Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

With paranormal experiences. All I believe is that I have medical perceptions. I do not believe to know where the perceptions come from or their actual accuracy, and that is what the test is for.

Okay. You believe you have had paranormal experiences. I believe that you have had normal experiences. My belief is backed up with scientific explanations. Your belief is not.

And I know that. That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have ESP. We can say that it is unlikely that I have ESP, or that we do not expect me to have ESP, but to say that I do not have ESP did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have ESP. And I was right about that.

I am not making it sound like you are a bad scientist. I am saying that you are not a scientist. You are a college student who believes she has had paranormal experiences.

Scientist: One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in original research, or make use of the results of the research of others.

That doesn't describe you at all since you have not used the scientific method to investigate your experiences. Pseudoscientist would be a good label in that pseudoscience is "any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method."

So, from this point forward perhaps I should substitute for "ESP" something like "a mind control advice implanted by your mother, who is really an Illuminati agent." Thus, your paragraph could be rewritten as follows:

And I know that. That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent. We can say that it is unlikely that I have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent, or that we do not expect me to have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent, but to say that I do not have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent. And I was right about that.

I agree with you that as far as the evidence is concerned, ESP and a mind control device implanted by your mother, an Illuminati agent, are on equal ground and have not been disproven.

However, as a practical matter, both ideas are extremely unlikely.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Femke:
However, and please do not feel attacked, there is something that was asked before and you have as far as I know not answered:

You are a third year student in two Science subjects, and yet you do not seem to have had any training in statistics or the scientific method.
This puzzles me. In my first year in college (I am a biologist) we had courses in History of Science and Filosophy of Science, as well as Statistical Analysis. (Maybe more, but it has been a while. ) These courses taught us to distinguish between apparent correlations and statistical correlations, and showed basically how science works. And they were compulsory.

How come you do not seem to apply these basic subjects to your protocols? You must have gotten excellent grades on them, judging by your average.I did answer this question already. I answer all questions. :)

From page 6 and post #217 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4206601&postcount=217),
I don't have to study statistics to get my degrees although it is highly recommended as an elective. I will probably catch up on statistics on the Masters level later on. Doing two B.S. and a minor means I have to choose away a few good courses that would strengthen either one. I take my studies seriously though and will catch up on courses later on and take several useful electives, including many math electives. But at this point I am grateful to have others on this Forum, such as Ocelot and Beth, to do the statistical analysis as they have. I do apply statistical analysis in college but not of the form as is done here. This is not a chemistry experiment. And from page 19 and post #742 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4288224&postcount=742),
Our schools are simply different, that's all. Statistics is a math elective, and I have chosen Calculus and Differential Equations instead.
and from page 14 and post #555 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4273981&postcount=555),
I will study much more quantum physics than statistics, that is simply how my degrees are composed. Statistics is a math elective, and I've chosen Calculus 4 in its place.

In what way am I not applying science to this investigation? As long as it isn't based on impatience again, I'd be happy to know. Besides I am here to get help in test protocol design, that's what you guys are good at. ;) And trust me, it's a really different experience being both the scientist and that which is being studied! It changes everything! So I appreciate the assistance, which shows up in amidst a sea of insults and false accusations about irrelevant topics regarding my person, not that you are responsible for that since I consider you one of the most excellent posters on this thread. :)

[Ashles]

I think I'll just keep asking this:

If you ignore all of the above please just provide an example of your 'Vibrational calculations'.
Any one that you have done.
Use example data if you like.

You have specifically said:

Quote:
I can do vibrational algebra to calculate theoretical effects in resultant vibration which translates back into real world physical things.

This is one thing you can do here on the forum.

Provide a proper worked example of this from initial data and values through to results that tranlate 'back into real worls physical things' and how they do so.

I look forward to your evasion and reason why you are unable to do this.

[Ashles]

I don't have to study statistics to get my degrees although it is highly recommended as an elective.Sorry to sound harsh but what kind of scientific degree allows you to skip statistics?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Old man:
What about fiddler crabs, then, or flounder? Would you see them as ‘abnormal’? You’ve made repeated claims that you almost invariably detect only ‘abnormalities’. Good question. A few years ago, a boy told us that he was born with his internal organs inverted, left and right side. I looked closely but I couldn't detect it, and I also couldn't detect otherwise - that he'd actually have the organs in the normal way. Health problems are what usually catch my attention, and natural asymmetry that is not associated with a health problem is assumably not as easily detected as a health problem is. I have not contradicted myself, I just explained that many health problems are in fact asymmetry. But I did not state that all asymmetry are detectable or that all assymmetry are health problems. And unless my skills of perception have become stronger since then with regard to inverted organs I would still not be able to detect asymmetry for the sake of asymmetry alone.
Anita, we’re just a bunch of nerds/geeks who don’t have real lives, and can’t understand people who do!Well I take pride in being a nerd/geek too and I do spend a lot of time here too. I just thought I'd take a few days off for Christmas. I'm sorry... it won't happen again. :D
Could it be that the stress of impending failure is causing those symptoms [of headache and nausea on chemical identification tests]?No, because I do very well. Headache and nausea happen first, then the accuracy begins to decrease, not that I'm necessarily blaming it on these symptoms, just noticing a correlation, that's all.
But, have you done ANY checking ON YOUR OWN?I did a survey yesterday but did not happen to come across any perceptions of vasectomy or breast implants. The details of the survey will be posted eventually.
“I detect plenty of medical information in all persons…”
“I do not detect plenty of those (medical information) in all persons…”
If your second statement is true, then does it not follow that the first is, at best, an exaggeration?I don't understand the question. In what context did I say the second statement?
Saying that you were “absolutely correct” about the small intestine ‘diagnosis’ was an exaggeration. True. Still I can not rule out that the small intestine was not associated with the cramp below the sternum. Not making excuses, just being open. :(
Anita, if I walked up to any middle-aged, slightly paunchy man, and said “Sometimes you have pain/discomfort just behind/below the sternum” I’d be right more times than I’d be wrong, and my ‘location’ would be ‘amazingly’ accurate. You did that ONE time. Even if so, the point is that I have failed to falsify the paranormal claim, and all we conclude based on the anecdotes is to proceed toward a real test where none of this vagueness can take place. The fact that vagueness and cold reading can occur in everyday experience, does not mean that they did take place, and only a real test can reveal what the actual accuracy is when vagueness and cold reading can not happen.
RE: vasectomy. It’s the excuse you used that time. I'm afraid I can't respond, because I don't understand the statement again.
Maybe. Are you willing to spend a few days in the lovely Finger Lakes region of New York?Are you asking me out on a date? :o Of course I would. Set up a date... I mean test, and I'll be there.
Do you realize that deliberately ‘misunderstanding’ a legitimate, on-topic question in order to avoid answering it is also insulting? Or am I not a “real person”?I never deliberately misunderstand questions. :( I really didn't. Even in this very post I've already
un-deliberately misunderstood two more of your posts again, and you're gonna get upset with me about that. :(
But you DO say it here, in this thread, ALL the time. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that we find it hard to believe that you don’t say the same thing in other situations?It's one thing to suspect or to expect things of me, but to throw it at me as if you were totally convinced, and when it comes to negative accusations about me, then of course I try to clear away misunderstandings.
So, you do say “I'VE NEVER BEEN WRONG” to your ‘patients’, don’t you? Why can’t you see the above as contradictory? I do say that "I've never been confirmed wrong in the past", but I don't say that "I'll never be wrong in the future and that I could thus be assumed to be correct at all times." That is how I can say "I'm never wrong" (in the past) and I can't say "I'm never wrong" (about the future). Sorry, my fault. Phew, I hope that explains it! Otherwise, I'll try again!
Personally, I think it’s irresponsible to NOT test “this super ability”. If we take DG’s position to the extreme, we’d never investigate any new diagnostic techniques, for fear of causing “anxiety and worry”. Yes, but it is best to explore methods of testing it where no harm will come to participants, rather than to embark on a test that may cause harm without considering other options around that.

People have been begging you for a list of what you think you can detect! That’s what you’re postponing! And that's what the observations page is all about.
You would think wrong; "vasectomy" and "heart bypass", especially in the context of what you have indicated above, are amigious.
Is that like, Spangolish for ‘friendly’? :D
I was thinking the same. :D I'm glad you said it first, not me!

…almost every time Anita writes a wall of text, I just throw my hands up and think, "that's it! I'm out of here." It just gets more and more ridiculous. But I relate far too much to this comic:
Yea, me too.
Alright guys, no offense, but Old man just posted a wall o'text too, post #980 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4314528&postcount=980), and his was a reply to only one person: me. My wall o'texts are replies to many people all at once!

[desertgal]

desertgal:
This thread is not over, stop bullying around this thread and twisting the intent of this thread! If you can't stay on topic then find yourself another thread where you can discuss all the non-relevant topics regarding me as a claimant.

No. All your claims fantasies are relevant to your credibility. Your credibility is relevant to all your claims fantasies.

This thread is about my paranormal investigation. The Ghost thread was about my ghost experiences. This one is not.

No. All your claims fantasies are relevant to your credibility.Your credibility is relevant to all your claims fantasies.

Opinions and expectations are fine, just remember that we haven't proven one way or the other yet.

No, YOU haven't proven one way or the other.

I see the people and events that took place and everything I have described has either been confirmed as accurate, or seems likely, and none has been proven as inaccurate, or seemed unlikely. And these are sites that today show no record of what happened.

More fantasies.

If you want to discuss this topic, please see the Ghost thread, but I won't be there since I'm busy working on my paranormal claim.

You didn't bring it up in the Ghost thread. You brought it up here. All your claims fantasies are relevant to your credibility. Your credibility is relevant to all your claims fantasies.

And then it takes me one second to see everything that happened, oh boy. Not to disrespect their work. It's just easier to actually see it.

More fantasies.

And once again desertgal makes an incorrect assumption. I have never solved crimes. I've described them. I never made that claim. You should be ashamed of yourself for making an incorrect assumption again and for throwing it at me! OF COURSE I'LL RESPOND TO THIS! YOU'RE LYING ABOUT ME! I DID NOT SAY IT! I DID NOT MEAN IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY IT! And the only one who is false here is YOU! It is your false fantasy that I claimed to have solved crimes! You've made a fool of yourself, again.

More fantasies.

I'm the one who has experienced these perceptions fantasies

So I appreciate the assistance, which shows up in amidst a sea of insults truths and false true accusations observations about irrelevant relevant topics regarding my person fantasies.

I think your false accusations, your strong belief in these false accusations, and your willingness to judge my character negatively on false accusations, is disgusting, distasteful, and really makes me quite angry.

I think your fantasies, your strong belief in these fantasies, and your willingness to depict yourself as the most extraordinary person in the history of mankind is disgusting and distasteful, and says a lot more about your character than we could ever judge.

[Ashles]

And trust me, it's a really different experience being both the scientist and that which is being studied!
As has already been explained you are not a scientist Anita. You are a college student doing a science degree. This does not make you a scientist any more than someone doing a film studies course is a Producer. Proper research will make you a 'scientist' and as we have seen you are a long way from that are the moment.
And at the moment you are not 'being studied' either.

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
There are two vas deferentia in the normal male, so referring to "the vas deferens" is imprecise. Maybe you know there are two but don't know the plural form. Maybe you think there's only one, which is not an uncommon assumption by many people. In the perception I had I clearly saw two of them, each with a gap of removed tissue. I haven't specified this in each case when I describe the event because I thought it was implied that there are two. Just like it is implied that vasectomies are done on men. :confused:
Not all vasectomies result in the vas deferentia being cut. There exists a technique in which a special clamp is used to effectively crimp off the vas to prevent the flow of sperm. In my perception it was the case of incision and not a clamp. I can ask the person if he knows what procedure was applied.
In those vasectomies where the vas are cut, each is cut at least once. The two ends of the vas are heat sealed (cauterized), stitched, tied or clipped, before being returned to the scrotum. Some doctors remove a piece and some do not. Sometimes the piece that is cut was removed from the cauterized section. Sometimes small hemoclips remain in the scrotum.Alright, thank you for your research into it.
So, if you are going to claim "vasectomy" you will have the additional burden of providing other important details. Vasectomies are relatively common (1:6 among men 35 and older). Specifying the existence of crimping, clamping, cauterization, and/or tying off will allow you to demonstrate a level of accuracy much better than you could with a simple yes/no about vasectomy based on a claim that a section is missing. The details of the procedure need not necessarily be specified on a test. A test could have men who have had vasectomy of any kind, and men who have had no vasectomy of any kind. I will of course provide the details if I perceive them.

desertgal:
Not a liar, but definitely delusional. Here for attention. Therapy desperately needed.The perceptions in themselves would not be defined as delusions. They are images, or impressions, and I do not place any weight or importance onto them in the way that I do with information that comes from ordinary perception. The fact that I am investigating whether these perceptions have any correlation with the real world is because of compelling (anecdotal) experiences, from which all I have concluded is that it is a worthy topic to put to the test. To conclude this and to have an interest in putting these perceptions to a test, I would also not define as being delusional behavior. I am not here for attention. I am here to discuss the perceptions in an impersonal way. This is not about me, this is about my investigation. And, again, no need for therapy. I've got no issues with these perceptions.
Well, he didn't say those scientific publications were yours, did he? Learn to read carefully. No he did not, but I wanted to make sure that no one would make that false assumption. (As false assumptions have been known to appear on this thread.)
No, see, I mean a real field diary, Anita. Includes variables, controls, background information, etc. What you have on your website is laughable. Laugh all you want. Many paranormal claimants don't put nearly as much work into their claim as I do. :rolleyes:

When I said, "How do you detect the very significant vertical scar of heart bypass surgery?", desertgal said something silly again,
How do I? With my eyes, Anita. The same way you do. Yes, yes, I know-you do it with your alleged ability sooper imagination.How on earth do you see through a shirt with your eyes and see a scar on a person's chest? I think we have discovered another paranormal claimant. And your claim is even more breathtaking than mine, you claim to see the scar with your eyes. Not even I can do that. I just detect the quantum physics vibrational aspect of the atoms that make the tissue with my sense of feeling which then constructs the images in my mind. Now, what you can do is really paranormal.

When I said, "I've never expected the anecdotes to be taken as evidence. All I say is that they are examples of what I claim to have perceived... ", desertgal revealed some abstract emotional response yet again by saying,
And that statement is even more hilarious the second time around. I'll say it a third time. The observations page lists examples of what I claim to perceive. I don't see the humor, it's not even ironic. :confused:

[Uncayimmy]

In the perception I had I clearly saw two of them, each with a gap of removed tissue. I haven't specified this in each case when I describe the event because I thought it was implied that there are two. Just like it is implied that vasectomies are done on men.

On your web page and quoted below, it is very clear that you wrote everything about your observation in the singular, not the plural. You said that you did not know in advance "what part" was operated on. You said it was not a "simple incision" but that "a section" had been removed.

When a man ejaculates, it comes out of one opening. For those who don't know "what part is operated on" it is not unreasonable for them to assume that there is one source where the sperm is blocked. In fact, this vasectomy FAQ (http://www.vasectomy-faq.org/whatis.htm) answers the question about whether any fluid at all is ejaculated after a vasectomy. That's how poorly understood it is among the general population.

If you tell me after the fact that you knew there were two vas deferentia, I'm not going to call you a liar. But please don't give me that puzzled smiley icon as if I am way off base for pointing out the discrepancy.

If you would be more precise in your writing, this wouldn't happen. If you saw two vas deferentia, say so. For all we know the guy could have had just one testicle. If you use breast implants as an example, you had better point out if you see one or two. Not everyone with implants gets both done. It's typical to get both, but for a number of reasons some women only get one.

The details of the procedure need not necessarily be specified on a test. A test could have men who have had vasectomy of any kind, and men who have had no vasectomy of any kind. I will of course provide the details if I perceive them.

This is another example of why I say that I do not consider you a scientist. I very clearly established that "vasectomy" is a generic term for a procedure that disables the flow of sperm in the vas deferentia. The vas will look very different depending on what was done.

You said the following about the vasectomy you did detect:
I detected that he has had a vasectomy. I did not know prior what part is actually operated on in the procedure but was able to detect this. I also saw that it was not the case of a simple incision but that a section had been removed, something I could have not guessed or known prior to actually seeing it in this way.

Without knowing what to look for, you were able to determine that instead of a simple cut, a piece was actually removed. Those pieces were mostly no longer than a few millimeters. If that's what you can do, it stands to reason that you can also detect clips, clamps, ties, and cauterization.

If you can't, then how exactly would you know a vasectomy was performed?

[Coveredinbeeees]

Coveredinbeeees:
Thank you for your proposed crystal detection protocol. I think it is a wonderful idea, and it would make for a test that is easy to arrange. I will look into it while I continue to work on this main claim. If I discover in crystals a different claim that I am more confident or equally confident in as the medical perceptions, I can change the specifics of my paranormal claim to crystals, and I would love that. I haven't worked with crystals for over ten years now and look forward to taking them out again. :)

I'm glad you like the idea. I'd like to add a few extra words of advice to it if I may.

I suggested paper cups because they were the first thing to come to mind. Whatever vessel you choose to conceal the crystal in for the test, be sure to ensure the following before you begin.

1. Have an assistant confirm that they cannot tell whether the vessel is empty or contains a crystal simply by looking.

2. Perform an unblinded test in which you are fully aware which vessel contains the crystal. e.g. if you have paper cups labelled 1 to 10, have your assistant place the crystal beneath cup number 1 and ensure that you can detect it before proceeding to the test proper.

Double blind your test by having your assistant set up each run by placing the crystal under a randomly chosen (by die roll ideally) vessel while you are outside the testing area. Your assistant should simply note the number of the vessel chosen alongside the number of the run in her notebook, e.g. Run #1, Vessel #6

Have your assistant leave the testing area before you enter.

When you enter the testing area do not approach or touch any of the vessels. Simply look at them and see which one "feels" like it contains the crystal. Make a note of the number of this vessel in your own notebook alongside the number of the run. When you have done so leave the testing area, do not look under any of the vessels to confirm your choice.

Your assistant can now return to the vacated testing area, remove the crystal and randomly select which vessel to place it beneath for the next run.

When setting up each run your assistant should move each vessel slightly to ensure that no visual clue to the location of the crystal is given by only one vessel having been moved.

When all of the runs are complete, compare your notes with those of your assistant to see how you have scored.

I would suggest 4 runs with 1 crystal and 10 vessels. The odds of picking the correct vessel in 4 consecutive runs are 10000:1.

[Akhenaten]

You must understand that I come from a different perspective than everyone else.


I have no trouble understanding this.



I'm the one who has experienced these perceptions (subject), that is why I can approach this investigation in a different manner (subjectively), from a different starting point (as the subject), and you guys approach from your starting points (objectively), and all of us arrive at the same testing point.


I added some descriptive words. Can you detect them? They might explain why your last statement is rubbish.



I know more about the claim than any of you.


This may be true, but all of us together know considerably more than any of us do as individuals. Try to accept this.



Besides you're the one making tons of incorrect conclusions that you place your belief on and then throw at me and judge my character based on.


If only we could see the troof, eh? In any case, your character hasn't been called into question in this thread, just your inability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Quite a pleasant person you seem, your responses here based on, as Yoda might say.

[Professor Yaffle]

The ************ Detective on UK TV did an episode on crystal healers in which they did a test to see if they could detect the type of crystal without visual information (noe of them could). There were clips on YouTube, but they seem to have been deleted. I will see if I can find a detailed description, or a video from elsewhere.

[desertgal]

desertgal:
The perceptions in themselves would not be defined as delusions.

By you, no. By others, yes.

They are images, or impressions

They are hallucinations.

and I do not place any weight or importance onto them in the way that I do with information that comes from ordinary perception.

Nonsense. You wouldn't be here otherwise.

The fact that I am investigating whether these perceptions have any correlation with the real world is because of compelling (anecdotal) experiences

Compelling fantasies.

To conclude this and to have an interest in putting these perceptions to a test, I would also not define as being delusional behavior.

You wouldn't. Others would and do.

And, again, no need for therapy. I've got no issues with these perceptions hallucinations.

Of course not. People who take hallucinogenic drugs don't have an issue with their hallucinations, either. But they are, still, hallucinations.

Do the powers that be at your university know that you are so out of touch with reality?

Many paranormal claimants don't put nearly as much work into their claim as I do. :rolleyes:

Wanna bet? Ever heard of Uri Geller? He's been putting work into his claims (and being debunked) for 35 years. Sylvia Browne? At least 40 years. John Edward, Jeane Dixon...the list goes on and on. You are an amateur when it comes to paranormal claimants, Anita. You don't even come close to the "pro's".

When I said, "How do you detect the very significant vertical scar of heart bypass surgery?", desertgal said something silly again

More fantasy.

How on earth do you see through a shirt with your eyes and see a scar on a person's chest? I think we have discovered another paranormal claimant. And your claim is even more breathtaking than mine, you claim to see the scar with your eyes.

Now, who is being silly? It's not a matter of seeing through a shirt, Anita. I've seen the beginning of a surgical scar in men when their shirts are unbuttoned. I've seen the scar through light, semi-transparent fabric, such as undershirts, and I've seen the scar with men who weren't wearing shirts. Anyone can do that.

Not even I can do that.

Well, maybe not you.

I just detect the quantum physics vibrational aspect of the atoms that make the tissue with my sense of feeling which then constructs the images hallucination in my mind.

More fantasy.

Now, what you can do is really paranormal.

No, what I can do is actually rooted in reality. I realize why that might seem strange to you, though.

When I said, "I've never expected the anecdotes to be taken as evidence. All I say is that they are examples of what I claim to have perceived... ", desertgal revealed some abstract emotional response yet again by saying,

Oh, jeez. Now she's a psychology student, as well. :rolleyes:

I'll say it a third time. The observations page lists examples of what I claim to perceive. I don't see the humor, it's not even ironic. :confused:

No, it IS ironic, but you can't see it because the irony is based in reality.

[nathan]

I see I've not missed much in being away.

Anita, you keep claiming you're not hallucinating, because you have perceptions. That's a necessary but insufficient condition. Hallucinations are perceptions in the absence of stimuli. You need to prove the emboldened bit is false, to rule out hallucinations.

Anyway, I'll leave it to the more active skeptic participants to continue (y'all seem to be saying what I'd be saying).

[skeen]

And she still claims she has synesthesia, when clearly she does not. I'm willing to bet there has been no medical diagnosis of this. And to add: what kind of a Scientist would make unfounded claims like this?

Anita, you are far, far less scientific than most here. It's sad that you're gaining no useful knowledge from your education. Even a very basic level of scientific thinking evades you, hence your consistent leaps to the paranormal when you can't explain something.

And the quantum, and vibrational jargon is just outright embarrassing. If you had any data to support this, you'd be more than eligible for the nobel prize, and you'd win it.

Your denial is shocking. You cannot comprehend the claims you are making. In essence, you are claiming to be magic (by our current understanding of science), and therefore the most significant person in the entire world; as well as being a genius eligible for the nobel prize.

Does this enter into reality for you? Does this sound reasonable, and likely? Where is your sense of logic? (And on the note of logical thinking, you do not have ESP, and this is a fair, and scientific conclusion.)

EDIT: And even further to these claims, you've made claims about spirits and all sorts of other nonsense. You are not a Scientist by any stretch of the imagination. You are the anti-Scientist, a "woo", clearly cut. That you would claim to be a Scientist is an insult to our intelligence, and to real Scientists, and students.

[Locknar]

And she still claims she has synesthesia, when clearly she does not. I'm willing to bet there has been no medical diagnosis of this. And to add: what kind of a Scientist would make unfounded claims like this?

See below:

So you have been medically diagnosed, by a neurologist, to have synesthesia?
No, but I recognize some of its defining characteristics in the way that I experience things and process information.


One other thing I find odd is this statement:
I will not involve my career or university in this investigation, for reasons you have shown now.
This makes no sense at all; you have a publicly available website and identified the university you attend (here and on other forums) so why the resistance to involve your university?

I suspect the reason is obvious, if you did in 5 min they could arrange and conduct a test conclusively proving you have no "powers" or special ability (other then a over active imagination).

Rather you pursue your fantasy by avoiding any and all credible scientific methods via your website, your campfire stories, skeptic groups you "work" with (yet never yield any results), avoid any and all conclusive tests ("cereal test", "crystal test"), etc.

All your efforts have yielded exactly ZERO in the way of credible results.

[tsig]

See below:




One other thing I find odd is this statement:

This makes no sense at all; you have a publicly available website and identified the university you attend (here and on other forums) so why the resistance to involve your university?

I suspect the reason is obvious, if you did in 5 min they could arrange and conduct a test conclusively proving you have no "powers" or special ability (other then a over active imagination).

Rather you pursue your fantasy by avoiding any and all credible scientific methods via your website, your campfire stories, skeptic groups you "work" with (yet never yield any results), avoid any and all conclusive tests ("cereal test", "crystal test"), etc.

All your efforts have yielded exactly ZERO in the way of credible results.

So far the only effort I have seen involves dancing around the issues and dodging tests.

[Uncayimmy]

I do have synesthesia. I automatically associate things with colors, shapes, and character and based on how I know some of my friends, I do this to a greater extent than most people. The question is whether my perceptions are synesthesia or what they are. I normally do not look for these kind of experiences. They are part of how I perceive.

Synesthesia is certainly testable to a large degree, but unrelated to your claims about the medical stuff. That alleged ability is clearly NOT synesthesia based on the diagnostic criteria (http://cytowic.net/Synesthesia/Synesth__Encyclo_/synesth__encyclo_.HTM)I have read and your descriptions.

[desertgal]

One other thing I find odd is this statement:

This makes no sense at all; you have a publicly available website and identified the university you attend (here and on other forums) so why the resistance to involve your university?

I suspect the reason is obvious, if you did in 5 min they could arrange and conduct a test conclusively proving you have no "powers" or special ability (other then a over active imagination).



As well, I think, there would be some concern on behalf of the faculty and/or other students over Anita's inability to differentiate reality from fantasy. Afer all, as Skeen pointed out, she is "claiming to be magic (by our current understanding of science), and therefore the most significant person in the entire world; as well as being a genius eligible for the Nobel Prize." In this post Columbine/Virginia Tech era, that might be considered a red flag. It would, if nothing else, prompt several people to take a closer look. She may be electing not to involve her university to prevent just that.

[Femke]

Femke:
I did answer this question already. I answer all questions. :)
In what way am I not applying science to this investigation? As long as it isn't based on impatience again, I'd be happy to know. Besides I am here to get help in test protocol design, that's what you guys are good at.

My apologies, I should not have mentioned statistics, you are right, you answered that before. I was mainly concerned about your lack of knowledge about the scientific method. Please let me elaborate.
When I did my PhD on lettuce I started out with the idea that wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola) and cultivated lettuce (L. sativa) might actually be one and the same species. So what I did was try to do my darndest to distinguish between them. And when I failed to do that, I was forced to conclude that they were one, very variable, species.

So I did not conclude 'they are the same', and then tried to see their similarities, but I gathered my data, could not find good differences between them, and then concluded 'they must be the same'.

