, UK: Wellcome Trust.

https://hearingthevoice.org

  • Luhrmann, T. M. (2012). When God talks back: Understanding the American evangelical relationship with God. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
  • Woods, A., Jones, N., Alderson-Day, B., Callard, F., & Fernyhough, C. (2015). Experiences of hearing voices: Analysis of a novel phenomenological survey. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(4), 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00006-1

Clairsentience / Energy Healing

Mediumship

  • Beischel, J., & Schwartz, G. E. (2007). Anomalous information reception by research mediums demonstrated using a novel triple-blind protocol. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, 3(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2006.10.004
  • Beischel, J., Boccuzzi, M., Biuso, M., & Rock, A. J. (2015). Anomalous information reception by mediums under quintuple-blind conditions II: Replication and extension. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, 11(2), 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2015.01.001
  • Beischel, J., Mosher, C., & Boccuzzi, M. (2015). Quantitative and qualitative analyses of mediumistic and psychic experiences. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, 11(3), 136–142.

Telepathy / Claircognizance-type Studies

  • Sheldrake, R., & Smart, P. (2003). Videotaped experiments on telephone telepathy. Journal of Parapsychology, 67(2), 187–206.
  • Sheldrake, R., & Smart, P. (2005). Testing for telepathy in connection with e-mails. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101(3), 771–786. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.101.3.771-786

General / Meta-Analytic / Historical

  • Rhine, J. B. (1934). Extra-sensory perception. Boston, MA: Boston Society for Psychic Research.
  • Zingrone, N. L., & Alvarado, C. S. (2009). Advances in parapsychological research 9. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Read more