There are others here who have better described the scientific method, so I will not elaborate here (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). I was merely puzzled that you did not know it, since it is one of the most important parts in a Science study. So, my question is: did you get a course in how to design experiments, confirmation bias, blinding, etc. And why can't you see that you are going about it in the reverse direction?
I hope I have been clearer now.

[Jeff Corey]

Did she really say she had a 4.0 average? Let me consult my magic synergistic crystals.

Hello, Magic Crystals , are you there?

"....*.......**.......*.**..zzzzap!"

No. They say that she has a 2.3 GPA and probably will never get a Bachelor's degree.

[desertgal]

If you can't stay on topic then find yourself another thread where you can discuss all the non-relevant topics regarding me as a claimant.


I also have to point out, Anita, what has been pointed out to you before: As long as posters obey the user agreement, they are free to respond as they will.

This thread is entitled "Vision From Feeling". Thus, I am posting within the titled topic, and I have not disobeyed the user agreement.

As well, you brought up your astonishing crime scene savvy here. I was responding to that. All within the line of discussion.

You are free to resent that, however. :)

[Belz...]

UncaYimmy:
With paranormal experiences.

I must've missed the part of the thread where you proved you have those abilities.

But, don't stop now. So far what I said you'd do is all coming true.

[Cuddles]

I was merely puzzled that you did not know it, since it is one of the most important parts in a Science study.

In all fairness to Anita, I don't think there is any need to continue questioning her claims about her education. It is entirely possible to gain a science degree without having any education in the scientific method and testing, depending on the subject studied. The important point is simply this - inanimate objects do not play tricks or have biases.

For example, say you want to find out if a particular substance emits certain wavelengths of light. You take a detector and put it in a box with the substance. If the detector beeps, it does. If not, it doesn't. End of story. There's no need to come up with complex protocols to eliminate possibilities such as someone swapping the sample while you're not looking, or to ensure your detector is is unbiased and in the right state of mind. Physics either works or it doesn't. Of course, that's not to say the scientific method isn't important. Once you get to post-grad level or, heaven forbid, a real job, things like replication and ensuring you've eliminated absolutely everything start to become much more important. And of course, other sciences have different emphasis on different things. Psychology, for example, has a very significant proportion dedicated to eliminating exactly the biases and perceptual errors that physics rarely has to worry about.

The point is, it is entirely possible for someone to be taking a course in science, especially those usually considered "hard" science, without being taught anything at all about the kind of scientific testing that is relevant to the claims being made here. I don't consider this a good thing, and I would have been much happier if my degree had involved more courses on critical thinking and the scientific method and less blind parroting, but that's just the way things are at the moment.

I see no reason to continue questioning Anita's education when there is no good reason to doubt it, there is evidence that she is telling the truth and it bears no relevance whatsoever to the claims being made. Her claims about physics will stand or fall regardless of what courses she is taking. And if it really comes down to an argument from authority, there are plenty of us here who are far bigger authorities and already have actual physics degrees and jobs that use them.

[Ashles]

The point is, it is entirely possible for someone to be taking a course in science, especially those usually considered "hard" science, without being taught anything at all about the kind of scientific testing that is relevant to the claims being made here. I don't consider this a good thing, and I would have been much happier if my degree had involved more courses on critical thinking and the scientific method and less blind parroting, but that's just the way things are at the moment.
Good points there. One of my main concerns is that there are generic 'science' courses now that seem so broad based that I question what use they really are.
I used to know a girl who had a generic science degree from Cambridge University. She knew a little about several fields but there was no depth to the knowledge. But more worryingly was the arrogance she displayed about these areas. She seemed unable to admit to having gaps in knowledge in any of these areas. She had done a single term on Psychology yet still insisted she knew pretty much the same as I did after a three year Honors degree in the subject. Discussions about details and specific research and subjects would be quickly diverted by her into more generalised discussions.
Normally I would say that the more people are exposed to science the better, but these type of courses have the danger of convincing some people they are more seriously involved in scientific study than they in fact are.
It's often easy for someone with a little science knowledge to convince people with no science knowledge that they know more than they do.

Having said that, I agree that there is no real reason to question whether Anita really is studying a science degree - I think that has been established beyond any point where it is worth doubting.

[Locknar]

I see no reason to continue questioning Anita's education when there is no good reason to doubt it, there is evidence that she is telling the truth and it bears no relevance whatsoever to the claims being made. Her claims about physics will stand or fall regardless of what courses she is taking. And if it really comes down to an argument from authority, there are plenty of us here who are far bigger authorities and already have actual physics degrees and jobs that use them.Agreed, 101% :)

[Femke]

Cuddles and Ashles,
You are right, there is no point in doubting that Anita is studying science, and I don't doubt that she is. Thank you for showing me.
I just could not imagine that those studies do not protect their students against their own preconceptions, which might interfere with their interpretations of the data (of course the meter does not know what I expect, but I can dismiss the reading because it does not conform to my expectations, and that is bad science).

Anita, my apologies if it might have seemed that I doubt that you indeed do these studies. And if such subjects are not part of the curriculum, of course that is not your fault.

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, back to the synesthesia claim for a moment. On your website, you say that "the number 2 is orange." Do other numbers have color?

[Belz...]

5 Is blue, I'm sure. Zero HAS to be black, and I'll be damned if any of them is pink or brown!

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy post #983 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4314631&postcount=983):
Thank you for designing such a perfect study procedure! You have spared me of several concerns I have had with the design! Your procedure even ensures that volunteers are able to reveal personal health information anonymously and without risk of harm! No disclaimer needs to be made! I can't thank you enough! I will make a little shrine about you on my webpage, honoring the work you have done! Thank you!
* Anyone can participate.I will however change this to, volunteers have to be 18 years and older, to avoid some possible concerns.

I am also happy to announce that I do not see the need to advertise for volunteers! Why not just show up in a busy place and place a sign that asks for volunteers for the study, that way the study can be done right away! Advertising may be done for future studies, or in case the approach of just showing up doesn't work.

skeen:
I predict she will do it. Of course I will do it.

Jeff Corey:
As one who tries to teach experimental design, I have to say your questionnaire and setup are just too complicated. You should not hand me the results you obtain (if ever) and ask me to statistically analyse them post hoc.
You must specify how you are going to analyze the results before hand, if they are not obvious.
In short, I would not test the claim that way. This is a study, not a test. Some of the objectives of this study are, for me to gain more experience with the perceptions and in ways where the accuracy of my perceptions can be established. Of course even if I seem to be accurate in my medical perceptions, it can not conclude extrasensory perception since the study does not take place under test conditions, and cold reading is available. The study can not conclude in favor of ESP. The study can however provide indication if it is not the case of an ESP ability, since if I do poorly on this study which is like a "badly designed test", then there is probably no point in proceeding toward a real test that has better controls and would be "even harder to pass". The study should provide with a list of what health information I can claim to accurately detect, and from this list, suitable ones can be selected to a future test design. The study should also reveal the extent of how much information I do not detect, which should tell us about how many volunteers are needed for a test, since, if I have to make 10 claimed perceptions on a test and the study had revealed that I only detect it roughly 33% of the time when it is considered to be present, then we would need at least 30 volunteers for that test. The study will also provide with documented examples of my perceptions, and these will no longer be considered just anecdotes, since skeptics are present to verify how they took place. These examples will be documented in writing, and maybe also with pictures and/or video.

We can not prepare ourselves for how the results of the study will be statistically analyzed, since we can not predict the quantity, or type, of results the study will bring. Based on the study, a stronger and clearer paranormal claim will be made, since if we proceed, it has once again failed to be falsified, and more knowledge of the claim is available to make a more specific claim. And this makes a future test easier to arrange.
OK, . If the local skeptics can locate 20 volunteers that either have a condition she says she can detect, 10 who have it and 10 who do not., then under the tightly controlled conditions that you suggest (double blind) she gets to choose who has the condition without any feedback whatsoever.
The appropriate test would be Fisher's exact probability test.
For example, of the 10 who have it, suppose she gets 8 right, or hits and 2 false posititives. Of the 10 who don't have it, 6 false positives and 4 false alarms.
Signal detection theory could help us out here, because there is a tendency to say "yes" whether there is a signal or not.
However, there must not be any way she can say "I don't know" and not that have that counted as a miss or wrong response.
That's been her out all along. What you describe here is a test, and not a study. And unless I discover from a study that I can positively claim to detect every case of an ailment, I should definitely be allowed to pass, to answer "I don't know" on a test. Each ailment occurs to a different extent in different people, however there is no way for me to describe how I perceive this extent so that test arrangers could select volunteers who would fall into the range of "detectable" for me. On a test, once I claim to perceive health information, that claim is then open to be checked for accuracy and if it is incorrect then I have made myself responsible for a miss, that counts against the possibility of having an ESP ability. So even with being allowed to answer "I don't know" the test is still falsifiable.

UncaYimmy post #991 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4315843&postcount=991):
Once again, brilliant and perfect! I will be using your study design very soon.
* Don't provide your name or your website.I would like to provide some form of reference to the volunteers, so that if another study is carried out later and in a different location, the volunteers can be asked whether they've already participated and they can remember if they have, based on the name or reference that was given. I'd prefer to ask volunteers to not participate a second time.
And just so you're prepared, expect people here to call you on your sudden concern about legal issues. What you have done with your friends and family has opened you to potential liability. To them you have claimed 100% accuracy in everything you have read and provided medical information. Since you have presented yourself as an expert with an excellent record of results, it is reasonable for people to act (or not act) based on what you have told them.

Granted, I think it would be a tough case to prove, but the chances of liability are far greater with what you've done up to this point than anything you have proposed for the future. How rude to incorrectly assume that I'd done such a terrible thing and to then throw it at me! Haven't you read the countless of posts where I describe how I tell friends who I ask to attempt a psychic reading with, "Although I've not been confirmed wrong yet, I could be wrong this time, and just in case I am you have to treat everything I say as nonsense." I really do say this to people and I've been very careful to do so! How on earth do you assume that I'd done otherwise, when I haven't? It is rude.

desertgal:
But, I will give Anita credit for taking precautions now, even though she didn't before. Ahem.
I am curious as to what she means by "legal representative", though. If you mean attorney, Anita, then say "attorney". For all we know, "legal representative" could mean a paralegal or a legal assistant - in which case, any advice they give would be suspect, since they aren't fully versed in the relevant laws. Either an attorney or the police. I've said "legal representative" to make a more general statement as I haven't decided who to contact yet.

Ashles:
In your obsession with responding to absolutely every single sentence posted now (...)Sometimes if I don't respond to questions and comments, I get yelled at about that too. Everything I do is wrong, and everything I don't do is also wrong. So I'll just do what I think is right, by trying to clear out misconceptions about me and to answer to questions regarding this investigation, even if it results in "wall of texts".

I know that frogs and toads can exhibit aggressive behavior, however in my perception they do not engage with as much aggressive emotion and thought as many other animals do when they want to be violent.
Please show an example of your vibrational algebra. You can use example data to demonstrate.
Go into as much detail as you like. You can do these calculations - please show us how.Although I know what I perceive and how I understand vibrational structures, I have not learned the appropriate science terminology yet and until I do I would have to explain everything in my own words and in a lengthier way. Also I can not reveal my research ideas, you'll be reading about them in my science publications like everyone else a few years from now. :)
Give an example.
What 'electronic instuments'?The ones I will work with haven't been built yet. I will build them. They are instruments that generate light structures that contain detail and produce more specific and more complex structured effects in the physical world.
Unless it's the ones who ruffle your hair, laugh and say "Oh yeah 'Vibrational information' well done" and carry on walking.If a Physicist laughed at the idea of vibrational information after I've described what it entails I'd have them fired for incompetence and stupidity.
Which plant, which chemical.A dark variety of the jade plant,
http://www.amagickgarden.com/images/amghouseplants/jadeplt.jpg
I couldn't possibly know the name of the chemical, even though I am learning to perceive the electron field distribution across a molecule and to depicher it into its corresponding atoms and chemical bonds to perceive the image of the molecular structure as it is drawn in science.
What's the plant, what's the molecule?A small orange mushroom that was growing in a dry place in full sunlight on a rock.
http://www.johnharveyphoto.com/Mushrooms/LittleOrangeCapsSm.jpgSimilar in color to this picture, but with a very narrow stem and flat on the top. If I had a book of Swedish mushrooms I could pick out the exact species. And again, I don't know what chemical. I do perceive the general shape and electron distribution of a molecule, as well as a general understanding of atomic composition and atomic distribution, but this is an ability that needs to grow stronger until I can just point at a molecule and draw it out and give its chemical name.

I have a fun one for you guys, if you can handle it... I was once looking at various images that are produced with the Scanning Electron Microscope. I was looking at a particular one and started to feel effects in my body that I've never experienced before. I don't know whether the effects became physical so to be occurring in my body for real, or whether they were just perceptions of physical response that I was experiencing. I felt as if my pupils got larger and something happened to my energy level, muscles, and nerves. Without knowing it I was looking at a microscopic image of Cannabis. Once I checked the name for what the picture depicted it made sense. Earlier I had been looking at magnifications of insect bodies so I had no way of expecting a drug. So somehow, (and yes, another claim) I can look at the detailed structure of things and relate it to its properties, and combining that with the structure of a human body I can perceive the combined effect. Of course I've never used this drug by the way. And, by the way, many of you have probably wondered at least once by now whether I've used drugs and whether any of these perceptions and experiences might be drug-induced. The answer is no. I've not used drugs and don't even smoke or drink alcohol. :)
If you ignore all of the above please just provide an example of your 'Vibrational calculations'.
Any one that you have done.
Use example data if you like.Well I do not rush into a laboratory to test all of my perceptions, because this is how a person who treats their perceptions in an objective manner behaves.
Provide a proper worked example of this from initial data and values through to results that tranlate 'back into real worls physical things' and how they do so.I will do this a few years from now in the science lab, with real conventional mathematics to which I apply my concepts of vibrations.
Let's try and introduce some real science and maths into all the vague generalisations. And most of my ideas are top secret until patented and published rightfully in my honor. :p

[GeeMack]

I just detect the quantum physics vibrational aspect of the atoms that make the tissue with my sense of feeling which then constructs the images in my mind.


You can say this, in all seriousness? You do understand, don't you, why so many here think you're delusional?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Moochie:
"Anita," when can we expect a denouement to this internet novel of yours? Interested readers of science fiction wish to know.I expect to have the first study either this week or next weekend January 16-18, and to conclude based on it that the claim has been falsified or to proceed toward further studies/tests.

desertgal:
Paranormal beliefs. You haven't proven that any of your paranormal fantasies actually happened. I experience the perceptions. The question is whether the perceptions are formed from some sort of subjective imagination, or whether they are based on information from our real mutual world. They're not beliefs, I'm being objective. I've begun this investigation due to apparent accuracy - which I understand is not necessarily actual accuracy - and so far I've failed to dismiss the possibility of ESP.

Locknar:
There is that "wiggle" again; previously you said you saw the vas deferens had been severed (my paraphrasing) and mentioned NOTHING about scars, surrounding tissue, etc....now you mention "tissue that has been operated on looks different." This would be along the lines of a "after, after the fact" explanation.Then disregard that "after, after the fact" explanation. The test will specify exactly what details I would be required to write down with my answer and there will be no opportunity to fill in any explanations afterwards that would be considered. You can't expect me to describe every minute detail of my medical perceptions all at once and in every case. Would you like to know about the color of the tissue I saw, for instance? I don't think either of us can add or subtract anything from these anecdotes at this point. They are what they are, and the upcoming study will provide with some other anecdotes soon, and these will be verified by attending skeptics, you know, people just like you! :)
"We"...who is "we", you and the parrot on your shoulder?We as in me and my skeptics. :grouphug5 You and me, Locknar. :hug5
All that can be concluded is you had a 1:6 chance of guessing right, and that you may or may not have since (as you note) you did nothing to validate the claim and offer nothing to validate your campfire story ever took place.And, all that we conclude is that I failed to falsify the paranormal claim in that example. We conclude that I could have guessed it wrong with 5:6 chance. These anecdotes simply give you guys examples of what I claim to have experienced. I already know that they are not verified examples. The study will provide with documented examples, that are verified by attending skeptics.
Yet again, "wiggle" appears...you claim to see on a atomic level, yet the only apparent thing you can "see" related to heart bypass is a "vertical scar on the chest"? My...that seems awfully ambiguous.The scar is what I detected first. I could have chosen to look for further information and did not look at the heart.
EVERY single event you claim can be explained via other means; you simply choose to link them to "woo woo."I understand this comment, and it is a very important one. However there have been experiences with perceptions whose accuracy has been confirmed by other means, and where cold reading should not have been available. The interesting thing is that I've not been incorrect, and that I perceive images of tissue. So I proceed toward a test. And that is all we have concluded. (Yes, we, me and my skeptics.)
So rather then ask family/friends to come forward and thus establish credibility AND be well on your way to claiming the MDC, you continue to waffle, delay, etc.No Hon, what I do is to rather proceed with the study, to provide you with documented examples and verified by skeptics who'll be present. I'm going in the right direction, forwards, rather than backwards.
We are talking about validating a "power"/ability that has never been shown to exist in the entire existence of the human race...surly if asked at least one of them would be willing to step forward?I know they would be willing to step forward, but I choose not to involve my family and friends in this discussion. This discussion has, at times, been somewhat uncomfortable and I refuse to bring my loved ones here. Please understand that. Especially since we're approaching to have a study where documented examples will be provided and be of much better quality than my past anecdotes, for instance by having skeptics present.
Real scientists keep written diaries, document corroborating information, etc.; a blog outlining your perceptions/memory of events is nothing more then fantasy (ie. campfire stories).The far past experiences were not in a diary. The most recent examples were in the observations page on my website, yet they are criticized for being "just anecdotes" when that's what they are. The study will provide with better documented examples. Instead of trying to extract more out of the past experiences, let's focus on the upcoming ones instead.
Perhaps. I conducted a survey yesterday and found that it was hard for me to have to look at a person for longer than 2 seconds, because that felt like staring. To me staring is as rude as name calling or spitting on people. I am from Sweden and our culture is different from American culture. We do not talk to strangers and you do not look at people you don't know.
Just more "wiggle", and planting of explanations should you fail.No, it is true that I feel like I am being rude if I stare at people. And that is why the study will be good because persons will volunteer and will allow me to stare for a moment. :) Think as you please, but at least I don't have to insult anyone. :)
But perceptions of chemical identification occur much less frequently, and when I have a test at home it takes a great deal of effort to force tens of perceptions within an hour when normally I might have one in a week and I get a bad headache and nausea.
Excuses.Yes, excuses, because that's the truth of it.
Not surprising, because pursuit offers enough "wiggle", delay, and excuses to perpetuate the fantasy (that is to say, attribute normal every day events to "woo woo"). There will be no "wiggle" on a formal test, I assure you. No testing organization or persons, including myself as the claimant, would allow for a test with your so called wiggle. I am not happy about the delay and have been working as fast as I can. The study will be conducted soon. Very soon. There is no fantasy, I perceive medical images which when I've checked for accuracy have appread to be accurate and even in cases where I can not imagine the conventional source of information, and that is why I proceed toward a real test to find their actual accuracy. No fantasy there, just an investigation into the perceptions.

[desertgal]

You can say this, in all seriousness? You do understand, don't you, why so many here think you're delusional?

Nope. She just doesn't get it. Amazing, isn't it? The most astonishing person to ever walk the planet, and she falls down on that particular point. :boggled:

[VisionFromFeeling]

Congratulations Locknar for making the 1000th post on my thread!
You've won a dosen red roses
:rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose: :rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose:
And a FREE psychic reading with VFF!

And here's for a 1000 more...

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
Okay. You believe you have had paranormal experiences. I believe that you have had normal experiences. My belief is backed up with scientific explanations. Your belief is not.I have not concluded that I've had paranormal experiences. I was just emphasizing that the perceptions are experiences rather than beliefs. And they were not normal experiences. It is not normal to look at a person and be able to accurately describe medical information that is normally considered to be inaccessible to perception or to the many forms of cold reading. And my only belief based on these perceptions is to proceed to a proper test to find out, and that in itself is a scientific approach.
That doesn't describe you at all since you have not used the scientific method to investigate your experiences. Pseudoscientist would be a good label in that pseudoscience is "any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method."And what specificly did I do to not follow the scientific method? Was it when I was able to remain objective and rational when I had an unusual experience of seeing images from the inside of human bodies which appeared to correlate with actual health information? Or was it when I then decided to find out whether there is any correlation rather than to assume that there was based on how it seemed to be? Or is it when I am working with scientists and skeptics to design a test to find out? :confused:
I agree with you that as far as the evidence is concerned, ESP and a mind control device implanted by your mother, an Illuminati agent, are on equal ground and have not been disproven.

However, as a practical matter, both ideas are extremely unlikely. Not at all. My perceptions are either due to normal, or paranormal, sources. One category of sources, or the other. ESP is my synonym for paranormal sources. Experiences have compelled me toward a test to find out whether the source of the perceptions are normal or paranormal. I've had everyday experiences where I can not determine what the normal source would have been, and I have confidence in a scientific test to reveal which it is.

Ashles:
If you ignore all of the above please just provide an example of your 'Vibrational calculations'.
Any one that you have done.
Use example data if you like.For instance I have the general vibrational aspect of a human being available to me, which is somewhat the average healthy person based on past experiences of perceiving the vibrational aspect of several people. I can then look at a new medicine that I have not seen before, and download its vibrational aspect. I can then combine these two in my mind's awareness and they interact into a resulting vibrational aspect that shows the superposition of both and shows what the effect of the medicine is on this average human body. I've done this with a pill that I was later told is a diuretic. I perceived its effects to be a serious liver toxin, which causes the body to panic and flush it out through the kidneys and urine with excessive amounts of water, which then ends up acting as a diuretic, or dehydrant if you ask me. This is an example of vibrational addition. I do these calculations in my mind but in a project in my career or in my own time I will attempt to translate some of this into real, conventional mathematics that involves calculations with vibration.
I look forward to your evasion and reason why you are unable to do this. I just gave you such an example. I started out with the human being, and with the medicine, combined their vibrational aspects into a resulting vibrational aspect, which I translated back into the medicinal effects of liver toxin and dehydrant, otherwise known as 'diuretic'. That's what the vibrational calculations are about. They occur in my perception, however I will attempt a science project of applying this into conventional mathematics of vibration.
Sorry to sound harsh but what kind of scientific degree allows you to skip statistics? The B.S. Chemistry as well as the B.S. Physics at my university. Differential Equations, Linear Algebra and Matrices, Calculus 3 and Calculus 4 are all more highly recommended for the Physics degree. Statistics is a highly recommended math elective, but we are given options of taking other math courses depending on where we are headed in our careers. Pre-Medical students typically do take statistics. I will study up on statistics once I'm on the Masters level, I don't intend to skip it.
Proper research will make you a 'scientist' and as we have seen you are a long way from that are the moment.
And at the moment you are not 'being studied' either. I am a scientist in my own investigation, and I am being studied by myself.

desertgal:
I think your fantasies, your strong belief in these fantasies, and your willingness to depict yourself as the most extraordinary person in the history of mankind is disgusting and distasteful, and says a lot more about your character than we could ever judge. The fact that you call my interest in having a scientific study of my medical perceptions a "fantasy", and the fact that you think I have a strong belief that the perceptions would be based on the real, mutual world, and the fact that you think I'm wanting to depict myself as the most extraordinary person, is disgusting and distasteful.

UncaYimmy:
On your web page and quoted below, it is very clear that you wrote everything about your observation in the singular, not the plural. You said that you did not know in advance "what part" was operated on. You said it was not a "simple incision" but that "a section" had been removed. I regret that I wasn't more specific in describing my medical perceptions of the vasectomy. I can claim to have indeed seen two, but I do realize that at this point and afterwards this statement does not have the same credibility as it would have, had I realized to include this detail into my description right from the start. I can only assure you that I perceived two and that this, too, is part of my claim of what I saw. And as such it is just a claim, and I am proceeding toward study and tests to prove this entire multitude of what my claim is.
If you would be more precise in your writing, this wouldn't happen. If you saw two vas deferentia, say so. To me it was so obvious that there are two that it would have been like stating the obvious. After all, I've studied Human Anatomy at college so I definitely knew there are two. To me it is as obvious and would have been like having to specify that a person had two eyes or two arms or one nose! :)
If you use breast implants as an example, you had better point out if you see one or two. Not everyone with implants gets both done. It's typical to get both, but for a number of reasons some women only get one.Good point in this case, and that will be done.
Without knowing what to look for, you were able to determine that instead of a simple cut, a piece was actually removed. Those pieces were mostly no longer than a few millimeters. If that's what you can do, it stands to reason that you can also detect clips, clamps, ties, and cauterization. Actually I will never claim to be able to detect something that I have no specific experience of detecting. Not all things are equal to this 'ability' as they would seem to have to be. For instance, I do not detect all types of cancer, just because they all go by the same name. Each thing is very unique. The study should present some testable health information that I am confident in.
If you can't, then how exactly would you know a vasectomy was performed? I knew because the vas deferens (on both sides!!!) had been cut and a piece removed and there was a gap (on both!!!).

Coveredinbeeees post #1010 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4318766&postcount=1010):
That is a wonderful test protocol and thank you. I look forward to trying this with crystals, after all they are what have the strongest "vibrational signature" and are what I trained myself up with in the very beginning years ago. I will definitely look into this, meanwhile the main claim of medical perceptions and its upcoming study remain my first priority, but the crystal identification test will definitely also receive attention. :) If I am very effective (although this is getting ahead of ourselves) I may also be able to distinguish the different types of crystals by their vibrational signature. :) There are many options here to look into, thank you for bringing it up!

Akhenaten:
It's some of that European punctuation error that UncaYimmy explained earlier, sorry about that. :p

Professor Yaffle:
The ************ Detective on UK TV did an episode on crystal healers in which they did a test to see if they could detect the type of crystal without visual information (noe of them could). There were clips on YouTube, but they seem to have been deleted. I will see if I can find a detailed description, or a video from elsewhere. And I will make the claim of being able to detect the location of crystals without visual information only if I have an experience that indicates toward the possibility. Thank you, would love to see these tests that have been done before with other people.

desertgal:
Do the powers that be at your university know that you are so out of touch with reality?How rude. When I look at people I see images of organs and tissue in my mind. There is nothing wrong with that in itself. Most people for instance "hallucinate" by experiencing random thoughts in their head that they can't control and I don't even have that. And, like I've said, I've not concluded that the perceptions would be based on information from the real world. All I've said is that my experience is that the perceptions have been accurate and that I need a test to reveal whether they are based on cold reading or what else. And I allow this investigation to take place based on having experienced accurate perceptions where I can not see what the cold reading source would have been.
Now, who is being silly? It's not a matter of seeing through a shirt, Anita. I've seen the beginning of a surgical scar in men when their shirts are unbuttoned. I've seen the scar through light, semi-transparent fabric, such as undershirts, and I've seen the scar with men who weren't wearing shirts. Anyone can do that. Based on what the person was wearing this possibility does not seem applicable in my case.
Thank you for the "wall of text". Glad to know I'm not the only one.

[VisionFromFeeling]

nathan:
Anita, you keep claiming you're not hallucinating, because you have perceptions. That's a necessary but insufficient condition. Hallucinations are perceptions in the absence of stimuli. You need to prove the emboldened bit is false, to rule out hallucinations.The stimulus is when I look at a person. I need to look at the person to locate what I experience being the source of the information, so in this regard and based on how I experience it, I would not define the perceptions as being hallucinations. Thank you for bringing us the definition.

skeen:
And she still claims she has synesthesia, when clearly she does not. I'm willing to bet there has been no medical diagnosis of this. And to add: what kind of a Scientist would make unfounded claims like this? That's like asking you to see a doctor and get a diagnose before you can claim to have hit your toe and to be experiencing an ache in your foot. I'd expect synesthesia to be a common thing like this and I already know how I associate things in a way according to how synesthesia is described. Synesthesia is not a paranormal claim, so everyone, leave it at that.
Anita, you are far, far less scientific than most here. It's sad that you're gaining no useful knowledge from your education. Even a very basic level of scientific thinking evades you, hence your consistent leaps to the paranormal when you can't explain something.If you had my experiences you'd understand.
Does this enter into reality for you? Does this sound reasonable, and likely? Where is your sense of logic? (And on the note of logical thinking, you do not have ESP, and this is a fair, and scientific conclusion.)You can absolutely not definitely conclude that I do not have ESP. You can state that it would be highly unlikely, but seriously, you haven't seen the experiences I've had. I've not concluded that I have ESP. I've just concluded that I think that based on my experiences it is worth the time and work to set up a test to find out.
EDIT: And even further to these claims, you've made claims about spirits and all sorts of other nonsense. You are not a Scientist by any stretch of the imagination. You are the anti-Scientist, a "woo", clearly cut. That you would claim to be a Scientist is an insult to our intelligence, and to real Scientists, and students. You don't seem to realize what my actual experiences and perceptions are. Whether my perceptions are subjective, or paranormal, or just cold reading or what else, there is nothing unscientific about having them. I have not concluded about them having an actual paranormal origin, I've just said that there has been confirmed accuracy and the lack of confirmed inaccuracy, and all I conclude based on that, is to have a scientific test, and that is how a scientist thinks. Because there've been experiences where I don't see what the cold reading source would have been.

Locknar:
This makes no sense at all; you have a publicly available website and identified the university you attend (here and on other forums) so why the resistance to involve your university?Bring me a quote where I identify the school I attend, as I am quite sure I have made very sure not to do so. I don't want to involve my university in a paranormal subject because many times it is an unconventional subject and is negatively associated. I might involve other universities into this later on if a strong good reason for doing so is revealed, but still I will not allow involvement from mine.
I suspect the reason is obvious, if you did in 5 min they could arrange and conduct a test conclusively proving you have no "powers" or special ability (other then a over active imagination).No Locknar, I just want to focus on my studies when I'm at my university. If another university other than mine wants to take part in this investigation, they are free to do so. I am not resistant to tests and conclusions.
Rather you pursue your fantasy by avoiding any and all credible scientific methods via your website, your campfire stories, skeptic groups you "work" with (yet never yield any results), avoid any and all conclusive tests ("cereal test", "crystal test"), etc. I was specifically requested to write down examples of my medical perceptions, the so called "anecdotes" or "campfire stories", and now I am criticized for having done so. Furthermore you criticize me for the lengthy time in my work with the IIG West, when it is entirely they who take months between replies whereas I always reply in full within the next day and have complied to all of their requests (except the one about music which I will need to consider and discuss more) and not presented any complications. As for the other skeptics group, they said that I need to bring a more specific claim. This specificity does not come from the everyday experiences, so it is something I did not have from the start and it is something I now need to investigate, and that is what the soon-to-be study is for. I am not avoiding tests. The cereal test gives me a serious headache and nausea. And I will try the crystal test, yet while not taking away from my time and efforts in the main claim, because if I did that the complaints would be never-ending. You're just impatient, that's all. Oh, and everything I do is wrong. Whether I do it or not.
All your efforts have yielded exactly ZERO in the way of credible results. And I know that.

[Uncayimmy]

How rude to incorrectly assume that I'd done such a terrible thing and to then throw it at me! Haven't you read the countless of posts where I describe how I tell friends who I ask to attempt a psychic reading with, "Although I've not been confirmed wrong yet, I could be wrong this time, and just in case I am you have to treat everything I say as nonsense." I really do say this to people and I've been very careful to do so! How on earth do you assume that I'd done otherwise, when I haven't? It is rude.

Please refrain from stating your opinions about whether I am rude or not. I'm not interested nor will it change what I have to say. We're having an open, frank and hopefully scientific discussion. If I am mistaken, simply correct me. If you disagree with me, that's fine. That's how I treat you.

You effectively told someone, "I think you have a potentially serious and fatal heart problem and should see a doctor. And although I've never been wrong, don't take me seriously."

You specifically presented yourself as an expert by saying you have never been wrong. You take yourself so seriously that you took the action of making a recommendation because you believed that person's life to be in danger.

The only "but" you gave was to say that you could be wrong. Of course you could be wrong. That goes without saying. No reasonable person can expect someone to be right 100% of the time. So, saying you could be wrong is, in effect, meaningless.

Your request to not be taken seriously is in direct contradiction to your recommendation that someone in fact should take you seriously and see a doctor. If you're not serious, don't make any recommendations and certainly don't tell people you've never been wrong.

Effectively you told the guy, "I could be wrong, but if I'm not, you could die." That's a pretty serious recommendation.

I'm not saying there is a real liability here, but let me present a hypothetical scenario:

Suppose this guy also read your website where you make vritually no mention whatsoever that you could be wrong or that you should not be taken seriously. He sees what seems to be a scientific explanation with all the talk about vibrational information. He sees your written claim that you've never been wrong. He sees that you take it so seriously that you are conducting "studies" and staunchly defending your claim.

So, he goes to the doctor and gets tested. The doc finds nothing. So he gets a second opinion. Still nothing. So he demands exploratory surgery because he figures that since you "saw" this fatty tissue in his heart that the doctors should also take a look. After all, you've never been wrong. You're a scientist who is "brilliant" and gets a 4.0 average in school. And you really and truly saw this fatty tissue in the heart just like you've seen numerous other ailments and have never been wrong.

He dies under the knife due to a rare reaction to anesthesia. There was no negligence by the doctors.

It turns out this guy's only surviving family member is yours truly, UncaYimmy. I decided that you were reckless in giving him the advice you did. I decide to sue you. I present to the judge everything on your website and in the threads here.

In civil court they rule on a preponderance of the evidence (who is more likely to be right).

Question #1: Did Anita present herself as an expert?

Me: Look at all this stuff she he was written about her accuracy. Thousands upon thousands of words. She even created a website and answered this question she asked herself: "How am I convinced that my ability is real and not just imagination?"

You: But I said, "I could be wrong, so don't take me seriously."

Judge: UncaYimmy met his burden of proof.

Question #2: Was Anita qualified to give this kind of advice?

Me: She has never had her alleged ability independently verified by a third party.

You: At the time I gave the advice I was preparing to do a study and try to have my abilities verified. I acknowledged publicly that my ability was not yet verified. However, I have never been wrong. That is, until now.

Judge: Point to UncaYimmy.

Question #3: Did Anita have reason to believe she was qualified and therefore acting in good faith?

Me: She told people not to take her seriously, so obviously there was some doubt in her mind. She was attempting to get tested, which also indicates doubt. Every skeptic she encountered told her that her evidence was unreliable. She was advised that at best it was her imagination coupled with cold reading. At worst she as told to seek psychiatric help for possible delusions. She made feeble attempts at verifying her ability with rudimentary chemical detection, but those tests were poorly constructed. When given much more scientifically valid protocols to follow, she discontinued testing.

You: Up until this time I had never been verified as incorrect. Therefore, I felt it was my duty to inform the person that I found a potentially life threatening condition. If I hadn't, I would have felt that to be negligent.

Judge: Point to UncaYimmy.

Question #4: Was Anita negligent?

Judge: By a preponderance of the evidence I find that Anita was negligent in giving this advice. At the same time the deceased should have listened more strongly to the advice of his doctors. Without the surgery, he wouldn't have died that day. I find Anita to be 40% responsible for this person's death.

Of course, you will wonder what would have happened had you been right about the fatty tissue in his heart. I still would have brought the suit, and I still would have won. Why? Because you did present yourself as an expert, you were not qualified to make that call, and you should have known you weren't qualified.

How could you have avoided liability? Easy. First, you should have said, "There's a little game I like to play where I guess things about a person's health. It's just for fun. I've never actually scientifically studied the accuracy of what I think I see. Do you want to play along?"

Then you should have told him what you saw. If he had asked, "should I see a doctor?" you should have replied, "I told you this was for fun and not scientific. I have no opinion either way."

You should also amend your website to make it extremely clear that you have not had anything verified ever. Don't even tell anyone that you've had people tell you that you were right. The only reason to tell people that is to convince them that what you have is something worthy of testing. The only person who has to believe that is you, so quit trying to convince everyone else. After you have done scientific testing, you can post those results, but not until then.

Don't offer any explanations as to how you think it works. Doing so implies that you have a scientific belief about the mechanisms involved. You shouldn't form a theory until you have proven that there is something about which you can form a theory.

And most importantly, don't say things like, "I see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals." Instead say, "while I have no independent proof, I believe what I am seeing is <whatever>. It could also be imagination. I hope someday to know definitively if my perceptions are real or imaginary."

Better still, take down your website because there is no value in sharing your perceptions at this point. As you said, people should not take you seriously and treat what you say as nonsense.

And we all know there's enough nonsense out there already.

[VisionFromFeeling]

tsig:
So far the only effort I have seen involves dancing around the issues and dodging tests. Not at all. At first I was in a waiting game for a year and a half with the IIG West, and still am, bless their hearts. Then I met with a local skeptics group who advised me to learn more about my perceptions in order to bring to them a more specific claim, and I've taken that advice to heart and will have a study this week or next for this purpose. A test will take place (unless the claim is falsified before the test takes place). Impatience, that's all. ;)

UncaYimmy:
Synesthesia is certainly testable to a large degree, but unrelated to your claims about the medical stuff. That alleged ability is clearly NOT synesthesia based on the diagnostic criteria I have read and your descriptions. Thank you for the informative link. I was just saying that I think I already have some extent of synesthesia. Whether it then is involved in the perceptions I do not know, although I've noticed some resemblance in how I look at a person and obtain felt information, that is then converted into visual images in my mind, and sometimes with new types of feeling, sound, scent, or taste. This association of one type of information into other types reminds me of synesthesia. It is still a question of how the initial information that starts the whole process, is acquired. Whether it is acquired through ordinary senses, cold reading, or extrasensory perception, which then undergoes something similar to synesthesia to be converted into other forms of information that were not initially perceived.

desertgal:
As well, I think, there would be some concern on behalf of the faculty and/or other students over Anita's inability to differentiate reality from fantasy. Afer all, as Skeen pointed out, she is "claiming to be magic (by our current understanding of science), and therefore the most significant person in the entire world; as well as being a genius eligible for the Nobel Prize." In this post Columbine/Virginia Tech era, that might be considered a red flag. It would, if nothing else, prompt several people to take a closer look. She may be electing not to involve her university to prevent just that. You're being ridiculous. When I look at people I see images of organs and tissue, and when I describe the health information I perceive, there is apparent accuracy. I am now conducting an investigation to find out what the source of that accurate information is, whether it is "normal" or "paranormal", and to find out what the actual accuracy is. There is nothing wrong with doing this. I've never made the claims you say, you guys are making things up. Besides, I've confided in three of my favorite professors about the perceptions and my interest in investigating them.

Femke:
So, my question is: did you get a course in how to design experiments, confirmation bias, blinding, etc. And why can't you see that you are going about it in the reverse direction?No I have not had an entire course dedicated to experimental design. It has been briefly mentioned in several courses, and possibly will appear again later in my studies. And that is partly why I am here. Could everyone stop harassing me for my shortcomings and just help me out instead? I said from the very beginning that I'm here to get some help in test design. Like UncaYimmy did, and as far as I know he's not formally a scientist, but his study design is just impeccable. :)

Please clarify what you're trying to tell me here, you've made brilliant contributions before and I really want to know. Instead of trying to explain why my approach is inappropriate, could you present an example of the appropriate approach in the study of this particular subject?

Jeff Corey:
No. They [Jeff's "magic crystals"] say that she has a 2.3 GPA and probably will never get a Bachelor's degree. Don't make me send you a transcript! Or force you to attend my graduation a few years from now! Twice! (Two B.S. degrees.)

desertgal:
I also have to point out, Anita, what has been pointed out to you before: As long as posters obey the user agreement, they are free to respond as they will.Of course, but very often posts are moved when they become off topic.

Belz post #1023 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4322105&postcount=1023):
I must've missed the part of the thread where you proved you have those abilities.

But, don't stop now. So far what I said you'd do is all coming true. In the post to UncaYimmy which you are referring to, I was merely specifying that it is not the case of beliefs, but of experiences. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's what you'd want me to say. But then you don't want me to say it. If I say "experiences", you want me to say "beliefs". If I'd say "beliefs", you'd want me to say "experiences". Everything I do is wrong whether I do it or not.

Cuddles:
:) Thank you for supporting me. By the way did you say you have a Physics degree and do you work in Physics? Please feel free to send me a PM to tell me more, I'd love to know.

Ashles:
Regarding someone else not me,
(...) She seemed unable to admit to having gaps in knowledge in any of these areas. (...)I came here and admitted from the start that my skills in experimental design and statistics are insufficient and that I'm here to get some help from you guys since some of you are good at these subjects. Why am I accused of having stated otherwise? (Not necessarily by you, Ashles.)

Again, regarding someone else,
(...)She had done a single term on Psychology yet still insisted she knew pretty much the same as I did after a three year Honors degree in the subject. (...)One of the things you'd find about me is that I am very humble when it comes to those who know more than me. There is nothing I admire more in this stage of life than real Physicists, and I know how little I know and how much more there is for me to learn. When I express ideas of research in concepts of vibration for instance, that are based on my perceived experiences, it is not to sound superior, all they are are interests that's all. Interests within topics that in themselves are highly regarded, not to say that I'd be highly regarded just for having interest in them.

About someone else I hope?
It's often easy for someone with a little science knowledge to convince people with no science knowledge that they know more than they do.I've already admitted that UncaYimmy is far superior to me in designing a study protocol for my claim! It doesn't even take a scientist or a science degree but other skills that aren't taught or learned at school. If it weren't for him I'd still be worrying about how to avoid the concern of people having to share openly their personal health information, and how to write a disclaimer. I'm here for assistance in the investigation, and I regret if it had ever seemed otherwise. :(

Femke:
I just could not imagine that those studies do not protect their students against their own preconceptions, which might interfere with their interpretations of the dataAlright don't even go there. The way I deal with my perceptions is an entirely different thing than how I deal with data in my studies or career. This is an independent study and reveals nothing about how I'd handle data in a professional situation. :mad: Don't even go there.
Anita, my apologies if it might have seemed that I doubt that you indeed do these studies. And if such subjects are not part of the curriculum, of course that is not your fault. Thank you.

UncaYimmy:
Anita, back to the synesthesia claim for a moment. On your website, you say that "the number 2 is orange." Do other numbers have color? Not usually, and the other numbers vary in what color I perceive them. This is not a common experience I have.

Belz:
5 Is blue, I'm sure. Zero HAS to be black, and I'll be damned if any of them is pink or brown! :) :) None of mine are pink. :p

[Uncayimmy]

Synesthesia is not a paranormal claim, so everyone, leave it at that.

Once again, I feel the need to point out deficiencies in your approach to determining the nature of your claims. We both agree that synesthesia is not paranormal. You seem to believe that it might be a factor in your perceptions. Based on my understanding I disagree. One of the diagnostic criteria is that the images are generic, not specific. Your imagery is very specific, which makes it unlikely that synesthesia is at work.

More importantly we agree that your perceptions can peacefully co-exist with synesthesia. They can also be present without synesthesia. So, in that sense it is a non-factor.

However, here's what you're missing: My theory is that your perceptions are the work of your imagination. You dismiss this idea because you say you know the difference between your imagination and your perceptions.

But what if we can prove that you do not have synesthesia? That would be proof that you, in fact, are unable to differentiate between your imagination and your senses. Proving synesthesia would not prove one way or another that you know the difference. But failing a synesthesia test would put a big dent in your credibility in terms of your self-assessment on imagination.

I cannot stress how important it would be to know that you are unable to differentiate your imagination from your senses.

Designing a test is not difficult. You say that you perceive the number 3 as orange and imply similar sensations with other number-color combinations. This can be tested. Suppose, for example, that you perceive the number 5 as blue. Here's how we would test it.

Those without synesthesia for color-number combinations would see the following image. All of the numbers appear dark gray.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_281604962fa65efc83.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14781)

You, by contrast, would see the digits as different colors like in the image below. The number 3 is orange while 5 is blue.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_281604962faa56039e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14782)

A "normal" person will take a couple of seconds to count the number of times that the number 3 appears. A person with synesthesia will be able to find them much more quickly.

A program could be written to display the all-gray image with the number 3 occurring a random number of times in random locations. Sometimes they would be all gray. Other times they would be two different colors.

The program would time how long it takes for the viewer to enter the number of times that the 3 appears. In a few minutes you could do 100 trials. As a control several of us could volunteer to take the same test.

The results could make it clear whether you have synesthesia or not.

[VisionFromFeeling]

GeeMack:
I just detect the quantum physics vibrational aspect of the atoms that make the tissue with my sense of feeling which then constructs the images in my mind.
You can say this, in all seriousness? You do understand, don't you, why so many here think you're delusional?That's my theory, and I'm having this investigation to find out. I don't take it seriously until/unless it's proven correct. Don't worry. :)

UncaYimmy:
You effectively told someone, "I think you have a potentially serious and fatal heart problem and should see a doctor. And although I've never been wrong, don't take me seriously." You're absolutely right, I see it now. However, if I may say so, although I feel like I should crawl into a hole, he did confirm that he's had heart pains and his accounts of his heart correlated with mine. This is terrible, regardless of whether I was right or not. It is information that should only come from a doctor. I feel terrible about it and I hope you all beat me up for it because I've done something I thought I would never. :(
You specifically presented yourself as an expert by saying you have never been wrong. You take yourself so seriously that you took the action of making a recommendation because you believed that person's life to be in danger.Well, in my defense, I do emphasize that "I could be wrong and I therefore should be assumed to be wrong" and I don't emphasize the "I've never been wrong" part. Well, I really really saw the enlarged heart and I really felt the pain that the heart can have, so it was so hard to refrain from saying something. I realize that it's not for me to say. Even if I were to be correct and by warning someone about the appropriate measures I'd be saving a life, it would still be wrong. Well, again in my defense all I said was that when he sees a doctor next time he should ask that they check his heart. I said that he's 40 now and a doctor would probably think it's a good idea anyway. :(
Your request to not be taken seriously is in direct contradiction to your recommendation that someone in fact should take you seriously and see a doctor. If you're not serious, don't make any recommendations and certainly don't tell people you've never been wrong. I really saw and felt the serious and fatal heart condition. What was I to do. This is by the way the only time I have seen a condition as serious as this and recommended a person to take as serious action as to see a doctor.

ETA: On another occasion I met a friend of mine and hadn't seen him for a week. I noticed that something was very different. I detected internal problems with the blood circulation and that the brain was not receiving enough oxygen. I asked him what is different about him this week. Turns out he was now on a different blood pressure medication. I saw it as if the medication fights high blood pressure by working to "prevent blood flow" and that his dose was too high for him. He said that he was feeling weaker and more tired this week since he was on this new medication. What I perceived was that this medicine was going to add up to serious brain damage. I told him that he has to see his doctor again and ask about other alternatives of medicines. He ended up getting a different brand, that the doctor considers equal, but without the side-effects, and both of us no longer detected any side-effects. I am not proud of this, although I might have done something right.

Effectively you told the guy, "I could be wrong, but if I'm not, you could die." That's a pretty serious recommendation.After I've described what I felt, he confirmed that he's felt heart pain. :(
So, he goes to the doctor and gets tested. The doc finds nothing. So he gets a second opinion. Still nothing. So he demands exploratory surgery because he figures that since you "saw" this fatty tissue in his heart that the doctors should also take a look. After all, you've never been wrong.This is a very serious issue you've brought up, and I'm glad you've brought it up. I described what I saw and felt and he confirmed that he's had pain and that heart disease runs in the family. So I recommended that he should see a doctor about his heart, and I said that it's probably a good idea regardless to have a check-up at his age just to make sure and to get some information about what lifestyle to have to take care of the heart. :(

From your "judge scenario",
She told people not to take her seriously, so obviously there was some doubt in her mind. She was attempting to get tested, which also indicates doubt.I have doubt because I have to. But past experiences are not what bring me reason to doubt.
She made feeble attempts at verifying her ability with rudimentary chemical detection, Not so. Chemical perceptions occur much less frequently, and if I were to verify an ability in chemical identification, I for one would not assume that it automatically proves or even gives credibility to medical perceptions.
When given much more scientifically valid protocols to follow, she discontinued testing. Because I get headache and nausea from forcing myself to perceive tens of times within an hours when normally one perception occurs within weeks.
At the same time the deceased should have listened more strongly to the advice of his doctors. You have no idea how well I emphasize that people trust doctors first-hand. At least I know this, so it doesn't matter as much what it seems like or what you would expect.
Because you did present yourself as an expert, I tell people that my information is to be disregarded, however in this case I advised the person to have his heart checked next time he sees a doctor, and he too thought it was a good idea considering his heart pain and family history of heart problems.
you were not qualified to make that call, And I acknowledge that. And I always tell people that conventional medicine is what counts.
and you should have known you weren't qualified.I know so. That is why I do this in controlled and careful situations, with friends and in ways where I can ensure that no one comes to harm. I do not offer readings openly. This is the only time I've told someone about a serious health problem.
How could you have avoided liability? Easy. First, you should have said, "There's a little game I like to play where I guess things about a person's health. It's just for fun. I've never actually scientifically studied the accuracy of what I think I see. Do you want to play along?"I like that disclaimer. It is really good. :) The "I've been never wrong" part should be disregarded, it serves no benefit for the volunteers or for my experience with the perceptions, you are right.
Then you should have told him what you saw. If he had asked, "should I see a doctor?" you should have replied, "I told you this was for fun and not scientific. I have no opinion either way."Ouch... But I really saw it, and I felt it... :( :( :( I suppose you're right, even if it were true what I saw, I am not the one to bring this information into people's awareness. :( But you can't blame me for feeling responsible, it's like letting someone get hurt when you know about it and can stop it. And a friend of all things. It is very difficult.
You should also amend your website to make it extremely clear that you have not had anything verified ever. Don't even tell anyone that you've had people tell you that you were right. The only reason to tell people that is to convince them that what you have is something worthy of testing. The only person who has to believe that is you, so quit trying to convince everyone else. After you have done scientific testing, you can post those results, but not until then.I both agree and disagree, mostly agree.
And most importantly, don't say things like, "I see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals." Instead say, "while I have no independent proof, I believe what I am seeing is <whatever>. It could also be imagination. I hope someday to know definitively if my perceptions are real or imaginary."I agree with that.
Better still, take down your website because there is no value in sharing your perceptions at this point. As you said, people should not take you seriously and treat what you say as nonsense.Website stays up. And it was specifically requested that I present examples of what I claim to have perceived. So they stay. But I agree that I must become [even] clearer.

Regarding synesthesia, I do associate things with color, shape, and character to a greater extent than other people I know. I guess you're right that I shouldn't "diagnose" myself as having synesthesia, but I do recognize it. As for the number test picture, I do not see colors superimposed with the gray numbers. My associations occur in my mind and not projected. There are synesthetes who project their impressions into the world, and there are those who don't. If I do have synesthesia, I am one who doesn't project.

[Legend]

:dc_chief:

[Professor Yaffle]

You might want to do an online test to get a better idea of whether you actually have synaesthesia.

http://www.synesthete.org/

From what you have said here, I don't think you have. You said that one number has a particular colour, but others don't usually and when they do it is not consistent across time. Also that you don't really see those colours vividly associated with the number in question, more that it is just a link in your mind. This doesn't fit with my previous knowedge of synaesthesia (which I admit may be incomplete). I think you just experience what everyone does - that some things (words or letters etc) are associated with colours to a greater or lesser exent in our minds. For example, for me, the word wednesday makes me think of a blueisg grey, and thursday a brownish green - but I don't actually directly percieve those colours when presented with the words.

[Pup]

For instance I have the general vibrational aspect of a human being available to me, which is somewhat the average healthy person based on past experiences of perceiving the vibrational aspect of several people. I can then look at a new medicine that I have not seen before, and download its vibrational aspect. I can then combine these two in my mind's awareness and they interact into a resulting vibrational aspect that shows the superposition of both and shows what the effect of the medicine is on this average human body. I've done this with a pill that I was later told is a diuretic.

So you're saying you can look at an unidentified medicine, and say what effect it will have on an average healthy person?

See, that's an example of the kind of thing you mention, that would be an amazing ability that would change science as we know it, and you say you can do it without any hesitation. Definitely a million dollar prize winner.

Frankly, I don't believe you can. I believe the ability will mysteriously fade when actually tested.

So just do that.

Pill manufacturers add colorings and arbitrarily choose the shape of pills, and that doesn't seem to affect your ability. So can you do it without seeing the normal shape and color of a pill, as long as the medicine is still effective? Otherwise, you're just guessing from the outward appearance of the pills like anyone else, and not really seeing their "vibrational aspect."

Have someone crush a few different pills into powder and mix the powder with a drop or two of food coloring, so you can't recognize them by their shape or color, and put each bit of powder into a different numbered cup, set a list of what they are on the table, and leave. You come in and write down which numbered cup is the aspirin, which number is the diuretic, which number is the anti-depressant, which is the antihistamine, and so forth.

People here can suggest tests with more controls than that, but that's a start.

[Belz...]

In the post to UncaYimmy which you are referring to, I was merely specifying that it is not the case of beliefs, but of experiences. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's what you'd want me to say.

No, what I want you to do is show that you really have said abilities by agreeing to a controlled test, or else admit that you don't have them. Seems simple to me. But, as you've shown here, and as I predicted earlier on, you'd rather just convince yourself that you do have them and not take the risk of losing that comforting thought.

If I say "experiences", you want me to say "beliefs". If I'd say "beliefs", you'd want me to say "experiences".

I don't recall ever asking you to talk about "experiences", so your accusations are falling on deaf ears.

[desertgal]

desertgal:
You're being ridiculous.

Am I? We'll see...

When I look at people I see images of organs and tissue

No, when you look at people, your mind constructs hallucinations of organs and tissue.

and when I describe the health information I perceive, there is apparent accuracy.

Nope. The only examples you provide are unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unverified, possibly fictitious anecdotes, performed on unnamed, possibly fictitious people, solely designed to substantiate your hallucinations.

I've never made the claims you say, you guys are making things up.

Nope. You've claimed to: be able to commune with ghosts, visualize crime scenes, telepathically communicate with animals and mythical creatures, visualize the troof about dinosaurs, are an extraterrestrial incarnation from a white dwarf star, make chemical and plant analysis, gotten stoned from looking at cannibis through a scanning electron microscope, found a cure for cancer, and perform medical diagnoses, without benefit of a medical education, with an ability that would turn science, as we know it, upside down and earn you a Nobel Prize. In short, you proclaim to be the most extraordinary human being (or ET incarnation) in the history of mankind.

You made this stuff up. We didn't. Your school would probably be interested to know they have a student who has exhibited clear signs of mental instability.

Besides, I've confided in three of my favorite professors about the perceptions and my interest in investigating them.

You say. You say a lot of things. Most of them delusional.

The only 'investigating' that needs to be done here involves ink blots and an MMPI.

desertgal:
Of course, but very often posts are moved when they become off topic.

My posts aren't off topic. They're just not the part of your delusional claims that you want to discuss. But, again, ALL your claims fantasies are relevant to your credibility, and your credibility is relevant to the authenticity of all your claims fantasies.

[Ashles]

Oh dear oh dear...
Ashles:
Sometimes if I don't respond to questions and comments, I get yelled at about that too. Everything I do is wrong, and everything I don't do is also wrong. So I'll just do what I think is right, by trying to clear out misconceptions about me and to answer to questions regarding this investigation, even if it results in "wall of texts".
It's not the wall of text that is the issue, it is that all your many, many words don't seem to ever address the questions asked.

I know that frogs and toads can exhibit aggressive behavior,
Of course. That came across so clearly when you described them as "non-aggressive animals"

however in my perception they do not engage with as much aggressive emotion and thought as many other animals do when they want to be violent.
Based on... nothing again?

So, to recap, some amphibians are sometimes not as agressive as some other unspecified animals?
Should I call the Nobel board or do you want sole credit for this astounding discovery?

Although I know what I perceive and how I understand vibrational structures, I have not learned the appropriate science terminology yet and until I do I would have to explain everything in my own words and in a lengthier way.
And this is different from someone simply describing their hallucinations using everyday language... how exactly?
Where does the tiniest inkling of science enter into this anywhere?

Also I can not reveal my research ideas, you'll be reading about them in my science publications like everyone else a few years from now. :)
You are becoming a cliche now. "I can't tell you all my excellent stuff which I really honestly have because it's secret". :rolleyes:

Where have we heard that hundreds of times before? Oh yes, from all those paranormal claimants who visit these forums with no evidence who you are so different to.

Science is done in public, in groups, with people working together to develop theories to learn about the world and testing each other's theories and data to ensure robustness and usefulness. Not as a way to show how special and clever you are.

And anyway if you detailed a theory here there would be a record of it. Nobody would steal your special secret ideas.

However without statistics, research, knowledge of scientific terminology, anatomy, quantum mechanics or any understanding of the scientific method... I don't think anything you could write would be different from the vague descriptions you have already offered.

The ones I will work with haven't been built yet. I will build them.
Sure. Just book some space in the engineering lab next to my hovercar.

They are instruments that generate light structures that contain detail and produce more specific and more complex structured effects in the physical world.
I once drew a big picture of my hovercar. It had lasers and everything.

If a Physicist laughed at the idea of vibrational information after I've described what it entails I'd have them fired for incompetence and stupidity.
Because of course you rule the world and have that kind of power. Would you also wave a hand and have their family banished too?
Please get over yourself.

And anyway why do you think you can describe what it entails to a Physicist any better than you have here?
Oh I forgot you are leaving out all the secret stuff that you would have patented.

By the way you have been pretty much laughed at by peofessional physicists on these forums. When are you having them fired?

A dark variety of the jade plant,
http://www.amagickgarden.com/images/amghouseplants/jadeplt.jpg
I couldn't possibly know the name of the chemical, even though I am learning to perceive the electron field distribution across a molecule and to depicher it into its corresponding atoms and chemical bonds to perceive the image of the molecular structure as it is drawn in science.
Except you aren't because you keep telling us you can't do this with any level of reliability.
Really you can't have it both ways.
Your atomic vision either works well enough to identify chemical effects (as you are here claiming) and would therefore also be testable in this way.
Or it doesn't do either.

A small orange mushroom that was growing in a dry place in full sunlight on a rock.

http://www.johnharveyphoto.com/Mushrooms/LittleOrangeCapsSm.jpg
Similar in color to this picture, but with a very narrow stem and flat on the top. If I had a book of Swedish mushrooms I could pick out the exact species. And again, I don't know what chemical. I do perceive the general shape and electron distribution of a molecule, as well as a general understanding of atomic composition and atomic distribution,
So how do you know it will cure cancer and affect the human kidneys if you can't actually even see the shape clearly enough to identify it or identify the elements (why not count the protons).
Just working on a hunch?

but this is an ability that needs to grow stronger until I can just point at a molecule and draw it out and give its chemical name.
Sigh. If only you had waited until after that mythical point to set up your website and tell everyone about your 'abilities'.


I have a fun one for you guys, if you can handle it...
Oh jolly good - more unverified anecdotes, just what this thread needed.

I was once looking at various images that are produced with the Scanning Electron Microscope. I was looking at a particular one and started to feel effects in my body that I've never experienced before. I don't know whether the effects became physical so to be occurring in my body for real, or whether they were just perceptions of physical response that I was experiencing. I felt as if my pupils got larger and something happened to my energy level, muscles, and nerves. Without knowing it I was looking at a microscopic image of Cannabis.
Seems strange to be looking though an electron microscope without anyone telling you why you are doing so or what you are looking at.

Once I checked the name for what the picture depicted it made sense. Earlier I had been looking at magnifications of insect bodies
In the Amazing Department of Random Images.

so I had no way of expecting a drug.
Tricksy Scanning Electron Microscope technicians.

So somehow, (and yes, another claim) I can look at the detailed structure of things and relate it to its properties, and combining that with the structure of a human body I can perceive the combined effect.
Well unless we actually offer to set up a test around this in which case the ability will be mysteriously relegated to not good enough to actually perform better than chance in proper testing.

Are you seeing the pattern here?
You make a silly claim. We suggest testing it. You say it doesn't work well enough to test. We wonder what on earth makes you think you actually have this ability then. You invent yet another new 'ability' etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Of course I've never used this drug by the way. And, by the way, many of you have probably wondered at least once by now whether I've used drugs and whether any of these perceptions and experiences might be drug-induced. The answer is no. I've not used drugs and don't even smoke or drink alcohol. :)
I don't think anyone here thinks it is to do with drugs. Most people here now seem to simply think you are deluded or attention-seeking.

Well I do not rush into a laboratory to test all of my perceptions, because this is how a person who treats their perceptions in an objective manner behaves.
No it really absolutely isn't.
Someone treating their perceptions in an objective manner would try to actually have objective testing.
You go out of your way to continually perform entirely subjective testing.

I will do this a few years from now in the science lab, with real conventional mathematics to which I apply my concepts of vibrations.
And most of my ideas are top secret until patented and published rightfully in my honor. :p
Well if it's all so secret how come you keep going on about your abilities then? Part of it is so secret you can't even tell Physcics professors, and the rest is so public you feel compelled to set up a website about it?

Tel you what, when you actually learn some conventional mathematics, and you actually learn how to use real scientific terminology, how about you come back then when you can actually discuss things scientifically rather than sounding like someone writing an essay for a creative fiction course entitled "My amazing summer of superpowers".

This claim has really jumped the shark even by the usual standards.
I am starting to slightly worry that we are somehow feeding the delusions of somebody who would be better off speaking to people other than us.

[skeen]

She doesn't have synesthesia, and I agree that her proving it to herself would be a big step in showing she is unable to differentiate reality from fantasy. This is a woman who just makes huge leaps to the paranormal, for anything and everything, in some kind of an attempt to make herself seem special.

I mean, Anita seems to have a cocktail of psychological issues. From compulsive lying, delusions, possible hallucinations, self-deception and who knows what else. One thing is for sure - we've seen plenty of people just like her.

Can you believe, that after all this time, there has not been a single, tiny, little spot of evidence for this alleged ability? At least the bigfooters intrigue people - I have not been intrigued.

It truly is, as if there's something in the back of her mind preventing her from exposing herself to, herself. Anita, you must seek counseling.

[Locknar]

We as in me and my skeptics. :grouphug5 You and me, Locknar. :hug5No. I can not/will not speak for others but I am not part of "we" as you've outlined.


And, all that we conclude is that I failed to falsify the paranormal claim in that example. No, as you have no proof the event took place, no corroboration of events, no written diary (other then a well after the fact blog), etc. This is simply an assumption on your part, nothing more.


We conclude that I could have guessed it wrong with 5:6 chance.

BOLD added by Locknar
This is a assumption on your part as there is no proof the event took place, not a conclusion. However, assuming the event took place and no cold reading/prior knowledge, in this single instance you had a 1/6 chance of being correct vs a 5/6 chance of being incorrect. Hardly impressive by any measure.

However, if we use the criteria you seem to be operating under (ie. "I said it so it must be so").... I picked two people (male) in my office at random.

- Subject one; I "detected" no vasectomy - this was confirmed as accurate
- Subject two; I "detected" he had had a vasectomy - this was confirmed accurate.

"Detected" is not exactly accurate...more like just blind guessing on my part. In both cases I simply asked them and took their word as accurate.

I've achieved a 100% success rate in TWO instances. Astounding! I've NEVER been wrong!

Anyway....

Interesting word you used - "guessed". If you can "see" these things why would you have to "guess?"


I understand this comment, and it is a very important one. However there have been experiences with perceptions whose accuracy has been confirmed by other means, and where cold reading should not have been available. This is a baseless assumption on your part. Additionally, EVERY example you've provided can be accounted for via cold reading - you simply choose to attribute these events to "woo woo."


The interesting thing is that I've not been incorrect, and that I perceive images of tissue. This is a baseless assumption on your part.


I know they would be willing to step forward, but I choose not to involve my family and friends in this discussion. This discussion has, at times, been somewhat uncomfortable and I refuse to bring my loved ones here. As with your reluctance to use the resources at your school, this is just "kick the can"; ie. excuses.


There is no fantasy, I perceive medical images which when I've checked for accuracy have appread to be accurate and even in cases where I can not imagine the conventional source of information, and that is why I proceed toward a real test to find their actual accuracy.Proof? Again, this is a baseless assumption on your part. EVERY instance you've described can be accounted for via cold reading - you simply choose to attribute these events to "woo woo" while avoiding any and all conclusive tests.

[Locknar]

Sure. Just book some space in the engineering lab next to my hovercar.


I once drew a big picture of my hovercar. It had lasers and everything.Priceless! :clap:

[Moochie]

Moochie:
I expect to have the first study either this week or next weekend January 16-18, and to conclude based on it that the claim has been falsified or to proceed toward further studies/tests.

<snip>

Thank you. I reckon there is at least one episode, or possibly two episodes of Outer Limits in there.


M.

[Akhenaten]

I just detect the quantum physics vibrational aspect of the atoms that make the tissue with my sense of feeling which then constructs the images in my mind.




That's my theory, and I'm having this investigation to find out. I don't take it seriously until/unless it's proven correct. Don't worry. :)



You don't happen to have a theory that brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the other end, do you?

[desertgal]

Congratulations Locknar for making the 1000th post on my thread!
You've won a dosen red roses
:rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose: :rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose:
And a FREE psychic reading with VFF!

And here's for a 1000 more...

Well, at least, she confirms that she is, in fact, posing as a psychic. No more waffling over ESP. :hypnotize

I won't cheer for 1,000 more, though. I think Anita's delusions have pretty much run their course here.

[Cuddles]

Cuddles:
:) Thank you for supporting me. By the way did you say you have a Physics degree and do you work in Physics? Please feel free to send me a PM to tell me more, I'd love to know.

Make no mistake, I am not supporting you in the slightest. I was merely pointing out that people should focus on the paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims rather than being distracted by irrelevancies, and I took the opportunity to clarify what seems to be a common misconception about scientific education. My point was simply that your education is irrelevant, it is your critical thinking and scientific ability that are on display for all to see that matter, regardless of where they came from.

[Belz...]

No, when you look at people, your mind constructs hallucinations of organs and tissue.

VfF: Really, you'd be surprised how easy it is to see things that aren't there when you put your mind to it.

Get tested, already, so you can tell the difference between reality and delusion, either way.

[Sideroxylon]

Most people here now seem to simply think you are deluded or attention-seeking.

Could I have a fiver on the double?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Professor Yaffle:
I did the synesthesia test on www.synesthete.org. I would like to trust you with my password and username to access my results and see for yourself. The system that calculates the discrepancy between repeated trials of the same number or sound is very picky. For instance I perceive the number 0 in the very same gray each time, and try to depict it in the exact way in the program, yet it announces a discrepancy in the colors. As for the chord and instruments, problem is I see two colors not one. Please see my results and you may present your conclusions here.

Pup:
So you're saying you can look at an unidentified medicine, and say what effect it will have on an average healthy person?It is something I experience. I do experience perceiving medical effects when I look at an unknown medicine or substance, and I have experienced correlation to their actual effects, but only a test can conclude whether this in fact takes place or not. Until a test indicates something, treat it as just anecdotes.
See, that's an example of the kind of thing you mention, that would be an amazing ability that would change science as we know it, and you say you can do it without any hesitation. Definitely a million dollar prize winner.This is an experience and not a claim. Yet I would be more than willing to test it just to find out.
Frankly, I don't believe you can. I believe the ability will mysteriously fade when actually tested.I would not object to that. It doesn't really matter.
Pill manufacturers add colorings and arbitrarily choose the shape of pills, and that doesn't seem to affect your ability. So can you do it without seeing the normal shape and color of a pill, as long as the medicine is still effective? Otherwise, you're just guessing from the outward appearance of the pills like anyone else, and not really seeing their "vibrational aspect."I'm not so sure, I experience specific effects and I don't think guessing could do it. Just my experience of it, that's all.
Have someone crush a few different pills into powder and mix the powder with a drop or two of food coloring, so you can't recognize them by their shape or color, and put each bit of powder into a different numbered cup, set a list of what they are on the table, and leave. You come in and write down which numbered cup is the aspirin, which number is the diuretic, which number is the anti-depressant, which is the antihistamine, and so forth.Thank you, I will try to arrange that.

Belz:
No, what I want you to do is show that you really have said abilities by agreeing to a controlled test, or else admit that you don't have them. Seems simple to me. But, as you've shown here, and as I predicted earlier on, you'd rather just convince yourself that you do have them and not take the risk of losing that comforting thought.I'm not opposed to finding out from a test that I do not have an ESP ability. I am quite open for it.

desertgal:
No, when you look at people, your mind constructs hallucinations of organs and tissue.And once again you are incorrect, nathan just posted the definition of hallucinations and based on how my perceptions come about, they are not hallucinations.
Nope. The only examples you provide are unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unverified, possibly fictitious anecdotes, performed on unnamed, possibly fictitious people, solely designed to substantiate your hallucinations.I've not had a study or a test yet with witnesses. The anecdotes are just part of my claim, they are not evidence. And by definition they are not hallucinations.

I realize that my experiences are unconventional. However I keep a clear distinction between those aspect of my life and my life otherwise. I do not base conclusions or beliefs on the unconventional experiences or perceptions, so there is no harm. I have a clear understanding of the distinction between my subjective experiences and our real world that we mutually perceive. It is only now that I've begun investigating the medical perceptions, but in a rational way. And there is nothing wrong in doing that.

Ashles:
And this is different from someone simply describing their hallucinations using everyday language... how exactly?The perceptions are by definition not hallucinations. Besides it was decided pages ago that we will not discuss any theories as to what the perceptions are or how they come about. We are here to establish an investigation to find out whether they have correlation with actual health information, and then if they do, to find out whether this is accessed through normal (such as cold reading) or paranormal means. Of course we would not expect ESP, and no one has concluded ESP.
Where does the tiniest inkling of science enter into this anywhere?In the way that this is investigated.
You are becoming a cliche now. "I can't tell you all my excellent stuff which I really honestly have because it's secret". :rolleyes:That's right. Once I begin working with this in my career or spare time I will invite you to take part in the results and progress. I will not post the specifics here and that is my choice, and I don't care what that that seems like or what is concluded based on that.
Science is done in public, in groups, with people working together to develop theories to learn about the world and testing each other's theories and data to ensure robustness and usefulness. Not as a way to show how special and clever you are.You'd be surprised how it really is. No scientist reveals their ideas until they can do so in a way that ensures that if they've discovered something they get the credit for it. You'd also be surprised how much scientists steal others' ideas. Insider information.
Sure. Just book some space in the engineering lab next to my hovercar.There already are instruments that generate light structures. You don't know about optics.
And anyway why do you think you can describe what it entails to a Physicist any better than you have here?Because I haven't described it in full, here. And I won't. You can read about it when I present it in the way science is presented.
By the way you have been pretty much laughed at by peofessional physicists on these forums. When are you having them fired?I've not described things in detail. And I don't think they would laugh if I did.
Except you aren't because you keep telling us you can't do this with any level of reliability.
Really you can't have it both ways.
Your atomic vision either works well enough to identify chemical effects (as you are here claiming) and would therefore also be testable in this way.
Or it doesn't do either.I am sure I could take an extract of the jade plant, prepare different extracts from that that each contain an isolated molecule, and investigate its cancer fighting effects. Unfortunately it is also a toxin to the human body! As I perceive it.
So how do you know it will cure cancer and affect the human kidneys if you can't actually even see the shape clearly enough to identify it or identify the elements (why not count the protons).
Just working on a hunch?The perception of its effects is stronger than the perception of the molecule that would be translateable to chemistry drawings. If anyone saw an actual molecule they'd find it very hard to figure out how to translate it into the chemical elements and chemical bonds.
Seems strange to be looking though an electron microscope without anyone telling you why you are doing so or what you are looking at.They were pictures on the internet. I should have been more clear on that.
Someone treating their perceptions in an objective manner would try to actually have objective testing.
You go out of your way to continually perform entirely subjective testing.I need to have the study to make a stronger claim. This was even suggested by the local skeptics group.
Tel you what, when you actually learn some conventional mathematics, and you actually learn how to use real scientific terminology, how about you come back then when you can actually discuss things scientifically rather than sounding like someone writing an essay for a creative fiction course entitled "My amazing summer of superpowers".
In order to make a paranormal claim or to begin a paranormal investigation, the claimant is not required to have a math or science background, or to be able to explain their claim scientifically. I do hope you realize that.

skeen:
I mean, Anita seems to have a cocktail of psychological issues. From compulsive lying, delusions, possible hallucinations, self-deception and who knows what else. One thing is for sure - we've seen plenty of people just like her.I am not lying. I have been describing my experiences as they took place. By definition I do not have hallucinations. Why can't we all just focus on the objective which is to investigate the claim?
Can you believe, that after all this time, there has not been a single, tiny, little spot of evidence for this alleged ability? And that is not entirely my fault. So it is impatience that makes you act this way.
It truly as is, as if there's something in the back of her mind preventing her from exposing herself to, herself.I am not opposed to finding out that there is no ESP ability. I've had accurate medical perceptions and I am curious to find out why and where that information comes from. I don't see why that is being criticized.

Locknar:
This is a assumption on your part as there is no proof the event took place, not a conclusion. However, assuming the event took place and no cold reading/prior knowledge, in this single instance you had a 1/6 chance of being correct vs a 5/6 chance of being incorrect. Hardly impressive by any measure.Each time one of my perceptions has appeared to be accurate, I do not conclude that it is evidence in favor of ESP, since cold reading could have been available. What it does provide is yet another example where the claim was not falsified, that's all. All it does is keep me in the investigation and allow for the time and work to prepare a study and a test.
That aside, interesting word "guessed"; if you can "see" these things why would you have to "guess?"I don't guess. I was just saying that a person could have the chance of 5:6 to guess wrong on vasectomy. I never implied that I guess.
This is a baseless assumption on your part. Additionally, EVERY example you've provided can be accounted for via cold reading - you simply choose to attribute these events to "woo woo."I've experienced cases where I can not see what the cold reading would have been. Health information that is not accessible to ordinary senses of perception, that I had no prior knowledge of, and whose accuracy was determined by other means than me asking or telling the person what I saw.
As with your reluctance to use the resources at your school, this is just "kick the can"; ie. excuses.I will NOT involve my school. Period.
Proof? Again, this is a baseless assumption on your part. EVERY instance you've described can be accounted for via cold reading - you simply choose to attribute these events to "woo woo" while avoiding any and all conclusive tests. Not necessarily. There've been cases where I can not imagine what the cold reading would have been. And I am not avoiding tests.

desertgal:
Well, at least, she confirms that she is, in fact, posing as a psychic. I was being ironic toward Locknar. ;) I do not pose to be a psychic.
I won't cheer for 1,000 more, though. I think Anita's delusions have pretty much run their course here. That was irony again. Sorry about that.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Cuddles:
Make no mistake, I am not supporting you in the slightest. I was merely pointing out that people should focus on the paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims rather than being distracted by irrelevancies, and I took the opportunity to clarify what seems to be a common misconception about scientific education. My point was simply that your education is irrelevant, it is your critical thinking and scientific ability that are on display for all to see that matter, regardless of where they came from. And that was supportive with regard to the issue about education. I did not interpret that you support my claim or anything beyond this particular issue that you clarified on my behalf.

[skeen]

Anita, you only think you have had accurate medical "perceptions". The reality is, you have not. How do I know this? Because it is impossible, and that is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

You keep using the word "perceive" as if it saves you from criticism. Hallucinations, and deceptions are perceptions. They are false perceptions, don't you get that?

If your objective were to truly investigate your alleged abilities, you would have had a mountain of evidence by now. You're obviously not like everyone else, but you're not stupid. You hide behind a thin cloak of concern preventing you from merely doing very simple, very quick tests.

There is no reason in the world that if you can do what you say you can do, you wouldn't be on every talk show around the world by the week's end.

I'm bored of you. You aren't even gearing toward a test, but a "study", which still, I think will not happen. How you have managed to draw all of this out, over so much time, over so very many posts, and present absolutely nothing whatsoever, is (and I am using the correct term, this is not derogatory) pathetic.

Your claims are pathetic. Your anecdotes are pathetic. Your transparency is pathetic. You have none of these abilities - Anita, you are just like everyone else. Even worse, you're just like every other claimant on this site; the only difference is, you write more.

[Professor Yaffle]

I am sure I could take an extract of the jade plant, prepare different extracts from that that each contain an isolated molecule, and investigate its cancer fighting effects. Unfortunately it is also a toxin to the human body! As I perceive it.

Excuse me if you have already stated this, but what toxic effects do you percieve from this molecule in the jade plant?

[Uncayimmy]

Regarding synesthesia, I do associate things with color, shape, and character to a greater extent than other people I know. I guess you're right that I shouldn't "diagnose" myself as having synesthesia, but I do recognize it. As for the number test picture, I do not see colors superimposed with the gray numbers. My associations occur in my mind and not projected. There are synesthetes who project their impressions into the world, and there are those who don't. If I do have synesthesia, I am one who doesn't project.

Your description does not match up to the sources I have found on the subject. But at least we got the word "if" out of you.

[Professor Yaffle]

They were pictures on the internet. I should have been more clear on that.


Do you get hese perceptions with every electron microscope picture you see on the internet? If not, roughly on what proportion would you see it? Or is it like photographs of people on the internet that you feel happy to state you have got health information from in the past, but when presented with such here on the forum, your ability to do this vanished?

ETA: I don't get how your perceptions are "by definition" not hallucinations. What definition of hallucination are you using? Here's one from medicine.net:


Hallucination: A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. An hallucination may be a sensory (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15733) experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there.


We haven't yet determined whether your perceptions are accurate. If they are not accurate, they could be hallucinations.

[desertgal]

desertgal:
And once again you are incorrect, nathan just posted the definition of hallucinations and based on how my perceptions come about, they are not hallucinations.

Nope, not incorrect. See a psychiatrist.

And by definition they are not hallucinations.

Wrong again.

It is only now that I've begun investigating the medical perceptions, but in a rational way. And there is nothing wrong in doing that.

Unless, of course, the perceptions are actually hallucinations, which they are.

Ashles:
The perceptions are by definition not hallucinations.

Wrong again.

desertgal:
I was being ironic toward Locknar. ;) I do not pose to be a psychic.

Yes. You do.

[Professor Yaffle]

Professor Yaffle:
I did the synesthesia test on www.synesthete.org (http://www.synesthete.org). I would like to trust you with my password and username to access my results and see for yourself. The system that calculates the discrepancy between repeated trials of the same number or sound is very picky. For instance I perceive the number 0 in the very same gray each time, and try to depict it in the exact way in the program, yet it announces a discrepancy in the colors. As for the chord and instruments, problem is I see two colors not one. Please see my results and you may present your conclusions here.


Did the site give you a summary that you could post here - or at least say how likely it is that you have synesthesia based on your test? I am no expert, so I am not sure what giving me your password etc would achieve.

[VisionFromFeeling]

I think everyone here has pretty much expressed all of their concerns by now, and repeatedly, and I have answered and replied to them, repeatedly. I think we can safely assume that we are past that point of introduction and interrogation and I will no longer respond to the same criticism and false accusations that are being brought up time and time again, unless something brand new emerges which I will then address.

I think we will all be happier once I simply disregard these repeated comments from you guys. I want no criticism from anyone regarding that I begin to ignore questions and comments. I will continue to read each of them carefully, as always, I will consider what they are saying, but from now on I only respond to ones that are conductive in our investigation.

If it interests any of you, the IIG West with whom I am arranging to have a test, post monthly updates with brief descriptions of their progress with their challenge applicants, and you can read about my case in among others their recent December update, at http://www.iigwest.com/whatsnew/updates/200812_update.html It does not entail all the details, but it shows that we are still "in progress".

Today I am sending e-mails to specific members of the local skeptics group asking for their participation in a study to be held this week or next. By today I will also post new information about the study on my website.

*commencing ignoring mode* - questions and comments from skeptics will be disregarded. I feel terrible about it but it is the only way we can proceed in a manner that is more conductive, more pleasant for all of us involved, to avoid wall of texts without much useful content, to save time, and to focus on what the goals actually are and to reach those goals with more clarity and happiness.

[desertgal]

I think everyone here has pretty much expressed all of their concerns by now, and repeatedly, and I have answered and replied to them, repeatedly. I think we can safely assume that we are past that point of introduction and interrogation and I will no longer respond to the same criticism and false accusations that are being brought up time and time again, unless something brand new emerges which I will then address.



I think we are past the point where this thread serves any purpose other than furthering your delusions and gratifying your need for attention.

The whole thing is ridiculous. You are delusional, Anita. You have no special abilities that defy science. Your university should be made aware of your inability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, and you need psychiatric help. Period.

That said, I'm done. At least, with this thread.

[skeen]

VFF, you do realize that "ignore mode" is what every single psychic claimant does? Look into The Professor, he's just one of many of you people who repeatedly ignore rational comments.

And, are you not also a skeptic? Anita, in what way are you Scientific? It blows my mind.

EDIT: @desertgal, me too. I'm done with this. Silly nonsense. I'll not contribute to Anita living her childish fantasy anymore.

[stanfr]

There is no reason in the world that if you can do what you say you can do, you wouldn't be on every talk show around the world by the week's end.



Yes!! Exactly!!! So, why continue this pointless 'discussion'? Take Anita up on her latest claim (that she will ignore further posts) and allow here to either 'put up or shut up'. I mean, i fully admit that i was suckered by the 'bad car wreck effect' to initially peruse this thread, but enough is enough already! If everyone here would simply stop the massive amount of moot questions, insults, pointless analysis, it will give Anita at least a small amount of free time to get on that Talk Shiow. Unless she's a complete idiot (and i don't think she is) then she oughta know by now what she has to do to get people to take her seriously.

[VisionFromFeeling]

skeen:
*ignoring mode* - not saying everything I would have otherwise said. :rolleyes:
You keep using the word "perceive" as if it saves you from criticism. Hallucinations, and deceptions are perceptions. They are false perceptions, don't you get that?Experience has shown that they are accurate perceptions. The question still remains, are these perceptions really going to remain as accurate when they are put to the test? And, if they do remain accurate, are they obtained from normal sources such as cold reading, or from something else? A test will tell us. At this point I suppose all of us are merely speculating. I am speculating based on experiences/accounts, and you might be speculating based on my text and your expectations.
If your objective were to truly investigate your alleged abilities, you would have had a mountain of evidence by now.Your impatience does not imply a failure on my part in obtaining evidence.
You hide behind a thin cloak of concern preventing you from merely doing very simple, very quick tests.My concerns about risks involved for volunteers who particpate in the study, are real concerns. If I did not have these concerns I'd definitely be criticized for that too. Everything I do is wrong to you guys whether I do it or not.

[Locknar]

Professor Yaffle:
I did the synesthesia test on www.synesthete.org. I would like to trust you with my password and username to access my results and see for yourself. The system that calculates the discrepancy between repeated trials of the same number or sound is very picky. For instance I perceive the number 0 in the very same gray each time, and try to depict it in the exact way in the program, yet it announces a discrepancy in the colors. As for the chord and instruments, problem is I see two colors not one. Please see my results and you may present your conclusions here. Well...a Internet test is surly accurate and proof....umm, I'm going to go with no.

You've not been medically diagnosed, by your own admission, and thus can not conclusively state "I have synesthesia". It is a claim, not fact.


skeen:
I am not lying. I have been describing my experiences as they took place. By definition I do not have hallucinations. Why can't we all just focus on the objective which is to investigate the claim?
While perhaps not lying, you have described your experiences as you remember them (after the fact), providing no supporting detail.

I am not sure "we" are involved in investigating your claim. To recap (and grossly paraphrase) a portion of the discussion to date:

"Us" - You should do X, Y and Z to validate your claim
"You" - Excuses, campfire stories, etc.

You claim to be seeking help, and then disregard (or otherwise make up excuses why it can't be applied to you) any and all such advice given.


Each time one of my perceptions has appeared to be accurate, I do not conclude that it is evidence in favor of ESP, since cold reading could have been available. What it does provide is yet another example where the claim was not falsified, that's all. How do any of your campfire stories provide an example where the claim was not falsified?


I don't guess. I was just saying that a person could have the chance of 5:6 to guess wrong on vasectomy. I never implied that I guess. You did not imply it, you flatly stated "I guess".


I've experienced cases where I can not see what the cold reading would have been. This does not make it so, nor can you sumarilly rule out that anyone/everyone is simply "playing along."


I will NOT involve my school. Period. Yes, you have made this clear while overlooking the fact that: 1) your website is publically available, 2) your name can be tied back to your school - thus you have already involved them.


There've been cases where I can not imagine what the cold reading would have been. And I am not avoiding tests. Every example you have discussed can be explained by cold reading and other non-"woo woo" means.

As to not avoiding tests...I think you are about the only one that feels that way especially in light this has been going on since 2007. Surly in all this time, you could have accomplished some corroborated and properly documented testing...especaily on a "power" you claim to have had since birth.

ETA
<snip> I want no criticism from anyone regarding that I begin to ignore questions and comments.

*commencing ignoring mode* - questions and comments from skeptics will be disregarded. I feel terrible about it but it is the only way we can proceed in a manner that is more conductive, more pleasant for all of us involved, to avoid wall of texts without much useful content, to save time, and to focus on what the goals actually are and to reach those goals with more clarity and happiness.Umm....no criticism; isn't that what you have YOUR website for? Oh wait...that's right, this (and other forums) reach far more people then your website, so it makes sense to post here in terms of advertising/notoriety.

Simply stated, ignoring questions and comments 1) Won't make them go away, 2) Will not increase your credibility, 3) Is what most others that have claimed "woo woo" powers have done....

Where is George when you need him!

[Sideroxylon]

skeen:
Experience has shown that they are accurate perceptions. The question still remains, are these perceptions really going to remain as accurate when they are put to the test? And, if they do remain accurate, are they obtained from normal sources such as cold reading, or from something else? A test will tell us. At this point I suppose all of us are merely speculating. I am speculating based on experiences/accounts, and you might be speculating based on my text and your expectations.

Your own experience shows nothing. We cannot trust our perceptions and we are capable of self deception, which can happen to even the brightest of people – Google ”René Prosper Blondlot”

[Uncayimmy]

And once again you are incorrect, nathan just posted the definition of hallucinations and based on how my perceptions come about, they are not hallucinations.Once again, I declare myself the arbiter of precise language. I am qualified because I applied for and received a poetic license.

What Anita has described for her medical perceptions is not consistent with hallucinations in that she has never claimed to see these images in "objective external space." What she describes is her imagination. Her belief that she is actually reconstructing accurate images could be called delusional or simply wishful thinking.

However, some of what Anita has described outside of this thread can be described as hallucinations. In several of her ghost stories she makes it clear that what she sees is superimposed on to the real world and not of this world, so to speak. That sounds like imagination, but it might be argued as being hallucinatory.

She does say, however, that she can hear ghosts and even carry on conversations with them. That sounds like a hallucination to me. Or just a fanciful imagination and story telling on her part.

And we all know she obviously feels compelled to share these stories and anecdotes.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Professor Yaffle:
Excuse me if you have already stated this, but what toxic effects do you percieve from this molecule in the jade plant? *ignored* - not relevant to claim. :( Sorry.
Do you get hese perceptions with every electron microscope picture you see on the internet? If not, roughly on what proportion would you see it? Or is it like photographs of people on the internet that you feel happy to state you have got health information from in the past, but when presented with such here on the forum, your ability to do this vanished?*ignored* :(
ETA: I don't get how your perceptions are "by definition" not hallucinations. What definition of hallucination are you using? Anita, you keep claiming you're not hallucinating, because you have perceptions. That's a necessary but insufficient condition. Hallucinations are perceptions in the absence of stimuli. You need to prove the emboldened bit is false, to rule out hallucinations.My medical perceptions are triggered by stimulus and commence once I've seen a person.

According to the other definition you brought,
Hallucination: A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality. An hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, and feel something that is not there. I would say that the perceptions are not part of my sense of reality, they are impressions that's all. However they are sensory experience that I can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel, yet the question remains to find out whether they are in fact there or not. And if they are not there and are entirely subjective to me, they might be something innocent like synesthesia. We need more data in order to be more effective in these speculations as to what the perceptions are.
Did the site give you a summary that you could post here - or at least say how likely it is that you have synesthesia based on your test? I am no expert, so I am not sure what giving me your password etc would achieve. Yes but why don't you access it and do as you please with it. I'm not interested.

desertgal:
Unless, of course, the perceptions are actually hallucinations, which they are.According to two sources of definitions of hallucination, the perceptions are not hallucinations. Do not conclude too soon. I have personal experience that indicates the possibility of otherwise.
I think we are past the point where this thread serves any purpose other than furthering your delusions and gratifying your need for attention.This thread will continue to be the site where I post recent updates on my investigation. The fact that it takes so long before any news is not entirely my fault. I will not stand up on a soapbox and ask people to volunteer for a test, although, that is somewhat what I will do in the upcoming study. :) I'm not here for delusions, I'm here for clarity into my experiences with the perceptions. And I'm not here for personal attention, I'm here because of the perceptions and I try to discuss them in an impersonal way.
Your university should be made aware of your inability to differentiate between reality and fantasyI have a very clear distinction between what are my own experiences and what are mutually experienced by everyone. I realize fully well that everyone doesn't see organs and tissue when they look at people. These perceptions are impressions and I do not experience them with the same sense of reality or belief as I do what I see with my eyes for instance. It is only now with this investigation that I look into the perceptions. My unusual or unconventional perceptions do not distract or disturb how I function in life. I am a very good science student and a very promising future scientist and none of these interests, experiences, or perceptions will reduce the high quality of how I perform in my studies or career.

skeen:
VFF, you do realize that "ignore mode" is what every single psychic claimant does? Look into The Professor, he's just one of many of you people who repeatedly ignore rational comments.!!! But when I do respond to every single comment I get criticized for the wall of texts! So now when I choose to ignore some of the comments that have been answered by me many times before, I get criticized! I knew it! Everything I do is wrong whether I do it or not! So let's just focus on doing this investigation. All this talk is not productive to the investigation, and the fact that I realize to stop commenting on everything that is said to me on this thread should indicate a step in the right direction. I do not ignore rational comments. I just don't want to answer the same things over and over again and waste everyone's time and thread-space. It's a good decision on my part and I don't see how it should reduce from how I come across. If anyone agrees with me, please say so, because if y'all want me to continue commenting on everything then let me know and I'll do it.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Locknar:
The claim I am investigating is medical perceptions from live people. When it is insisted that I test the other aspects of the perceptions, that occur much less frequently, that are not of the type that I would push to have tested in the first place, and when tests conclude (with the Lactobacillus test) that a test means I have to force myself and get a serious headache and nausea, and other reasons, I have every reason to avoid these tests and to focus on my main claim.

I take in all advice relating to my claim and have received a perfect study procedure from UncaYimmy and am now ready to have the study, which will then either falsify the claim or allow us (yes, us, me and the skeptics, Locknar) to proceed to a test and with a stronger and more specific claim.
How do any of your campfire stories provide an example where the claim was not falsified?By presenting accurate health information that correlates with actual health information. Not to say that this accurate health information was necessarily obtained by ESP, but as long as it is accurate and I've experienced cases where I do not know what cold reading would have been responsible or even available, I conclude to proceed toward a real test that will find out.
You did not imply it, you flatly stated "I guess".You misinterpreted. I was speaking from a general sense, that a person can have a 5:6 chance of guessing wrong. I do not guess. If you think that is what it said, then allow for this correction: I do not guess, I base my information on what I am under the impression of perceiving. And this is not an example for you of where I would have been wrong and had to change my statement afterwards. You misinterpreted, that's all.
This does not make it so, nor can you sumarilly rule out that anyone/everyone is simply "playing along."I've had cases of accuracy that can not be accountable by people playing along. That is my claim. I will next have the study to provide with some documented examples. And if the study fails to falsify the claim, ie. by not revealing a significant extent of inaccuracy, then a test will reveal whether this accuracy arises from cold reading or other normal sources, or from some other paranormal source.
As to not avoiding tests...I think you are about the only one that feels that way especially in light this has been going on since 2007. Surly in all this time, you could have accomplished some corroborated and properly documented testing...especaily on a "power" you claim to have had since birth.The IIG, bless their hearts, take months to get back to me each time. And that correspondence accounts for over a year of this one and a half year time during which I've been involved in this investigation.
Umm....no criticism; isn't that what you have YOUR website for? I said I would appreciate to receive no criticism against my decision to disregard some of the posts here that have been answered before, that are just misconceptions and false assumptions, insults and personal criticism, and are totally irrelevant to the progress of this investigation, since I believe that by doing so we will all be more productive with this claim.
Simply stated, ignoring questions and comments 1) Won't make them go away, 2) Will not increase your credibility, 3) Is what most others that have claimed "woo woo" powers have done....1) Answering them doesn't make them go away either, 2) Answering them doesn't increase my credibility either, 3) I can't answer the same questions many times and respond to every case of inaccurate assumption, personal attack and insults. I am choosing to focus on the claim and the investigation.

Sideroxylon:
Your own experience shows nothing. We cannot trust our perceptions and we are capable of self deception, which can happen to even the brightest of peopleBut I know that! All I've concluded based on my experiences is to proceed toward a real test!

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
Her belief that she is actually reconstructing accurate images could be called delusional or simply wishful thinking.No. My claim that the perceptions have shown accuracy is based on past experiences. I think the question is a) what will the accuracy be in a test, will it remain as good or will inaccuracy be revealed, and b) if accurate, is the source of the information normal, or paranormal.

[Professor Yaffle]

If anyone cares, I looked at Anita's synesthesia test results, and in only one section did her score fall within what would be expected for a synesthete, the others put her in the range of the normal population.

[Uncayimmy]

What about the moderated thread? Should I ask the moderators to close it or will you continue to participate?

[Sideroxylon]

But I know that! All I've concluded based on my experiences is to proceed toward a real test!

I guess I must have been reading too much into statements you have been making like the one I replied to: "Experience has shown that they are accurate perceptions."

[VisionFromFeeling]

I realize that I too have been posting irrelevant topics in this thread, and I should know better than to post them in a skeptics Forum and not expect skeptics to do to it what they do.

If you all excuse me, I have a study to set up. I have skeptics to contact, people to call, papers to print, random numbers to generate, envelopes to buy, and arrangements to make.

[Ashles]

My medical perceptions are triggered by stimulus and commence once I've seen a person.
Oh dear, back to this in complete contradiction of the previous pretense to be open minded as to whether the sensations were as a result of stimuli or not.

Unless Anita is just making up her own definition of stimuli. Which appears entirely possible.
Anita, it is, for reference - "events in the environment" or "a detectable change in the internal or external environment" (in this instance internal refers to real changes inside your own body).

I wonder if Anita is now going to argue what stimulus is in a scientific sense.
That really would be ironic after my little story above.

[Ashles]

If you all excuse me, I have a study to set up. I have skeptics to contact, people to call, papers to print, random numbers to generate, envelopes to buy, and arrangements to make.
And we'll believe it when we hear that it has happened.

[Sasha]

Anita, you claim that you perceive health problems in people by just looking at them. Yet the protocol you're trying to set up on the IIG website states (bolding mine):

Anita, whom we call a psychic diagnostician of medical disorders, needs test subjects who are in pain at the time of the test.

http://www.iigwest.com/whatsnew/updates/200812_update.html

I think most of us can look at someone in pain and see that they have a medical problem. Why would a test like this prove anything paranormal, perceptive or in any way special beyond the norm?

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
No. My claim that the perceptions have shown accuracy is based on past experiences. I think the question is a) what will the accuracy be in a test, will it remain as good or will inaccuracy be revealed, and b) if accurate, is the source of the information normal, or paranormal.

Has everything I have said been for naught? I said that it could be delusional or wishful thinking. You say that ESP absolutely cannot be ruled out, yet here you are ruling out what is the most likely explanation. It blows my mind that you can say "no" in response to what it could be.

Delusions: A well proven phenomenon.

Wishful thinking: A well proven phenomenon.

Imagination: A well proven phenomenon.

Your evidence as judged by yourself: Nothing that has been scientifically validated by a third party.

Your evidence as judged by others: Just some random person who has provided zero evidence beyond her word that any of her anecdotes have actually occurred, much less that they have occurred exactly as described. Even if 100% true, they are not worthy of any conclusions or, quite frankly, even testing that there is a real possibility of a Nobel Prize winning advancement in science.

Your claim: If true would make you the first person on this planet with those abilities.

Our experience: You have followed the same pattern as every claimant who has failed a test proving her claim or who has disappeared before taking a test. By contrast you have not followed the pattern of a dispassionate scientist in any way, shape or form.

Your indignation: Unjustified in the opinion of everyone here except you.

All that said, nobody wants you to leave. We want you to take the tests to prove our hypothesis that there's nothing here except for deception, delusions and/or wishful thinking.

You, by contrast, keep trying to convince us that there is a scientific basis for testing your claims. You will never win that battle. Never.

[Ashles]

Ashles:
The perceptions are by definition not hallucinations.
Because they are not confirmed as perceptions. Why can you not understand this? Perceptions implies real external stimuli, sensations/hallucinations does not.
We can only accept this as a language issue for so long before we have to assume it is deliberate.

...
You'd be surprised how it really is. No scientist reveals their ideas until they can do so in a way that ensures that if they've discovered something they get the credit for it. You'd also be surprised how much scientists steal others' ideas. Insider information.
I'd be surprised if you knew the first thing about how scientists actually work.

There already are instruments that generate light structures. You don't know about optics.
Oh this is hilarious. You are so bad at squirming out of direct answers.

I asked you that! I specifically asked you to detail what optical instruments you were talking about.

You then responded

The ones I will work with haven't been built yet. I will build them.
I then mocked you for referring to non-existent and theoretical instruments. And now you immediately return to referring to existing instruments.

So which is it? Which instruments will you use in your testing? Existing ones (please describe them) or imaginary ones of the future?


Errm sure okay. You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

[quote]I've not described things in detail.
No. Really?

And I don't think they would laugh if I did.
I guess we'll never know.

I am sure I could take an extract of the jade plant, prepare different extracts from that that each contain an isolated molecule, and investigate its cancer fighting effects. Unfortunately it is also a toxin to the human body! As I perceive it.
Well it's more words but it doesn't actually answer anything. Just repeats the claim.

The perception of its effects is stronger than the perception of the molecule that would be translateable to chemistry drawings. If anyone saw an actual molecule they'd find it very hard to figure out how to translate it into the chemical elements and chemical bonds.
Yes but you aren't seeing it are you. Your claim invloves 'vibrational information' that can show this information.
Except when it can't.

They were pictures on the internet. I should have been more clear on that.
Oh so it is a yet further new claim. You can feel the sensation of the effect a substance from a scanning electron miscroscope.
Well that should be even easier to test right here on the forum - but of course it wont be.

In order to make a paranormal claim or to begin a paranormal investigation, the claimant is not required to have a math or science background, or to be able to explain their claim scientifically. I do hope you realize that.
I realise that perfectly well.
You are the one who wanted to try and explain it all scientifically, and then fell down rather badly when you couldn't.

[Locknar]

You, by contrast, keep trying to convince us that there is a scientific basis for testing your claims. You will never win that battle. Never.Nicly said. I'll add:

You (VFF) continue trying to convince us you are proceeding in a scientific manner.

Rather, you are proceeding in exactly the way someone who is layman thinks scientists conduct research. You consistently show total disregard for the scientific method, jump to false conclusions, testing without controls or premise, no documentation, and quite frankly the list just goes on and on.

[Uncayimmy]

The claim I am investigating is medical perceptions from live people. When it is insisted that I test the other aspects of the perceptions, that occur much less frequently, that are not of the type that I would push to have tested in the first place, and when tests conclude (with the Lactobacillus test) that a test means I have to force myself and get a serious headache and nausea, and other reasons, I have every reason to avoid these tests and to focus on my main claim.

You were willing to take the tests in the first place. You said, "Chemical identification would be easier for test purposes, but to make it easier on my ability I would prefer the official test to test it on what it is the strongest at. I am however interested in testing it on chemical identification as well and will post the results here as soon as that is done."

In fact you discussed chemical identification a number of times including references to tests in your chemistry lab at school. At no time did you mention an adverse health effects. It wasn't until you actually took the test that you mentioned that you become drained, but you explained it as "typical" after the fact, not before. You did not mention nausea at all after the first test.

Even then you said,"I will have additional tests later on and will repeat the cereal test as well." The nausea and claims of being too physically to perform only came after you began having less accurate results in subsequent tests.

This is another indicator of possible subconscious self deception, which is a well documented phenomenon. When faced with failure, your mind may have protected itself by making you ill. Or simply the stress of realizing possible failure made you sick - not unusual at all.

The problem is that you were told the results after each trial rather than at the end (quite unscientific). Thus as you made more mistakes, you felt ill. Did feeling ill cause more mistakes or did making more mistakes cause you to feel ill? Your poorly constructed test prevents us from knowing the answer.

The thing is, you could work around this problem very easily. Statistically there is no difference between making five runs of 20 identifications or 20 runs of five identifications. You could space them apart if you wanted. Just making one short run each morning and evening for a week could give you enough results to be analyzed.

You told me you wanted to be the next Madame Curie. Great research involves sacrifice.

[Old man]

Just checking in here, no time for another wall o' text post. :D

But, I couldn't let this pass - You'd be surprised how it really is. No scientist reveals their ideas until they can do so in a way that ensures that if they've discovered something they get the credit for it. You'd also be surprised how much scientists steal others' ideas. Insider information.No, Anita, YOU would be "surprised how it really is".

Ever hear of a (REAL) scientist by the name of John Sanford? He and I spent a number of hours standing around in the hall, discussing this -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_gun

I also know for a FACT that he freely sought the help and advise of a number of people.

I've worked for a major research institution (Cornell, NYSAES) for over thirty years. Researchers DO collaborate, and ask for (and receive) advise and criticism all of the time!

[GeeMack]

It is only now that I've begun investigating the medical perceptions, but in a rational way.


No. No, you're not investigating anything in a rational way. There's nothing rational at all about it, not when you say things like this...

I just detect the quantum physics vibrational aspect of the atoms that make the tissue with my sense of feeling which then constructs the images in my mind.


I couldn't possibly know the name of the chemical, even though I am learning to perceive the electron field distribution across a molecule and to depicher it into its corresponding atoms and chemical bonds to perceive the image of the molecular structure as it is drawn in science.


All this pretense of yours about investigating and testing, all your apparent belief that this is some kind of sciency stuff, it all goes out the window if you're simply not sane, doesn't it? You seem quick to ignore other people's advice to get yourself checked out, but your mental health is a relevant issue. So here's an angle... Go to your school's counseling office. Get an appointment with a qualified mental health professional. Sit down and have a nice long talk with him/her, maybe several nice long talks. Find out what that person thinks about your ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Obviously nobody is qualified to make such an assessment here on an Internet forum, but there are people in real life who can help you sort it out. And of course nobody here can make you go get a professional assessment, but if you were a close friend or loved one, I'd insist on it.

Then if you get a clean bill of health, if you find out that your head is actually screwed on straight, really straight, then settle yourself down, focus, develop a systematic approach to testing your supposed abilities, and go about it in a truly scientific way. You've made a couple hundred postings here so far. You've been given a whole lot of good advice about how to go about setting up tests, but you're deliberately avoiding doing it. You've been offered perfectly valid criticism, and rather than accept it, you get defensive. If there is anything at all to your claim of possessing these magical powers, you're never going to find out if you stay all scattered and flighty like you've been here so far.

[Hokulele]

I realize that I too have been posting irrelevant topics in this thread, and I should know better than to post them in a skeptics Forum and not expect skeptics to do to it what they do.


Then why did you do so?

If you all excuse me, I have a study to set up. I have skeptics to contact, people to call, papers to print, random numbers to generate, envelopes to buy, and arrangements to make.


When you come back with your results, please make sure that you document the protocols involved extensively. As UncaYimmy just pointed out, make your claims and statements at the time of the study, not later in the form of excuses.

[stanfr]

Wow, 20 new posts since my last 2 hours ago. At this rate, should hit about 200 pages for this thread by next month, and i gaurantee nothing will have been accomplished. Which makes me wonder, who is really the "delusional" or "mentally ill" person here? Attention feeds delusion. That's the last time i'll say that, since im done with this silly train wreck, and unlike others who have made that promise, if i break mine please call me on it and i will send you $100 via paypal. That should keep me honest :D

[Akhenaten]

If anyone cares, I looked at Anita's synesthesia test results, and in only one section did her score fall within what would be expected for a synesthete, the others put her in the range of the normal population.


Anecdotally, I believe I have experience of the perception of having predicted this. I must conduct a study into investigating a method to test this belief, or else we must conclude that everyone has ESP.

Or something. Just ignore me.

[desertgal]

Once again, I declare myself the arbiter of precise language. I am qualified because I applied for and received a poetic license.

What Anita has described for her medical perceptions is not consistent with hallucinations in that she has never claimed to see these images in "objective external space." What she describes is her imagination. Her belief that she is actually reconstructing accurate images could be called delusional or simply wishful thinking.

However, some of what Anita has described outside of this thread can be described as hallucinations. In several of her ghost stories she makes it clear that what she sees is superimposed on to the real world and not of this world, so to speak. That sounds like imagination, but it might be argued as being hallucinatory.

She does say, however, that she can hear ghosts and even carry on conversations with them. That sounds like a hallucination to me. Or just a fanciful imagination and story telling on her part.

And we all know she obviously feels compelled to share these stories and anecdotes.

Thank you, Jim, for that clarification. :)

I should also sign off with the very reluctant fact that I have successfully battled with schizotypal disorder for nearly 30 years. While I should never have offered that here as the amateur diagnosis it was, or even suggested it in the offhand way that I did, I do see similarities between what Anita has presented here, and my own personal knowledge of the disorder. Seven characteristics, in fact. That is not intended as a diagnosis, just an observation. While I did run out of patience with Anita, and resorted to caustic replies, my repeated attempts to stress to her that she appears to be experiencing delusions, hallucinations, and self deception were based on concern about those similarities I noted. I apologize to all of you for, perhaps, taking my insistence too far.

Again, I think she needs professional help. Perhaps testing this ability and having it proven to her that her ability is based on delusion will be a step in that direction. I hope so, because, at this point, if she continues in the manner that she has presented here, and there is an existing personality disorder, she can only descend further into it. As well, if she continues with these medical diagnoses, someone is going to get hurt by it.

In any case, I wish her luck. Thank you all for your patience with my impatience. :)

[Uncayimmy]

I should also sign off with the very reluctant fact that I have successfully battled with schizotypal disorder for nearly 30 years. While I should never have offered that here as the amateur diagnosis it was, or even suggested it in the offhand way that I did, I do see similarities between what Anita has presented here, and my own personal knowledge of the disorder.

I disagree with your belief that you shouldn't have brought it up. I think it was an excellent point to make. And your experience from the "inside" so to speak should make anyone sit up and take notice. It's one thing for an amateur like myself to get all technical about strict definitions. It's quite another for someone to bring a voice of experience, even if it's not from a doctor's perspective.

And in the words of Anita herself (sorta):

That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder. We can say that it is unlikely that I have a delusional or schizotypal disorder, or that we do not expect me to have a delusional or schizotypal disorder, but to say that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder. And I was right about that.

Check out this article - in my mind it shows that your assessment is not without foundation.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/psychosis-delusions-personality-disorders.html

In my mind it is not off the table. There are more people who have those types of disorders than have synesthesia, yet she was willing to assume has it without any testing or even in-depth research. Seriously claiming to have an ability that no other person on earth has, is well, let's just say it's odd.

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
What about the moderated thread? Should I ask the moderators to close it or will you continue to participate? Let's keep that thread and I will answer in it when I find the time. Please allow that I prioritate this thread and the upcoming study, and I will post there when time allows.

Sideroxylon:
I guess I must have been reading too much into statements you have been making like the one I replied to: "Experience has shown that they are accurate perceptions." The perceptions have appeared to be accurate. That does not exclude the possibility that they were not accurate, for instance if a person was lying about the correlation they've stated between my perceptions and their health. Nor does it exclude the possibility that the origin of the accurate perceptions was something other than paranormal. All I've concluded from the nature of the experiences I've had, is that they compel me toward a study and a test in order to find out more.

Ashles:
Oh dear, back to this in complete contradiction of the previous pretense to be open minded as to whether the sensations were as a result of stimuli or not. (...) Anita, it is, for reference - "events in the environment" or "a detectable change in the internal or external environment" (in this instance internal refers to real changes inside your own body).Is not visual perception of a person a stimulus?

Sasha:
I think most of us can look at someone in pain and see that they have a medical problem. Why would a test like this prove anything paranormal, perceptive or in any way special beyond the norm? The December update on the IIG page (http://www.iigwest.com/whatsnew/updates/200812_update.html) is outdated. The protocol in question was already sent to me several weeks ago and I replied to it in full within the next day, in which I declared that pain need not be occurring in the volunteers. You're right about this concern though, thank you for bringing it up. Even though some of you skeptics are going to be in utter disbelief and I will be hearing about it soon, I have every interest in proper test design. What I had in mind by the way was pain that is not considered detectable by ordinary senses, but, never mind. If the upcoming study were to reveal that I can "do my thing" with the volunteer behind a screen, then current pain can once again be considered.

UncaYimmy:
Delusions: A well proven phenomenon.

Wishful thinking: A well proven phenomenon.

Imagination: A well proven phenomenon.

Your evidence as judged by yourself: Nothing that has been scientifically validated by a third party.Proven phenomena, but have they been proven to apply to me?
Your evidence as judged by others: Just some random person who has provided zero evidence beyond her word that any of her anecdotes have actually occurred, much less that they have occurred exactly as described. Even if 100% true, they are not worthy of any conclusions or, quite frankly, even testing that there is a real possibility of a Nobel Prize winning advancement in science.I do realize that my experiences are not evidence to others, nor have I intended to present them as evidence to others. What I've said is that they are compelling enough for someone like me who experienced them and that all I conclude based on them is to proceed toward a study and a test. They have not proven to me that I'd have ESP. Experiences have failed to falsify this paranormal investigation, and that is all.
Your claim: If true would make you the first person on this planet with those abilities who bothered to go through this ordeal.Red mine.
Our experience: You have followed the same pattern as every claimant who has failed a test proving her claim or who has disappeared before taking a test.Failed a test of my main claim of identifying medical information in people by seeing them? Nah. Disappeared before taking a test? :confused: I'm still here.
Your indignation: Unjustified in the opinion of everyone here except you.Although I realize that my experiences are mine alone and that they are not backed up by formal evidence, they are what compel me. I can not disregard my experiences of accurate perceptions in which I do not know what cold reading could have been available, just because none of you are in position to consider it. As I've said, I begin from my position, and you all begin from your position, and both claimant and skeptics will arrive at the same position but from different starting points, and be on the same position in which a test takes place.
All that said, nobody wants you to leave. We want you to take the tests to prove our hypothesis that there's nothing here except for deception, delusions and/or wishful thinking. I'm not going anywhere. I will work with this investigation until a conclusion has been reached. Ah, since you have a hypothesis, don't forget about the null hypothesis. I just want openness that's all.
You, by contrast, keep trying to convince us that there is a scientific basis for testing your claims. You will never win that battle. Never. Of course I can't convince any of you of this, since my anecdotes are not formal evidence. All I am saying, is that I am convinced of the fact that experiences compel me toward a test. I have failed to falsify my paranormal claim on my own and that is why I now take the help of skeptics, scientists, and a scientific test. And that is the right thing to do.

Ashles:
You are the one who wanted to try and explain it all scientifically, and then fell down rather badly when you couldn't. chose not to

Locknar:
Rather, you are proceeding in exactly the way someone who is layman thinks scientists conduct research. You consistently show total disregard for the scientific method, jump to false conclusions, testing without controls or premise, no documentation, and quite frankly the list just goes on and on. Give me one example of when I disregarded the use of the scientific method in my investigation of my main claim of medical diagnose from live persons (ie. not photos or video). Don't just point out my shortcomings, teach me instead. When did I jump to false conclusions? (I could present a long list of where you skeptics jumped to false conclusions, but let's just leave it at that. Anyone who loves this thread can read about it.) I will not be testing without controls on the formal tests. If you are referring to the study, it is a study, not a test. I did attempt to document the experiences in the way that I was instructed to. The study will present some well documented examples. And what else is on the list? Explain it to me, I do listen and read everything you all write. I'm here to learn.

[Soapy Sam]

Just making my monthly or thereabouts drive-by to see if this nonsense is getting anywhere.

Nope.


There's a surprise.

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
In fact you discussed chemical identification a number of times including references to tests in your chemistry lab at school. I have not had such tests at school. I've had experiences, that's all.
At no time did you mention an adverse health effects. It wasn't until you actually took the test that you mentioned that you become drained, but you explained it as "typical" after the fact, not before. You did not mention nausea at all after the first test.And I regret that I didn't state it earlier. At least I know that I am not making it up so that I can live with myself.
Even then you said,"I will have additional tests later on and will repeat the cereal test as well." The nausea and claims of being too physically to perform only came after you began having less accurate results in subsequent tests.Seems like it possibly, but is not so. I am still considering having additional tests, but I have to work out a way to make maybe five trials at a time and then rest a few days in between, and then to add the series of trials together. The headache and nausea comes from forcing myself to make tens of perceptions within a few hours, when normally I only have one every few weeks or so. I regret the inconvenience but that's how it is.
This is another indicator of possible subconscious self deception, which is a well documented phenomenon. When faced with failure, your mind may have protected itself by making you ill. Or simply the stress of realizing possible failure made you sick - not unusual at all. Then how come headache and nausea appear first, and my stamina to perform is reduced after? Hm.
The problem is that you were told the results after each trial rather than at the end (quite unscientific). Thus as you made more mistakes, you felt ill. Did feeling ill cause more mistakes or did making more mistakes cause you to feel ill? Your poorly constructed test prevents us from knowing the answer.From what I recall I was doing pretty good on those cereal tests. Headache and nausea appeared first, reduced ability to force perceptions appeared after.
The thing is, you could work around this problem very easily. Statistically there is no difference between making five runs of 20 identifications or 20 runs of five identifications. You could space them apart if you wanted. Just making one short run each morning and evening for a week could give you enough results to be analyzed.That's right. I will look into it, really I will. But for now my main priority is the main claim.

Old man:
Researchers DO collaborate, and ask for (and receive) advise and criticism all of the time! Yes and I will do that in a professional environment. Not here.

[nathan]

nathan:
The stimulus is when I look at a person. I need to look at the person to locate what I experience being the source of the information, so in this regard and based on how I experience it, I would not define the perceptions as being hallucinations. Thank you for bringing us the definition.

That you need a person in front of you to have perceptions of their organs (or whatever), is not evidence that the perceptions of their organs (or whatever) is not a hallucination.

On your own, you cannot prove you are not having hallucinations.

I've known someone who had auditory hallucinations, it was utterly impossible to convince them that they were hallucinating.

[Locknar]

Give me one example of when I disregarded the use of the scientific method in my investigation of my main claim of medical diagnose from live persons (ie. not photos or video).As you wish; how is that written log/diary comming along?

When did I jump to false conclusions?Again, as you wish;
I have synesthesia.
qed


I did attempt to document the experiences in the way that I was instructed to.Who instructed you to document your experiences, via a blog, with no supporting/corroborating facts?

Shirley you can't be serious.

[VisionFromFeeling]

GeeMack:
Find out what that person thinks about your ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. I have experienced correlation between my medical perceptions and actual health conditions. Not because I think so. Not because I believe so. Not because I want it to be so. But because it's been so. Therefore I want tests that enable cold reading to be ruled out. Even if most likely I do not have ESP, even if I were doing an involuntary cold reading I will personally proceed with studying that very thing because I think it is very interesting how I can look at a person's neck and taste the flavors of ice-cream they eat, see the cartilagenous scar tissue after a heart bypass surgery under clothes, and detect vasectomy! To me this is fascinating regardless!

I experience the medical perceptions as impressions and not in the same way as I do what I see with my eyes for instance. I have a clear distinction between these subjective perceptions and my objective perceptions. I am fully aware of the fact that others don't perceive these things. Yet I wonder about their apparent accuracy and am conducting a study to investigate the actual accuracy and source of the information. I don't think a councellor would object to my applying of scientific interest to investigate an explanation to an unusual experience.
Obviously nobody is qualified to make such an assessment here on an Internet forum, but there are people in real life who can help you sort it out. And of course nobody here can make you go get a professional assessment, but if you were a close friend or loved one, I'd insist on it.Thanks Hon for caring, but really, the perceptions in themselves are not of concern. They do not interfere with my life, I do not take them seriously, and I am investigating their apparent accuracy and am fully open to falsify a paranormal claim. :)
You've been given a whole lot of good advice about how to go about setting up tests, but you're deliberately avoiding doing it. And I take that advice. I am not avoiding a test. Impatience, that's all.
You've been offered perfectly valid criticism, and rather than accept it, you get defensive. I defend myself when incorrect conclusions with negative connotations are made about me.
If there is anything at all to your claim of possessing these magical powers, you're never going to find out if you stay all scattered and flighty like you've been here so far. This is because I keep responding to y'alls posts. If you all stopped posting irrelevant topics about whether I'm from Sweden or not and what my family thinks about my perceptions and whether I'm in fact studying two degrees at the same time, you'd see more of what I can do. I'd get a chance to speak. :(

UncaYimmy:
That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder. We can say that it is unlikely that I have a delusional or schizotypal disorder, or that we do not expect me to have a delusional or schizotypal disorder, but to say that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have a delusional or schizotypal disorder. And I was right about that.This is an improper way of twisting my words by the way. And we've already established that I do not have schizotypal disorder by virtue of the little checklist that was posted earlier. When I look at people I see images in my mind of organs and tissue and perceive health information. There has appeared to be good accuracy between my perceptions and actual health information. The fact that I perceive impressions in my mind of tissue by means of association does not indicate mental health concerns. The fact that I am a victim of experiencing accuracy between perceptions and facts also does not indicate mental health concerns. All that I have concluded and rightfully done so is to proceed toward a test to see if I can falsify the paranormal claim. I really don't see the problem here. Could be that I discover that I have an excellent ability of cold reading that I was not aware of, could be that it picks up very minute signals and processes the information in a most impressive way, and I would be thrilled to discover even that! With regard to my medical perceptions, and my conclusion to proceed with a scientific test, I consider neither to be any indication of concern.

[Jeff Corey]

So much crap to reply to, so little time. "Quantum vibrations" , failing, then being sick on tests, and a 4.0 average. I know someone who teaches down there and maybe she could check that out.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Regarding the link that was provided by UncaYimmy about psychosis, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/psychosis-delusions-personality-disorders.html, I've read it carefully and here is my response (if anyone is curious):

Psychotics are fully aware of events and people "out there". They cannot, however separate data and experiences originating in the outside world from information generated by internal mental processes. They confuse the external universe with their inner emotions, cognitions, preconceptions, fears, expectations, and representations.

I most definitely can separate between the unusual perceptions and those that result from ordinary senses. I have no confusion between myself and the external universe. The reason I initiated this paranormal investigation is because I've experienced correlation between the perceptions and with facts, not because of my interpretation of correlation, but by impersonal confirmation. And all that concludes is to have a test.

Similarly, patients suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and, to a lesser extent, Antisocial and Histrionic Personality Disorders fail to grasp others as full-fledged entities. They regard even their nearest and dearest as cardboard cut-outs, two-dimensional representations (introjects), or symbols. They treat them as instruments of gratification, functional automata, or extensions of themselves.

I definitely grasp others as full-fledged entities. This does not apply to me.

Consequently, both psychotics and the personality disordered have a distorted view of reality and are not rational. No amount of objective evidence can cause them to doubt or reject their hypotheses and convictions. Full-fledged psychosis involves complex and ever more bizarre delusions and the unwillingness to confront and consider contrary data and information (preoccupation with the subjective rather than the objective). Thought becomes utterly disorganized and fantastic.

I am very rational. I just have unusual experiences, but the experiences do not come about by choice, it is not as if I've "rationalized myself into allowing them to occur". I rationally decide to have a scientific test to establish the objective truth behind my interestingly accurate perceptions. I love objective evidence, I am a scientist science student. There is nothing I enjoy more than reading about some concept of physics that defies all everyday experience and to take it as truth simply because it is proven with objective scientific verification and is agreed to by the scientific community, even if I can't visualize it right away. This paragraph didn't apply to me.

The DSM-IV-TR defines psychosis as "restricted to delusions or prominent hallucinations, with the hallucinations occurring in the absence of insight into their pathological nature".

I experience perceptions, impressions, of tissue, and do not consider the perceptions to be pathological. Most people experience periods of having random strange thoughts that they can not stop or control and I don't even have that.

A delusion is "a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".

Aha! I am not delusional! So stop it, everyone! There is no belief behind my perceptions, they are images and impressions, that's all, and I do not automatically place belief into them. They are also not firmly sustained, I am open to finding out that they'd not always be accurate. And as a scientist science student I would never find it in me to reject incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence.

A hallucination is a "sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality of a true perception but that occurs without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ".

Aha! Yet again from a third definition my perceptions are not hallucinations! My perceptions do not come with a compelling sense of reality of a true perception! But they do however occur without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ.

Delusion is, therefore, a belief, idea, or conviction firmly held despite abundant information to the contrary. The partial or complete loss of reality test is the first indication of a psychotic state or episode. (...) There are many types of delusions:

My belief is to proceed toward a scientific test to find out what the actual accuracy is and what the actual origin of the information is. There has been no information contrary to this belief.

I. Paranoid
The belief that one is being controlled or persecuted by stealth powers and conspiracies. This is common in the Paranoid, Antisocial, Narcissistic, Borderline, Avoidant, and Dependent Personality Disorders.

Not me.

2. Grandiose-magical
The conviction that one is important, omnipotent, possessed of occult powers, or a historic figure. Narcissists invariably harbor such delusions.
Hm, yes. I feel important because I aspire to make progress within the field of medical technology, meanwhile I think everyone is important in their own way, and this is just what give meaning to my own existence. Omnipotent I am not, I've got shortcomings. Well, experience suggests that I might have some powers, but tests will establish whether I am entitled to take it as a conviction.

3. Referential (ideas of reference)
The belief that external, objective events carry hidden or coded messages or that one is the subject of discussion, derision, or opprobrium, even by total strangers. This is common in the Avoidant, Schizoid, Schizotypal, Narcissistic, and Borderline Personality Disorders.

Not me.

Hallucinations are false perceptions based on false sensa (sensory input) not triggered by any external event or entity. The patient is usually not psychotic - he is aware that he what he sees, smells, feels, or hears is not there. Still, some psychotic states are accompanied by hallucinations.

The perceptions are triggered by external events or entities. The perceptions are what I automatically associate to when exposed to external things.

There are a few classes of hallucinations:
Auditory - The false perception of voices and sounds (such as buzzing, humming, radio transmissions, whispering, motor noises, and so on).

Not me.

Gustatory - The false perception of tastes

I can't conclude whether they are false. For instance when I look at a person's neck and can taste what they are eating and it is in fact the taste of what they are eating. I don't know about this one.

Olfactory - The false perception of smells and scents (e.g., burning flesh, candles)

Not me. Except when I perceive that the human stomach smells like hydrochloric acid sometimes, but for all we know that would be a true perception or an association. Just like when people look at food and can almost "taste it", except that this comes from an image perceived in the mind and not perceived with eyesight.

Somatic - The false perception of processes and events that are happening inside the body or to the body (e.g., piercing objects, electricity running through one's extremities). Usually supported by an appropriate and relevant delusional content.

Not me.

Tactile - The false sensation of being touched, or crawled upon or that events and processes are taking place under one's skin. Usually supported by an appropriate and relevant delusional content.

No! Scary!

Visual - The false perception of objects, people, or events in broad daylight or in an illuminated environment with eyes wide open.

Only ghosts, except we don't know that they are false, and everytime I see them other people see them too. They manifest like white veils that have a partial human form. Often I say nothing, and wait for friends to say it first. This is the only unusual thing that I actually see with my eyes and in the physical world itself, but, others see it too. All other unusual things occur in my mind's awareness and not seen/projected around me.

Hypnagogic and Hypnopompic - Images and trains of events experienced while falling asleep or when waking up. Not hallucinations in the strict sense of the word.

Not me.

What can we conclude? Do we have a psychologist or psychiatrist among us?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Soapy Sam:
Thanks for stopping by to see if this nonsense is getting anywhere. I am having a study this week or next, read more about it on www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html) The procedure for the study and other details will be posted there shortly, so come see it again!

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
Let's keep that thread and I will answer in it when I find the time. Please allow that I prioritate this thread and the upcoming study, and I will post there when time allows.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Sheer and utter nonsense. I made the last post five days ago and asked but one single question. One. Since then you have responded multiple times to people here who have quoted and asked questions from the moderated thread.

It's a simple question: yes or no, though a no might require a bit of elaboration. However, since you have found time to write literally thousands of words since I asked the question, there is but one conclusion:

You're avoiding the question: If you performed at a level no better than chance, would you conclude that your perceptions are the result of something ordinary rather than the extraordinary claim of sensing vibrational information?

The perceptions have appeared to be accurate.

Telling you to be precise is getting old.

For many perceptions you haven't a clue about their accuracy. You tell the people you read not to take your seriously and to regard what you say as nonsense, then ask if you were right. No independent verification has been done.

A proper statement is, "For many of my perceptions I have no clue as to the accuracy one way or another. For some the only gauge of accuracy is to ask the person I'm reading if I'm accurate, but that's only after telling them not to take me seriously. So, really, I can't make any solid claims about my accuracy one way or another."

Proven phenomena, but have they been proven to apply to me?
We've been teaching. You're not learning. Go back and re-read my explanations about eliminating known phenomena.

I do realize that my experiences are not evidence to others, nor have I intended to present them as evidence to others.
Once again, nonsense. On your website you present your observations under a section titled How am I convinced that my ability is real and not just imagination?. There you point to your observations page and list things you claim to see in the body. You say, "I have not been incorrect a single time!" What's that if not evidence?

Seriously. What's the point of the website if not to provide evidence?

Your claim: If true would make you the first person on this planet with those abilities who bothered to go through this ordeal.
Red mine.
Again, nonsense. It's only an ordeal because you refuse to go about it properly. Everybody here has told you that they would have been tested years ago and done it properly.

Hell, just show up at any university, walk up to a physics professor, give him a once-over, then say, "I detect that you are missing a molar on the bottom left of your jaw. You have had a vasectomy where the vas was tied in a loop. You have a sharp pain in your left buttock. And you're color blind."

Then watch what happens.

Failed a test of my main claim of identifying medical information in people by seeing them? Nah. Disappeared before taking a test? :confused: I'm still here.
I am wondering if you are being deliberately obtuse, having language difficulties, or just aren't smart.

Suppose I say to a drunk driver, "you are doing the same thing as every other person we've seen get arrested or die in a car crash." It looks like you would say, "Well, I'm not dead or in jail. I'm confused."

If you can't understand the concept of a similar pattern being an indicator of a future conclusion, then it's no wonder you so easily discount cold reading.

chose not to
You chose not to demonstrate a very concise claim. Again.

Give me one example of when I disregarded the use of the scientific method in my investigation of my main claim of medical diagnose from live persons (ie. not photos or video).

Working from your observations page:

1) You did not research the nature of vasectomies before explaining what you saw.

2) You did not research the prevalence of peanut oil before claiming that frying with it was unusual.

3) You did not provide any detail whatsoever about the people you have read.

4) You did not research the location of the small intestine before incorrectly claiming that you spotted a problem with it at a location where it couldn't possibly exist.

Should I go on?

Don't just point out my shortcomings, teach me instead. When did I jump to false conclusions?
It started with holding crystals in your hand and believing you could see a light or glow coming from them without ever actually testing this theory. It's been downhill ever since.

People grounded in reality who experience the unusual do not look to the supernatural for explanations without at least eliminating all the natural causes including being mistaken or self-deceiving.

(I could present a long list of where you skeptics jumped to false conclusions, but let's just leave it at that.)
Actually, you could present a long list of instances where you presented incomplete information in an imprecise way. But unlike you, the skeptics have admitted their mistakes. You haven't.

[TheSkepticCanuck]

skeen:
!!! But when I do respond to every single comment I get criticized for the wall of texts!

It is not the length of the "wall of text" that people complain about. It is the lack of useful and relevant information in any of them and the lack of progress shown in them that people complain about. If the post needs to be long, then it needs to be long. However, don't keep writing long walls of text just to rehash the same points over and over again. If you have answered a question or concern a number of times, just say that the issue was raised and addressed, and link back to the post where it was addressed. The only new answers to previously addressed issues should be to clear up misunderstandings from the previous posts, and then any future links can refer back to the post with the new updated answer.

As for the psychological assessment, this would be a good idea for a number of reasons, the best reason for you would probably be that if you had it done, and got a clean bill of health, then you could put that issue to rest once and for all, and that possible explanation would be taken off the table. Part of scientific exploration is eliminating alternate theories in a scientific manner until all possibilities but the truth have been eliminated. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once stated, through the character of Sherlock Holmes, "Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." If you think that a mental disorder is impossible, then test for it, and eliminate it. If you cannot eliminate it, due to being assessed with some psychological disorder, then that opens up another avenue of research into your perceptions. A good scientist does not reject possible explanations arbitrarily, just because they do not fit their pet theories. Modify the theory to fit the evidence. Do not modify the evidence to fit the theory.

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
I have not had such tests at school. I've had experiences, that's all.
"I also used my ability to help me in the chemical identification exercise in a chemistry lab."

Seems like it possibly, but is not so. I am still considering having additional tests, but I have to work out a way to make maybe five trials at a time and then rest a few days in between, and then to add the series of trials together. The headache and nausea comes from forcing myself to make tens of perceptions within a few hours, when normally I only have one every few weeks or so. I regret the inconvenience but that's how it is.

Wow.

Now it's up to needing a few days of rest. First, there was no mention of feeling ill. When called on it, you say you should have told us earlier. Now, when presented with a test protocol to work around your actual claims about how you felt and what you intended to do, you bring up a new obstacle: needing to rest for a few days.

Gee. What else aren't you telling us?

Then how come headache and nausea appear first, and my stamina to perform is reduced after? Hm.

Deliberately obtuse, language problem or stupidity? I asked how *we* could know the answer. You telling us to trust you is not an option, especially when keep adding new details after the fact (nausea, stamina).

[Uncayimmy]

This is an improper way of twisting my words by the way. And we've already established that I do not have schizotypal disorder by virtue of the little checklist that was posted earlier.

How can we expect a delusional person to answer accurately and honestly about being delusional? Therefore, we cannot eliminate it as a possibility. On little Wiki checklist doesn't mean squat. If we haven't disproven it, then you can't say it's not possible.

It's the same argument you make about ESP only in this case, mental illness has been scientifically documented in millions of people whereas ESP has yet to have on verified person.

[VisionFromFeeling]

I've updated my main page www.visionfromfeeling.com

This webpage is about my extrasensory perception medical perceptions that allows enable me to know about the describe health condition information of people.

Follow my progress in having my ability perceptions scientifically tested and hopefully verified!

You can follow the discussion about my ability this investigation on the JREF Forum at the following two discussions threads

Progress, thanks to my skeptics here. :) I have no intention of saying things that aren't so.
It is a language issue, that's all.

[Uncayimmy]

Regarding the link that was provided by UncaYimmy about psychosis, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/psychosis-delusions-personality-disorders.html, I've read it carefully and here is my response (if anyone is curious):

You brought this up publicly, so I'm only going along.

Psychotics are fully aware of events and people "out there". They cannot, however separate data and experiences originating in the outside world from information generated by internal mental processes. They confuse the external universe with their inner emotions, cognitions, preconceptions, fears, expectations, and representations.

I most definitely can separate between the unusual perceptions and those that result from ordinary senses. I have no confusion between myself and the external universe. The reason I initiated this paranormal investigation is because I've experienced correlation between the perceptions and with facts, not because of my interpretation of correlation, but by impersonal confirmation. And all that concludes is to have a test.

Wow. How do you know you can? In my case I don't have any beliefs about myself that I have not seen documented scientifically. Nobody has every told me I do. Of course, that could be a disorder where I forget that people tell me I have bizarre beliefs. It's possible, but extremely unlikely because I've never seen it documented. But then again, that, too, could be part of my disorder. So either I'm severely delusional or I'm not at all. If I am, how come I can live a stable life? But maybe I'm really not. Maybe I'm strapped down to a bed like in St. Elsewhere.

You, on the other hand, believe things never proven to be true and have been repeatedly told that you hold bizarre beliefs (ghosts, incarnations, your medical/chemical claims). You acknowledge this as fact. You just choose not to acknowledge what this might mean.


Consequently, both psychotics and the personality disordered have a distorted view of reality and are not rational. No amount of objective evidence can cause them to doubt or reject their hypotheses and convictions. Full-fledged psychosis involves complex and ever more bizarre delusions and the unwillingness to confront and consider contrary data and information (preoccupation with the subjective rather than the objective). Thought becomes utterly disorganized and fantastic.

I am very rational. I just have unusual experiences, but the experiences do not come about by choice, it is not as if I've "rationalized myself into allowing them to occur". I rationally decide to have a scientific test to establish the objective truth behind my interestingly accurate perceptions. I love objective evidence, I am a scientist science student. There is nothing I enjoy more than reading about some concept of physics that defies all everyday experience and to take it as truth simply because it is proven with objective scientific verification and is agreed to by the scientific community, even if I can't visualize it right away. This paragraph didn't apply to me.

I contend you are rejecting objective evidence and are unwilling to confront contradictory data.

You claimed you could read photos and video, but when met with failure, you dropped it down to just sometimes.
You claimed you could identify chemicals, but then stopped testing when the results were less than accurate.
You claimed you could do vibrational algebra, but refuse to demonstrate it.
You claimed to detect a vasectomy, but when you presented with an opportunity for an objective test, you claimed you could not detect any in your study at the mall.
You refuse in general to test small and simple things and insist on only testing the most difficult and time-consuming claims.
You refuse to involve your instructors who are experts in quantum mechanics.


The DSM-IV-TR defines psychosis as "restricted to delusions or prominent hallucinations, with the hallucinations occurring in the absence of insight into their pathological nature".

I experience perceptions, impressions, of tissue, and do not consider the perceptions to be pathological. Most people experience periods of having random strange thoughts that they can not stop or control and I don't even have that.

You said that you cannot control some perceptions because they are so strong. In this case pathological means highly abnormal. Billions of people on the planet, only one Vision From Feeling. Can't get much more abnormal than that unless you had an identical twin.


A delusion is "a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary".

Aha! I am not delusional! So stop it, everyone! There is no belief behind my perceptions, they are images and impressions, that's all, and I do not automatically place belief into them. They are also not firmly sustained, I am open to finding out that they'd not always be accurate. And as a scientist science student I would never find it in me to reject incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence.

Anita, that paragraph describes you perfectly. Your only defense is that there is "no belief" behind your impressions. C'mon, if there was no belief, you wouldn't have created a website and announced your claim on at least three different skeptic websites.

A hallucination is a "sensory perception that has the compelling sense of reality of a true perception but that occurs without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ".
Aha! Yet again from a third definition my perceptions are not hallucinations! My perceptions do not come with a compelling sense of reality of a true perception! But they do however occur without external stimulation of the relevant sensory organ.

You claim to have seen ghosts and spoken with them. You claim to fear some of them and joke with others.

Delusion is, therefore, a belief, idea, or conviction firmly held despite abundant information to the contrary. The partial or complete loss of reality test is the first indication of a psychotic state or episode. (...) There are many types of delusions:

My belief is to proceed toward a scientific test to find out what the actual accuracy is and what the actual origin of the information is. There has been no information contrary to this belief.

The evidence is that no other person in the history of mankind has scientifically demonstrated what you claim. The "evidence" leading you to this test is regarded by the scientifically minded people here as wholly unworthy of testing for validity. The evidence points to other known phenomena, yet you refuse to let go of the possibility of something never proven.

I. Paranoid
The belief that one is being controlled or persecuted by stealth powers and conspiracies. This is common in the Paranoid, Antisocial, Narcissistic, Borderline, Avoidant, and Dependent Personality Disorders.

Not me.
Agreed.

2. Grandiose-magical
The conviction that one is important, omnipotent, possessed of occult powers, or a historic figure. Narcissists invariably harbor such delusions.
Hm, yes. I feel important because I aspire to make progress within the field of medical technology, meanwhile I think everyone is important in their own way, and this is just what give meaning to my own existence. Omnipotent I am not, I've got shortcomings. Well, experience suggests that I might have some powers, but tests will establish whether I am entitled to take it as a conviction.
It is grandiose to believe that you have a power never, ever seen before in recorded history.

Hallucinations are false perceptions based on false sensa (sensory input) not triggered by any external event or entity. The patient is usually not psychotic - he is aware that he what he sees, smells, feels, or hears is not there. Still, some psychotic states are accompanied by hallucinations.

The perceptions are triggered by external events or entities. The perceptions are what I automatically associate to when exposed to external things.

That does not apply to your ghost stories or claims of being an incarnation of a distant star.

There are a few classes of hallucinations:
Auditory - The false perception of voices and sounds (such as buzzing, humming, radio transmissions, whispering, motor noises, and so on).

Not me.
You claim to talk with ghosts and hear them moving around.

Gustatory - The false perception of tastes

I can't conclude whether they are false. For instance when I look at a person's neck and can taste what they are eating and it is in fact the taste of what they are eating. I don't know about this one.
You claim to taste what others taste without that substance touching your tongue, but don't consider that a false perception? Nobody has ever proven they can do that.

Olfactory - The false perception of smells and scents (e.g., burning flesh, candles)

Not me. Except when I perceive that the human stomach smells like hydrochloric acid sometimes, but for all we know that would be a true perception or an association. Just like when people look at food and can almost "taste it", except that this comes from an image perceived in the mind and not perceived with eyesight.

Not you. Except it is you.

Somatic - The false perception of processes and events that are happening inside the body or to the body (e.g., piercing objects, electricity running through one's extremities). Usually supported by an appropriate and relevant delusional content.

Not me.
What about your claims regarding seeing through the eyes of another person? What about how you told me that you perceive what your partner feels when having sex?

Tactile - The false sensation of being touched, or crawled upon or that events and processes are taking place under one's skin. Usually supported by an appropriate and relevant delusional content.

No! Scary!
You wrote, "The girl started pushing on me with all her might, "Get out of my house!" And you know what? I was experiencing an actual physical push."

Visual - The false perception of objects, people, or events in broad daylight or in an illuminated environment with eyes wide open.

Only ghosts, except we don't know that they are false, and everytime I see them other people see them too. They manifest like white veils that have a partial human form. Often I say nothing, and wait for friends to say it first. This is the only unusual thing that I actually see with my eyes and in the physical world itself, but, others see it too. All other unusual things occur in my mind's awareness and not seen/projected around me.
Yeh. Ghosts. Sigh. I don't want to re-explain practical reliability, but suffice it to say that despite thousands of years of ghost stories and testing, no scientific proof exists. There's no way to *prove* something doesn't exist, but if we perform a gazillion tests and fail to prove it does exist, then we've met our burden.

Hypnagogic and Hypnopompic - Images and trains of events experienced while falling asleep or when waking up. Not hallucinations in the strict sense of the word.

Not me.
Okay.

What can we conclude? Do we have a psychologist or psychiatrist among us?

Here's what *I* would conclude if I were in your shoes: I'd make a few visits to the university clinic. Seriously.

If I had several people telling me that I might suffer from delusions, I would check it out. You have one lady who has 30 years of experience with schizotypal disorders telling you to check it out. You have me, whom you have acknowledged as at least fairly decent at scientific analysis (you used the term brilliant). Several others here have all said the same thing. Would you let us do a poll about it? Would a vote make a difference? How about private messages? Maybe people should PM you if they think you should at least consult a medical health professional.

We have nothing to gain by making this recommendation. You have nothing to lose by going. You can still do all your studies and tests, just make a few visits and bring along *everything* you've written here and on your website, including the ghost stories.

When going through my divorce ages ago, a couple of people said that I seemed to be depressed and having some anxiety issues. I didn't think that I was, but I agreed to see a therapist for a few sessions.

At that same time my ex reacted very poorly to me in an e-mail exchange. I was totally caught off guard that what I had written could promote such a reaction. So I printed out and gave to the therapist every e-mail we had exchanged since we had split up (long story, but that was the bulk of our communication at the time).

Why? Because I figured that one or both of us (wife and I) were way out of line. I figured if it were me, then I couldn't trust my perceptions to be accurate, so I giving her an *exact* accounting was the only way to go.

The result? My perceptions about the exchange were accurate, which was further evidenced that summer as my ex did a number of other strange things to what are now her ex friends.

As for the depression, it turns out I *was* suffering from depression but didn't realize it. It also turns out that in my teens I probably had a bout with depression and probably one other time in the intervening years. Those four sessions taught me a lot.

To this day I am aware that I might suffer from depression again. Though I understand the warning signs, I still look to others (my current wife) to double-check my perceptions.

Mental illness is just an illness like any other illness. It's nothing to be ashamed of. If you expect your friend to get his heart checked out because of your unproven vision, then why not trust a group of skeptics (of all people) who suggest you might have a problem based on reading thousands of your words and looking at articles written by experts?

[Uncayimmy]

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once stated, through the character of Sherlock Holmes, "Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I snipped all the solid advice. I just wanted to mention that Doyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Conan_Doyle)was a spiritualist who believed in fairies. This only goes to show that you need to do more than just pay lip service to the scientific method.

[Sideroxylon]

I've updated my main page www.visionfromfeeling.com

This webpage is about my extrasensory perception medical perceptions that allows enable me to know about the describe health condition information of people.

Follow my progress in having my ability perceptions scientifically tested and hopefully verified!

You can follow the discussion about my ability this investigation on the JREF Forum at the following two discussions threads

Progress, thanks to my skeptics here. :) I have no intention of saying things that aren't so.
It is a language issue, that's all.

How about this addition?

This webpage is about my supposition that I possess medical perceptions that enable me to describe health information of people.

[Old man]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling View Post
Regarding the link that was provided by UncaYimmy about psychosis, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/psych...disorders.html, I've read it carefully and here is my response (if anyone is curious):
You brought this up publicly, so I'm only going along... Thank you, UncaYimmy! Your response was spot on, and I’m so relieved that you did it.

Anita, I have a couple of more things to add to my last post.

You’ve asked me for examples of your exaggerations. This is a fine one. Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling View Post
You'd be surprised how it really is. No scientist reveals their ideas until they can do so in a way that ensures that if they've discovered something they get the credit for it. You'd also be surprised how much scientists steal others' ideas. Insider information. You’re a second or third year under graduate student. You’re 26 years old. YOU DO NOT KNOW ANY SCIENTISTS, at least not well enough to make a sweeping generalization like this!

And, if you have met one who seemed hesitant to talk about his theory(ies), it was because he hadn’t yet gathered enough data to support it, NOT because he was ‘afraid’ that you’d steal it! Come on, get a grip, girl. :(

[Belz...]

I think we will all be happier once I simply disregard these repeated comments from you guys. I want no criticism from anyone regarding that I begin to ignore questions and comments.

In other words you came here looking for blind support, got caught at your own game, find yourself incapable of dealing with it, and would rather ignore the things that do not fit with your preconceived ideas.

Where have I seen that before ... ?

[Belz...]

GeeMack:
I have experienced correlation between my medical perceptions and actual health conditions. Not because I think so. Not because I believe so. Not because I want it to be so. But because it's been so.

How in the blue hell COULD you tell the difference between those possibilities unless you TEST for them ? You keep saying that you're open to be tested and proven wrong but your posts betray you and tell a different story.

[Soapy Sam]

Guys- I think some of you have done a fine job in this thread.
You have been fair . You have been patient. You have been kind.

But after all this, the contradictions contiinue to mount and the claims grow less, rather than more rational.
I suggest continuing with this is certainly doing no good and may be doing actual harm.
If VfF is tested, we will see the results. If not, further discussion seems unlikely to yield anything but more of the same.

[Ashles]

Is not visual perception of a person a stimulus?
Oh a completely different question?
Let me spell it out clearly using simple words (how on earth do you cope with lectures?)
It is NOT a stimulus for whatever you are describing.

It IS a stimulus for your visual receptors. It is a stimulus for seeing the person. But I wasn't aware your claim is that you are able to see people.

If I get information about the temperature in a room it's not due to the visual stimulus of a table.

Your claim is that you are receiving stimulus of a nature unknown to science. This is what we question.
So at the moment the doubt is surrounding whether you are receiving actual external stimuli conveying genuine information, or whether the sensations are entirely in your imagination/hallucinations.

So, nice try with yet another red herring but it doesn't change the central question.
I wonder how many more times I am going to have to explain this exact same thing to you?

'Brilliant student' was it?

[Old man]

So, nice try with yet another red herring but it doesn't change the central question.
I wonder how many more times I am going to have to explain this exact same thing to you?

'Brilliant student' was it? Amazing, isn't it? Deliberately obtuse comes to mind. :boggled:

ETA: How can she maintain a 4.0, and have such a poor comprehension of English??????

[Akhenaten]

Soapy Sam:
Thanks for stopping by to see if this nonsense is getting anywhere. I am having a study this week or next, read more about it on www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html) The procedure for the study and other details will be posted there shortly, so come see it again!

Your gratuitous sprinkling of that page with references and links to this site, and particularly to this thread, speaks volumes. I'd even be annoyed by it except that a foot-bullet like that provokes more pity than vexation.

[Cuddles]

Is not visual perception of a person a stimulus?

No, of course it isn't. You keep using the word "perception" as if you think it means something is real. It doesn't. A stimulus would be, for example, the light reflected from a person onto your retina. The perception would be seeing the person. However, it is entirely possible to have the perception of seeing a person without having the stimulus of reflected light present. That would be a hallucination. This sort of thing happens all the time, in dreams for example, but if it happens during everyday life when it wouldn't be expected, then there may be a problem.

We are quite willing to accept that you have certain perceptions that other people don't (although I should point out that we actually have no evidence of this). However, you have so far provided exactly nothing to make anyone think those perceptions have anything to do with external reality and are not simply created inside your own head. To a certain extent this kind of thing is part of the normal working of the human brain. For example, filling in the details of a partially obscured face or seeing a 3D world even when one eye is closed.

The trouble is, it can malfunction. Most often this would happen when the brain is presented with a situation for which it is not prepared or which may be superficially similar to other situations. Paredolia is the name given to a lot of these situations, and is responsible for all kinds of ghost stories, UFO reports and so on. However, it can be more than this. Synaesthesia is an example of exactly this, where the brain consistently fills in certain details incorrectly. More extreme would be outright hallucinations, where the brain fills in images or other perceptions in the absence of any relevant input at all.

I would not say your medical claims are generally hallucinations. They sound a lot like the claims of people who see auras. The input is there, it's just that your brain misinterprets or adds something so that your perception is not an accurate reflection of reality. However, I think the main point you differ is that where auras are easily interpreted and described as a coloured glow around a person, you have no way to describe what you see to someone who doesn't see it, and therefore have jumped on several different sciency-sounding ideas as explanations. Your perceptions are likely no more mysterious or pathological than those of many other people, they are just harder for you to describe and therefore harder for you to explain.

This is what you need to accept, and it is your refusal to do so is why people keep saying that you are not being scientific or skeptical. One of the most important things in scientific testing is the null hypothesis - what would happen if the hypothesis you are testing is incorrect. Almost all tests involve trying to prove the null hypothesis, not trying to prove a positive one. By insisting that your perceptions are real, you are denying that the null hypothesis even exists, and making any scientific test virtually impossible. It doesn't matter how sure you are that you are seeing things that are really there, you have to accept the possibility that it is all in your head, otherwise there is no point in having any tests in the first place.

[Soapy Sam]

Your gratuitous sprinkling of that page with references and links to this site, and particularly to this thread, speaks volumes. I'd even be annoyed by it except that a foot-bullet like that provokes more pity than vexation.

Slightly puzzled. You addressing VfF or me?

[Ashles]

UncaYimmy:
Let's keep that thread and I will answer in it when I find the time. Please allow that I prioritate this thread and the upcoming study, and I will post there when time allows.
I find it interesting that Anita prioritises this thread which, by her own statements, she considers full of irrelevancies and repetition, and ignores the specially set up other thread with a single poster asking direct questions.
And she prioritises her own subjective studies over a proper independent test.




If I can build on Unca Yimmy's list to recap where I feel we are at the moment with this claim:

Anita claimed she could read photos and video, but when met with failure, she dropped it down to just sometimes.
Anita claimed she could identify chemicals, but then stopped testing when the results were less than accurate.
Anita claimed she could do vibrational algebra, but refused to demonstrate it. Even using dummy data.
Anita claimed to detect a vasectomy, but when presented with an opportunity for an objective test, she claimed she could not detect any in her study at the mall.
Anita refuses in general to test small and simple things and insists on only testing the most difficult and time-consuming claims.
Anita refuses to involve her instructors who are experts in quantum mechanics.
Anita has approached a Professor of Physics, later upgraded to "three of my favorite professors". None of these Professors has apparently been interested in testing what might be the greatest discovery of the last thousand years.
Anita claims she is going to use this ability (despite not knowing the technology, maths or even terminology to describe the ability) to build futuristic health devices using optical technology. She refuses to detail in what way she intends to use this ability , citing security and patent reasons. She also refuses to describe any optical equipment currently existing she would use for Vibrational Expreimentation.
Anita claims she could, if she wanted, describe the mechanism behind her ability in more detail to a Professor of Physics and they would accept the explanation. But she refuses to provide it here, maintaining a level of scientific description no higher than layman level. It is unclear whether she has provided this detailed explanation to the three "favorite professors" and they have chosen not to explore it further, or whether she has, for some reason, simply not told them
Anita continually blames IIG for delays in forming a protocol for testing
Anita has claimed the ability to experience the effect of chemicals in objects viewed only as images from Scanning Electron Miscroscopes. Despite how easily testable this might be there appears to be no plans to test this latest ability.
Anita is conducting yet further 'studies' despite being informed by absolutely everybody here that independent testing is the only real way forward at this point
Anita still does not seem to understand that the sensations she is experiencing are not confirmed as resulting from real external information/stimulus, thus cannot accurately be referred to as resulting from Stimuli until confirmed by independent testing
Anita is generating new claims and abilities faster than the previous ones can be adequately discussed and focused on.
Anita's fatigue and recovery time have apparently changed throughout the course of this thread.
Anita assumes her own recollections and perceptions to be entirely accurate despite it being repeatedly explained that there is no way she can make such a gurantee.
Independent testing does not appear likely at the moment.

[Pup]

Pup:

So you're saying you can look at an unidentified medicine, and say what effect it will have on an average healthy person?

It is something I experience. I do experience perceiving medical effects when I look at an unknown medicine or substance, and I have experienced correlation to their actual effects, but only a test can conclude whether this in fact takes place or not. Until a test indicates something, treat it as just anecdotes.


See, that's an example of the kind of thing you mention, that would be an amazing ability that would change science as we know it, and you say you can do it without any hesitation. Definitely a million dollar prize winner.

This is an experience and not a claim. Yet I would be more than willing to test it just to find out.

Frankly, I don't believe you can. I believe the ability will mysteriously fade when actually tested.

I would not object to that. It doesn't really matter.

Pill manufacturers add colorings and arbitrarily choose the shape of pills, and that doesn't seem to affect your ability. So can you do it without seeing the normal shape and color of a pill, as long as the medicine is still effective? Otherwise, you're just guessing from the outward appearance of the pills like anyone else, and not really seeing their "vibrational aspect."

I'm not so sure, I experience specific effects and I don't think guessing could do it. Just my experience of it, that's all.

Have someone crush a few different pills into powder and mix the powder with a drop or two of food coloring, so you can't recognize them by their shape or color, and put each bit of powder into a different numbered cup, set a list of what they are on the table, and leave. You come in and write down which numbered cup is the aspirin, which number is the diuretic, which number is the anti-depressant, which is the antihistamine, and so forth.

Thank you, I will try to arrange that.

Okay, here's the deal. PM me with a mailing address, and I will mail an envelope with several numbered ziplock bags, each containing a pill that's been crushed and colored with food coloring, but is otherwise unchanged, so it would still have its usual effect on the human body if ingested. There will also be a list of what the pills are.

When you receive it, only look at the powders, without using any scientific instruments or non-paranormal means of identifying them, and post here what pill each number is, and afterwards, I'll post the answers.

Obviously, this isn't a scientific test. I could cheat by lying about the numbers, and you could cheat by tasting, chemically analyzing or otherwise identifying the pills by normal means. But if you cheat, it would be found out immediately in more rigorous tests, and if I cheat, it would be pointless because you could still easily prove your ability in more rigorous tests, if it was real.

All I ask is that if this ability doesn't work after being tested to your satisfaction, you consider the possibility that maybe your other abilities aren't receiving real information through paranormal channels either. In other words, if you truly believe you're perceiving accurate medical effects and yet it turns out you're not, you can't just say, "Well, I don't have that ability, but I'm still sure I have this ability" without some serious self-doubts. Otherwise, your abilities become like the God of the Gaps. Maybe they only work face-to-face with adults, on Tuesdays, when it's raining, but you'd need to do a study to be sure. Eliminating every possibility would take a lifetime.

If the ability does work, then all I ask is that you cut me in on 10% of your Nobel prize and 1% of your million from the JREF. :D Seriously, if you do have these abilities, it would be the coolest thing ever and I'd love to play even a small part in the discovery. I just don't think you or anyone does.

[Moochie]

And we haven't even gotten to the hatch yet...


M.

[Locknar]

Pup:

Quote:
So you're saying you can look at an unidentified medicine, and say what effect it will have on an average healthy person?
It is something I experience. I do experience perceiving medical effects when I look at an unknown medicine or substance, and I have experienced correlation to their actual effects, but only a test can conclude whether this in fact takes place or not. Until a test indicates something, treat it as just anecdotes.
Given you've claimed this gives you headaches and nausea, it must be unbearable for you to enter a drug store.

Does this apply to "medicine" only, or everything in general? For example, if you were to look at a bottle of whiskey would you perceive any effects? What about say ground beef?

[VisionFromFeeling]

Dear Skeptics,
Here is a wall of text lovingly composed in response to the beautiful wall of text you all so thoughtfully put together for me. What better gift from me than the very same.

nathan:
That you need a person in front of you to have perceptions of their organs (or whatever), is not evidence that the perceptions of their organs (or whatever) is not a hallucination.
On your own, you cannot prove you are not having hallucinations.
I've known someone who had auditory hallucinations, it was utterly impossible to convince them that they were hallucinating. Going by the three definitions of hallucination that were posted here on the thread, the perceptions were by those definitions not defined as hallucinations. I suppose neither of us then are qualified to diagnose what the perceptions are. And on the contrary to this person you knew, I have not concluded that the perceptions would be something entirely reality based, I consider them to be impressions that so far have shown good correlation with alleged actual health information, and I am perfectly capable of embracing evidence that reveals what they are.

Locknar:
When I said, "When did I jump to false conclusions?", you said that I had done so by stating that I have synesthesia. I did the online evaluation at www.synesthete.org which concluded that I do in fact have synesthesia.

UncaYimmy:
You're avoiding the question: If you performed at a level no better than chance, would you conclude that your perceptions are the result of something ordinary rather than the extraordinary claim of sensing vibrational information?I can't believe this! Not again! Since I've specificly answered this question every time it has been posted, again and again, on this thread, I refuse to answer it again, just because I say so. I will have to make you go back to previous pages, scroll and search, until you come across at least one of the places where I've clearly and specificly answered to this question, with a simple and straightforward 'yes'. I've answered this already! I don't avoid questions! :mad:
We've been teaching. You're not learning. Go back and re-read my explanations about eliminating known phenomena.And the elimination of known phenomena is applied in the upcoming study!
Seriously. What's the point of the website if not to provide evidence? There is no formal evidence yet to provide. The purpose of my website is to inform about my experience with the medical perceptions and about the work behind having it scientifically tested. Once evidence for or against is attained, it will of course be posted there.
Again, nonsense. It's only an ordeal because you refuse to go about it properly. Everybody here has told you that they would have been tested years ago and done it properly. I only started this investigation a year and a half ago, and more than a year of this time was engaged in a waiting game with the IIG (which is still in progress). And as soon as local skeptics explained to me that I need to form a clearer claim I embraced the idea of conducting a study which leads to forming a stronger and clearer claim. Then there was the concern of how to check for accuracy without harming volunteers, and that is a problem you (thank you very much) have found a way around. I am working on it. Just not as fast as some might ask of me. Impatience, not incompetence. That's all.
2) You did not research the prevalence of peanut oil before claiming that frying with it was unusual.My claim that peanut oil is unusual is an absolutely correct statement, since it is unusual based on my background and experience. And that is a correct statement. Even though I don't have evidence of this, but I guess I could gather up everyone I ever knew in Sweden and have them mail us a description of what oil they use, and then have some of our more statistically knowledgeable members give us a professional analysis and get back with the results.
4) You did not research the location of the small intestine before incorrectly claiming that you spotted a problem with it at a location where it couldn't possibly exist. I was describing what I perceived, pure and simple. Any research into human anatomy and illness would not have changed what I saw.
People grounded in reality who experience the unusual do not look to the supernatural for explanations without at least eliminating all the natural causes including being mistaken or self-deceiving.BUT I KNOW THAT!! :mad: I've had everyday experiences where I look at a person and perceive images and then describe my perception of their health, and have had incredible cases of accuracy. I am therefore now proceeding to have proper tests that eliminate cold reading, so I am doing exactly what I am supposed to do. All I see here on this thread is the impatience from you guys. You criticize me for various things that I have not done and should have done, when in fact I am proceeding toward doing those exact things. The only concern here is impatience.

TheSkepticCanuck:
It is not the length of the "wall of text" that people complain about. It is the lack of useful and relevant information in any of them and the lack of progress shown in them that people complain about. As long as you guys post nonsense, my replies will be nonsense too. Nonsense like whether I'm from Sweden or not, false accusations that I am delusional when then it turns out that according to the definition I am not, and a lot of garbage like that. I never get a chance to post useful information. Lack of progress? Impatience.
However, don't keep writing long walls of text just to rehash the same points over and over again. And the very same goes to you skeptics. I keep receiving the same questions over and over again, like UncaYimmy previously asking me the same question I've already answered many times before with a very clear and concise 'yes'. However that gives me a great idea to prepare a FrequentlyAskedQuestions for my website. And when ever someone asks a questions that has been asked and answered in the past, all I have to do is refer them to that page. Brilliant, and time saving.
The only new answers to previously addressed issues should be to clear up misunderstandings from the previous postsAnd this consumes a lot of time and thread-space. There are a lot of misunderstandings here one after the other.
As for the psychological assessment, this would be a good idea for a number of reasons, the best reason for you would probably be that if you had it done, and got a clean bill of health, then you could put that issue to rest once and for all, and that possible explanation would be taken off the table. Part of scientific exploration is eliminating alternate theories in a scientific manner until all possibilities but the truth have been eliminated. I agree with that, it is a good idea.
A good scientist does not reject possible explanations arbitrarily, just because they do not fit their pet theories. Modify the theory to fit the evidence. Do not modify the evidence to fit the theory. What you guys don't realize is that my anecdotes took place as described, or at least it is part of my claim that they did. Of course they are not evidence for ESP, but they allow for this investigation to take place.

[desertgal]

false accusations that I am delusional when and then it turns out that according to the definition I am not

The surest way to incorrectly diagnose a possible mental disorder is to self diagnose it.

You ARE delusional. The definition of delusional describes you perfectly. The only person here who doesn't see that is you - because you are delusional.

And 'round and 'round we go.

Among the classic symptoms of most personality disorders is denial and/or self deception. Usually, it takes a direct intervention for the person to get help. But, don't worry. I'm sure you'll be hearing from your student advisor very soon.

[TheSkepticCanuck]

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once stated, through the character of Sherlock Holmes, "Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
I snipped all the solid advice. I just wanted to mention that Doyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Conan_Doyle)was a spiritualist who believed in fairies. This only goes to show that you need to do more than just pay lip service to the scientific method.

Yeah, he had his faults, but he did give us fingerprinting as a means of identification, and using plaster to make casts of footprints, so I can let the woo aspects of his personality slide, especially since he's dead and can't correct it, no matter how much we prove him wrong. :D Besides, he didn't go wacky until he had several tragedies in his life. Before that time, he was an inventive investigator and did some great things.

[nathan]

nathan:
... I have not concluded that the perceptions would be something entirely reality based, I consider them to be impressions that so far have shown good correlation with alleged actual health information, and I am perfectly capable of embracing evidence that reveals what they are.

I see you're incapable of recognizing contradiction.

[TheSkepticCanuck]

However, don't keep writing long walls of text just to rehash the same points over and over again. And the very same goes to you skeptics. I keep receiving the same questions over and over again, like UncaYimmy previously asking me the same question I've already answered many times before with a very clear and concise 'yes'. However that gives me a great idea to prepare a FrequentlyAskedQuestions for my website. And when ever someone asks a questions that has been asked and answered in the past, all I have to do is refer them to that page. Brilliant, and time saving.

There you go. That would work just fine. That is exactly what a FAQ is for.

A good scientist does not reject possible explanations arbitrarily, just because they do not fit their pet theories. Modify the theory to fit the evidence. Do not modify the evidence to fit the theory.
What you guys don't realize is that my anecdotes took place as described, or at least it is part of my claim that they did. Of course they are not evidence for ESP, but they allow for this investigation to take place.

I was not referring to previous claims. I was giving this advice for use in the study and all future testing of various claims. If the evidence provided through the study and testing does not support the theory, then the theory needs to be thrown out the window, so to speak, and a new theory formed, based on the currently available evidence.

[Locknar]

Locknar:
When I said, "When did I jump to false conclusions?", you said that I had done so by stating that I have synesthesia. I did the online evaluation at www.synesthete.org which concluded that I do in fact have synesthesia.
Taking a test on the Internet, self diagnoses, or wishing does not make it so. You have not been medically diagnosed by a neurologist.

[Locknar]

I see you're incapable of recognizing contradiction.Why does this thread make me wanna corn dog? :)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Tabarnaque! :scared:

[skeen]

Sorry, even though I vowed not to post in this thread anymore, a couple of things peaked my interest:

It has been a year and a half since you embarked on this, and have still proven absolutely nothing? For Christ sake, Anita! Simply walk up to someone who is likely to be skeptical and tell them what you see!!! The rest will fall into place. This is crazy! Pick any of the professors in your University!

It is also extremely suspect that you claim to have told, and or demonstrated this ability to professor(s), and none of them have followed up on it. What the hell should that tell you? This is the greatest discovery in all of human history!

And your insistence on having synesthesia is just plain bizarre. You certainly haven't convinced me that you have it, and you still have no medical diagnoses for it. This is out-of-this-world irrationality. Why should we believe you have synesthesia when you are so clearly lying, or deluded about so many other aspects of what you're claiming? It is this one claim that leads me to believe that more than being delusional, you're a compulsive liar.

And all of this, and we're only at the stage where you're gearing up for a study. Not even a test. Not even a simple test. No, a study, which will conclude nothing that we haven't already learned by now.

This ability should work on animals. If it doesn't, well that makes no goddamn sense whatsoever. It should, though. So to ease some of your false concerns, how about you go and ask pet owners when you "see" ailments in pets? You're always right, afterall. If you are correct, they will be hugely impressed, and again, everything will fall into place. You'll be on the news by the end of the week.

If you're wrong, simply say thank you and walk on. Nothing bad will happen.

Anita, you are not going to do any of what I have suggested. You're going to have concerns, and reasons why you can't do this, and they're going to seem legitimate in your mind. But read this carefully: they are not legitimate concerns. Your mind is preventing you from discovering you have no special abilities. Please, wake up.

It is beyond the point where I am fascinated by your mental condition. I am actually sort of concerned. I can see the wall of logical separation that is fighting you, preventing you from discovering the truth, and so can everyone else.

Why won't you do as I suggested, and end all of this? Really, really, really think about it.

[Uncayimmy]

Locknar:
When I said, "When did I jump to false conclusions?", you said that I had done so by stating that I have synesthesia. I did the online evaluation at www.synesthete.org which concluded that I do in fact have synesthesia.


1) This was *after* you made the claim. You made the conclusion first, then looked for evidence.

2) And the test did not "conclude" anything. It ranked your score as synesthetic. That's not a conclusion.

3) The test is unreliable. Log in as JimOnBass at azwebpages.com with the password VFF. You will see that I was able to score as synesthetic as well.

The next step for you is to take the test that *I* designed because the ability is unique to the individual, so the test must be tailored to the individual. My test won't allow some moderately clever fellow like myself to fake a synesthetic score.

I can't believe this! Not again! Since I've specificly answered this question every time it has been posted, again and again, on this thread, I refuse to answer it again, just because I say so.

Okay. I will ask the moderators to close the moderated interview thread since you refuse to answer the question again despite your willingness to answer the questions about your ability for the umpteenth time. The whole purpose of the thread was to give a clear cut explanation of your claims without having to wade through the 1,000+ posts.

I guess the experiment proved it wasn't worth the effort.

My claim that peanut oil is unusual is an absolutely correct statement, since it is unusual based on my background and experience. And that is a correct statement. Even though I don't have evidence of this, but I guess I could gather up everyone I ever knew in Sweden and have them mail us a description of what oil they use, and then have some of our more statistically knowledgeable members give us a professional analysis and get back with the results.

First, you were wrong. Period. Peanut oil is sold in three gallon containers at Wal Mart, so obviously it cannot be unusual.

Your defense is that YOUR background is limited. That doesn't change a wrong answer.

The issue here is the scientific method. Don't assume anything. If you're going to make a claim about something, know your facts. It would have taken you 30 seconds to type "Peanut Oil" into Google and found out just how commonly it is used and sold.

I was describing what I perceived, pure and simple. Any research into human anatomy and illness would not have changed what I saw.

So why even bother with any testing? You were wrong about seeing the intestine where you did.

Fact is, you didn't see what you thought you saw and you incorrectly interpreted what you say you saw. You're telling a guy to get his heart checked out based on what you saw, but if you can't tell what an intestine looks like and where it is, how can you tell what fatty tissue caused by peanut oil looks like?

You're not arguing rationally.

BUT I KNOW THAT!! :mad: I've had everyday experiences where I look at a person and perceive images and then describe my perception of their health, and have had incredible cases of accuracy.

Incredible accuracy? You have told people that what you are doing is not to be taken seriously, then asked them to confirm what you said.

And as is clearly evident here, you turn misses into hits. You don't believe it, but everyone else does. You're unreliable when it comes to reporting results.

So, we're left with unreliable results reported unreliably. That does not incredible cases of accuracy make.

I am therefore now proceeding to have proper tests that eliminate cold reading, so I am doing exactly what I am supposed to do.

Actually, you're not. You should be testing all of the more easily tested claims first like chemical identification, crystals, tasting, vibrational algebra and reading photographs rather than asking a bunch of strangers to devote time to helping you.

If those simple tests fail (and they will), then nobody will want to spend time testing your medical claims. We all know that. Is that why you are refusing and making excuses? It seems like it.

All I see here on this thread is the impatience from you guys. You criticize me for various things that I have not done and should have done, when in fact I am proceeding toward doing those exact things. The only concern here is impatience.

You have not shown good faith in taking our advice. I could give numerous examples, but I grow weary of this.

What you guys don't realize is that my anecdotes took place as described, or at least it is part of my claim that they did. Of course they are not evidence for ESP, but they allow for this investigation to take place.

Stop trying to convince us that what you have presented is worthy of investigating. It's not. Seriously. We have explained all of the other things should have done already that would have kept you from reaching this point. I refuse to go through them again.

Truth is, not one person here has expressed any inkling that your abilities have a remote chance of being real. The only reason that I, for one, want to see you get tested is to prove you wrong in the hopes that you will learn from this experience.

I speak for many when I say we just want you to see what we already know with a practical certainty: You are not special. You are but one of many who have believed themselves to have a unique, never before seen abilities who, through a lack of critical thinking and with a touch of narcissism, refused to admit the truth.

Harsh? Yes. Honest. Yes.

[Uncayimmy]

Taking a test on the Internet, self diagnoses, or wishing does not make it so. You have not been medically diagnosed by a neurologist.

Go to www.synesthete.org. Log in as JimOnBass at azwebpages.com with the password VFF. You will see that I was able to score as synesthetic as well. Very well, I might add. BTW, what I did was not a programming hack. I just knew what they were looking for.

I took two tests. I could have done it on my first test as well, but I clicked prematurely (first time since my teen years).

Professor Yaffle said, "If anyone cares, I looked at Anita's synesthesia test results, and in only one section did her score fall within what would be expected for a synesthete, the others put her in the range of the normal population."

When you take the test, it asks you *which* types of synesthesia you have. There are many such as numbers-color, letters-color, musical notes-color, musical chords-color, sound-color, etc. She obviously checked more than one and took multiple tests. She failed but one.

The only purpose of the test is to decide whether it might be worth testing somebody further. It's a very good eliminator, though. Further testing is needed to confirm the ability. The additional tests of which I am aware would make cheating like I did very difficult.

Thus we have proven that she cannot differentiate imagination from reality in several cases, which does not bode well for her in further tests. She *could* be a synesthete in one area, but it's very unlikely she is in the other areas. Of course, she reports the results saying that she's a synesthete. Unscientific at best, misleading at worst.

But the point still stands: She believed she was a multiple synesthete, but the testing showed otherwise.

I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

[wardenclyffe]

UncaYimmy,

As an early defender of the moderated thread experiment, I must point out that there's no need for the moderators to close the thread. Since you and VfF are the only ones who can post in it, it's effectively closed already (unless she or you decide to revive it). Also, the experiment did NOT prove that it was not worth the effort. The effort proved that no further effort was necessary.

And thanks for the effort.

Ward

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy,

As an early defender of the moderated thread experiment, I must point out that there's no need for the moderators to close the thread. Since you and VfF are the only ones who can post in it, it's effectively closed already (unless she or you decide to revive it).

Shhhhh......

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ah, I love to see you guys talk amongst yourselves so nicely and answer each others' questions.
That's right, annihilate each other engage in productive conversation. Keep up the good work, while I've snuck away to work on arranging the study. :p

UncaYimmy, I've sent you PM's about wanting to speak with you alone. I am typing up the documents for the study and would love to have a chance to speak with you. I'll find an online chat room for us from which we can copy the discussion and make it available for all those curious Forum members.

[Hokulele]

VfF, how much do you know about cold reading, and what do you think it entails?

[Belz...]

Tabarnaque! :scared:


Ben voyons... d'où ça vient, ça ?

[Belz...]

Ah, I love to see you guys talk amongst yourselves so nicely and answer each others' questions.
That's right, annihilate each other engage in productive conversation. Keep up the good work, while I've snuck away to work on arranging the study.

Yeah, still waiting on that.

You haven't answered my question, by the way:

I have experienced correlation between my medical perceptions and actual health conditions. Not because I think so. Not because I believe so. Not because I want it to be so. But because it's been so.
How in the blue hell COULD you tell the difference between those possibilities unless you TEST for them ? You keep saying that you're open to be tested and proven wrong but your posts betray you and tell a different story.

[desertgal]

Ah, I love to see you guys talk amongst yourselves so nicely and answer each others' questions.
That's right, annihilate each other engage in productive conversation. Keep up the good work, while I've snuck away to work on arranging the study. :p

Delusional troll babble speak. :rolleyes:

UncaYimmy, I've sent you PM's about wanting to speak with you alone. I am typing up the documents for the study and would love to have a chance to speak with you. I'll find an online chat room for us from which we can copy the discussion and make it available for all those curious Forum members.

Everyone who might be curious, raise your hands. :rolleyes:

However that gives me a great idea to prepare a FrequentlyAskedQuestions for my website. And when ever someone asks a questions that has been asked and answered in the past, all I have to do is refer them to that page. Brilliant, and time saving.

OMG! That is a brilliant idea! I am just astonished that no one had ever thought of doing a FAQ page on their website until Anita applied her brilliant, scientific, synesthetic, extraterrestrial incarnated mind to the issue.

[desertgal]

It is this one claim that leads me to believe that more than being delusional, you're a compulsive liar.


No, it isn't that simple. She IS a compulsive liar, but not intentionally. It's the nature of a delusional disorder. In her mind, fiction becomes fact. "I have thought it, so, therefore, it must be." Unfortunately, as you've seen, it is also impossible for her to accept any logical and reasonable arguments against her belief in her "facts".

[Ashles]

UncaYimmy, I've sent you PM's about wanting to speak with you alone. I am typing up the documents for the study and would love to have a chance to speak with you. I'll find an online chat room for us from which we can copy the discussion and make it available for all those curious Forum members.
And why not just use the moderated thread created for that exact purpose?

Oh yes the usual overcomplication and obfuscation.

This thread should be published as a textbook for standard evasive claimant behaviour. It's got the lot.

[Ashles]

Ah, I love to see you guys talk amongst yourselves so nicely and answer each others' questions.
That's right, annihilate each other engage in productive conversation. Keep up the good work, while I've snuck away to work on arranging the study. :p
I think this post says a lot about Anita's wishful thinking.

She would love everyone here to be a little more divided about her claim.
Unfortunately everyone seems to be pretty much in complete agreement.
(Of course that won't in any way make Anita any more objectively critical of her own claim.)

I'm also totally baffled why Anita is giving this new 'study' such a build up. Does she still not understand it adds absolutely no more weight to her claim than the other anecdotes?
(Unless of course her new study 'disproves' her ability to herself... Oh I'm such a kidder :))

[Moochie]

Well, I don't know. I sometimes think I'm an uber-skeptic, in that I haven't believed a word of what "Anita's" written. The only reason I keep reading is because the writer writes well, and has exhibited a measure of self-restraint when answering critics that surpasses what we usually see and expect. "Anita" deserves kudos just for that.

As for armchair psychiatric diagnostics -- I'm loath to make them at the best of times, and here I'm certain that the diagnoses that have been proffered are incorrect.

I don't know what "Anita's" up to. That also makes continuing to read interesting.

All we really have thus far are the writings. Is there any corroboration -- I mean real corroboration for anything that's been claimed? I don't have anything. Therefore I treat the entire exercise as a piece of speculative fiction, designed to, perhaps among other things, see how skeptical skeptics really are.


M.

[Locknar]

My claim that peanut oil is unusual is an absolutely correct statement... <snip>

First, you were wrong. Period. Peanut oil is sold in three gallon containers at Wal Mart, so obviously it cannot be unusual.
Using this as one of countless examples, it highlights a systemic problem in that VFF refuses to admit she is wrong about anything.


Stop trying to convince us that what you have presented is worthy of investigating. It's not. Seriously. We have explained all of the other things should have done already that would have kept you from reaching this point. I refuse to go through them again.

Truth is, not one person here has expressed any inkling that your abilities have a remote chance of being real. The only reason that I, for one, want to see you get tested is to prove you wrong in the hopes that you will learn from this experience.

I speak for many when I say we just want you to see what we already know with a practical certainty: You are not special. You are but one of many who have believed themselves to have a unique, never before seen abilities who, through a lack of critical thinking and with a touch of narcissism, refused to admit the truth.

Harsh? Yes. Honest. Yes.
Well said.

[Ashles]

Well, I don't know. I sometimes think I'm an uber-skeptic, in that I haven't believed a word of what "Anita's" written. The only reason I keep reading is because the writer writes well, and has exhibited a measure of self-restraint when answering critics that surpasses what we usually see and expect. "Anita" deserves kudos just for that.
I read it differently than that. In my opinion the more discussion (of any sort) surrounding her claim the more it remains, to Anita, a live and valid project.
There is a lot to be said for those who think we should stop discussing this and feeding the thread until there is actually something new to discuss. but there are just so many odd things to respond to...

As for armchair psychiatric diagnostics -- I'm loath to make them at the best of times, and here I'm certain that the diagnoses that have been proffered are incorrect.
Agreed 100% - I think there is little to be gained from attempting to ascribe complex psychological disorders to somebody simply from this thread.
Even if someone were actually delusional, posting "You're delusional" on an internet thread is unlikely to have any useful impact on them. Because the person is... delusional and probably doesn't think they are delusional.
(Not that I'm saying Anita is.)

Let's all (and I include myself here) try to take a step back and only focus on things that can actually be properly, independently, tested and how they might be tested.
And for Anita this means that any 'ability' that you describe that is too weak or unreliable to actually be tested is probably not really of any use mentioning at this stage. If you can't test it then you can't really have any particular confidence it is real as opposed to guessing, chance, illusion, incorrect recall, confirmation bias etc.

One question - how reliable is the sensation perceived from an image 'ability'? (The one decribed with the marajuana image from the electron microscope).
Is that good enough to test?
Do they have to be microscopic images or would any images do?

[Sideroxylon]

It’s true that we don’t know all there is to know about this amazing world but let’s face it this is all pretty silly stuff. Makes me wonder if sceptics should play the game in such cases.

[Locknar]

One question - how reliable is the sensation perceived from an image 'ability'? (The one decribed with the marajuana image from the electron microscope).
Is that good enough to test?
Do they have to be microscopic images or would any images do?

BOLD added by Locknar
Given the multitude of VFF claims that have been discussed testing wise I'm not sure adding yet another testing scenario is a wise course of action.

[Agatha]

Well, who would have thought it, it's not a unique ability - someone has posted a comment on VfF's guestbook with the homepage http://thedoctorandthepsychic.com/

Only this woman diagnoses from handprints, and apparently has undergone "some of the first scientifically controlled experiments involving psychic medical diagnosis".

There is, apparently, no limit to what credulous people, even educated and science-trained people, will believe.

[Sideroxylon]

Well, who would have thought it, it's not a unique ability - someone has posted a comment on VfF's guestbook with the homepage http://thedoctorandthepsychic.com/

Only this woman diagnoses from handprints, and apparently has undergone "some of the first scientifically controlled experiments involving psychic medical diagnosis".

There is, apparently, no limit to what credulous people, even educated and science-trained people, will believe.

I think her Marvelesque origin story gives here one up though:
The true story of an Illinois housewife who is struck by lightning, and soon afterward discovers that she has psychic abilities.

[Jonquill]

Agatha - and Natasha Demika http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Natasha_Demkina

[Agatha]

They are everywhere! Well, I for one welcome our psychic-diagnosing overlords.

Seriously, VfF, what the difference between your apparent ability, and the apparent ability of a cold reader? Everything you have told us, including the anecdotes, can be accounted for by cold reading.

[Ashles]

Given the multitude of VFF claims that have been discussed testing wise I'm not sure adding yet another testing scenario is a wise course of action.
I seems this is one that could be tested here on the forum.

But I have a strange hunch that for some reason it won't one of the ones strong enough to actually be testable.

[Ashles]

Well, who would have thought it, it's not a unique ability - someone has posted a comment on VfF's guestbook with the homepage http://thedoctorandthepsychic.com/

Only this woman diagnoses from handprints, and apparently has undergone "some of the first scientifically controlled experiments involving psychic medical diagnosis".

There is, apparently, no limit to what credulous people, even educated and science-trained people, will believe.
Wow, guess we should go easy on Anita.
This doctor hasn't been able to generate any interest or independent verification after three decades with this "plus-sized, Christian housewife".

[Akhenaten]

Slightly puzzled. You addressing VfF or me?


Oh geez Mate, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

[Moochie]

well, who would have thought it, it's not a unique ability - someone has posted a comment on vff's guestbook with the homepage http://thedoctorandthepsychic.com/

only this woman diagnoses from handprints, and apparently has undergone "some of the first scientifically controlled experiments involving psychic medical diagnosis".

There is, apparently, no limit to what credulous people, even educated and science-trained people, will believe.


I like how Dr. Curry maintained a "scholarly skepticism"...

:D


M.

ETA: This is weird -- I type a colon with a capital d and it comes out as colon and lowercase d. Ditto with my initial -- I type it capital m and it comes out lowercase. Is this a glitch in the forum software?

[Moochie]

Fifth time lucky, but how strange?


M.

[Ashles]

Fifth time lucky, but how strange?
I wonder if Anita will be claiming responsibility and another new ability? :)

[Moochie]

I wonder if Anita will be claiming responsibility and another new ability? :)


Yikes! I've been psychically molested! :D


M.

[desertgal]

As for armchair psychiatric diagnostics -- I'm loath to make them at the best of times, and here I'm certain that the diagnoses that have been proffered are incorrect.
M.

Well, here's the thing - I didn't offer a diagnosis. I offered an observation. You, though, in the above statement, ARE offering an armchair diagnosis. You are certain that any observations of a personality disorder and/or psychiatric problems are incorrect. You are diagnosing Anita to be free of any disorder.

Not arguing with you - just curious as to why you would immediately do something you just advised against.

Even if someone were actually delusional, posting "You're delusional" on an internet thread is unlikely to have any useful impact on them. Because the person is... delusional and probably doesn't think they are delusional.

Probably not, but it is my opinion, and I am entitled to it. And I have not made an armchair diagnosis of a personality disorder. I've said that, speaking from my point of view as someone with a personality disorder, I've observed some marked similarities in Anita's thousands of words, and my belief that she is delusional is not unfounded. Period. It's an observation, not a diagnosis.

Her words, if true, fit the definition of delusional, and she would benefit from psychiatric help. If they are deliberate lies, then, obviously, not all her dogs are barking, and she would also benefit from psychiatric help. Either way, encouraging her to seek psychiatric help is not a bad thing, nor is it wrong.

[Uncayimmy]

Agreed 100% - I think there is little to be gained from attempting to ascribe complex psychological disorders to somebody simply from this thread.
Even if someone were actually delusional, posting "You're delusional" on an internet thread is unlikely to have any useful impact on them. Because the person is... delusional and probably doesn't think they are delusional.

My recommendation is that she get checked out by a professional. That's not a diagnosis. That's a concern. If you read my response to her response of the diagnostic criteria, you'll see that there are plenty of "markers" that could indicate something else is at work.

I'll use myself as an example. I have a phobia about heights. Just the other day I was driving on the highway and saw a guy standing on the Jersey barrier of an overpass. Behind him was perhaps a 30 foot drop to the road below. Immediately my body reacted the same way it has my whole life: Adrenalin pumped through my system causing a fight or flight reaction. My legs went weak. My palms got sweaty. I became anxious and spoke a few expletives to myself about how crazy that guy must be.

I know this is not a normal reaction in that if he had been in another dangerous situation such as having his car only halfway on the shoulder and was standing by the trunk on the highway, I would have intellectually known the danger without any physical response on my part.

I recognize that my reaction is irrational. Anita refuses to even consider that her perceptions could be irrational. She pays lip service to it, but her actions betray her. She refuses to acknowledge that anyone else could consider her perceptions as irrational. And when faced with opportunities to test the rationality, she continually evades. To me, at least, that's a cause of concern.

To take it a step further, I did not come up with some strange theory to explain my reactions nor do most people with simple phobias. I didn't concoct a story about how I was feeling his hidden fears or that a ghost of a man who died in that same spot was channeling his last seconds of life.

Anita has described some very strange experiences. Even if she said she knew for a fact they weren't real, I would be concerned. It's just not normal to see, hear, smell, taste and feel things that others don't. Constructing a story around them about detecting vibrational information and being an Arcturian is even more disconcerting. And then to create a website, visit skeptic boards, and ask other people to participate in verifying (not disproving) her beliefs is even more troubling.

Like I said, I'm not offering a diagnosis. I am sincerely suggesting that there is cause for concern here.

[tsig]

I think her Marvelesque origin story gives here one up though:

And he has a book to sell.

I wonder how many books out there contain the "absolute truth". I would think you'd only need one. Of course if experience is any teacher if you have the truth in a book it will take infinitely many other books to explain the "one"

I don't believe a word that Anita has typed. Her actions speak for themselves.

Grandiose claims, excuses instead of results, misuse of scientific terms, all add up to a pattern of behavior we have seen before.

She's just nicer than the others but the end result will be the same.

[GeeMack]

Wow, guess we should go easy on Anita.
This doctor hasn't been able to generate any interest or independent verification after three decades with this "plus-sized, Christian housewife".


I read that description and said to myself, "It's got to be Greta Alexander." And you know, it turns out I was right! I must be psychic, too. Or maybe it's because I live in the next big town up the road from where Greta lived. She was a sort of local celebrity. A lot of people around here were believers. Even the police departments called on her to help them find missing persons. As I recall, with her help some turned up and some didn't, and without her help, well, some turned up and some didn't. Sheesh.

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
In response to post #1104 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4327327&postcount=1104), I have never had a paranormal test at my university. What I said was that during an assignment of identifying unknown chemical species, I perceived the 6-carbon ring, and the presence and location of nitrogen. I did not base any final conclusions based on these perceptions, but they were helpful as clues when backed up against the conventional means of identification. It was an experience, not a test.

I regret that I did not tell you earlier about the headache and nausea I've experienced during chemical identification tests. At least I know I am being honest so that I can live with myself. Let's all focus on my main claim, we've already established that I am currently not interested in testing the other aspects of the perceptions such as chemical identification and I am not likely to change my mind.

Post #1105 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4327342&postcount=1105), I concluded based on the given definitions of delusions that it is not what the perceptions are. I understand that regardless of my experience things may seem what they aren't, but I believe that the study and tests will be able to reveal the truth of what is and isn't. So at this point all we can do is assume, and speculate, and I think none of us can conclude or believe regarding the true nature of the perceptions until we have more data, such as from the study.

Post #1107 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4327542&postcount=1107), my statements regarding my mental health were based on the given definitions that I contrasted to my experience. Your post is littered with false assumptions. I do not place belief into the perceptions, in fact often I am in utter disbelief when I perceive certain health information, because when I then look at the person I can not confirm it with my ordinary senses. And it is in cases such as those that I am especially eager to tell the person (friend or family member) so that I can find out that my perception was incorrect. Yet, I've not been confirmed incorrect yet!

I do not reject objective evidence, I just regret your incorrect assumptions, such as that I would have had a paranormal test done at my school, or that I have belief in my perceptions being real. All I believe is that the perceptions have appeared to be accurate, meaning that the accuracy may be false for instance if people were just agreeing with me in some cases who knows, and still allowing the possibility that my skill might be cold reading. That is what I believe.

I have consistently stated that the "other aspects of the perceptions", which include reading from photos and video, occur infrequently and that I consider them to be untestable. They are not the claim I am investigating. Also I never claimed to be able to read photos or video over the internet, but I gave it a try to satisfy everyone's, including mine, curiosity.

I stopped testing for chemical identification because I was getting headaches and nausea from forcing perceptions. I will consider having a few trials now and then and then adding together their results, however right now I am emphasizing on my main claim and the upcoming study. And life in general.

I have demonstrated what I mean by vibrational algebra, see my past posts to Ashles, find them yourself. My interest in doing a project either at school or in my spare time of trying to apply my ideas of vibrations and waves into conventional mathematics is something I have not begun yet nor would I post it here.

I never had a study at the mall. What I had was a survey. Based on the results of the survey I have not concluded that I can not detect vasectomy. Please read my explanation of the survey (which will be posted on my website eventually) before making conclusions based on the survey.

Out of all the different expressions of my perceptions I am choosing to test the one that occurs frequently enough to be testable, that I have most experience and interest in, whose perceptions are the brightest and can come about without much effort and without headaches, and as such it is the most testable claim at this moment.

I have involved one of my instructors who is an expert in quantum mechanics into my investigation, by telling him about it, however I will not have a paranormal test at my school. My university and professors are not affiliated with my paranormal investigation. Because of the mere nature of a paranormal topic having negative association I will not involve my personal investigation with my professional life.

No I have no belief in my perceptions. What I have is apparent accuracy, and only a study and/or tests will tell me what to conclude and what to believe. Stop making false assumptions about what I think, what I feel, what I have done, what I haven't done, what I intend to do, what I don't intend to do, and what I believe.

If you accept that I believe that my past experiences with the perceptions and their accuracy took place as described, you will see why I am personally compelled to allow the time and work to arrange a study and tests. Meanwhile I understand that my experiences were not documented in a way so that you can all share the experiences and believe that they happened as described. And I know that. Even though statistics shows that ESP has not been proven yet and that it is statistically most likely that I do not have any kind of paranormal ability, I have experienced accurate medical perceptions and am curious to find out more about them. You can not take that curiosity away from me by stating stories about other claimants. This is my investigation. My experience. And I want to know why I've been accurate. Of course I could have a skill of cold reading that occurs automatically without my awareness of it, but what ever it is I intend to find out! And you can find out with me if you want! That's why I'm here! I will not rest until this investigation reaches a conclusion. Time consuming perhaps, and slow in progress, but carefully conducted, and please if you are impatient don't throw that at me. I am working on it.

My experience of being able to taste what others are eating is not necessarily defined as a false perception, since these perceptions accurately correlate with someone else's true perception. I think we need the opinion of an expert on this, I sure don't know the answer and you sure don't. And the fact that nobody has proven to be able to do that before does not allow a conclusion that nobody ever will. Everything has to happen for the first time, let's just find out from study and tests.

Just because something has not been proven does not mean it does not exist. It just means it has not been proven. Human perception and the reach of man-made instruments is very limited, and we can all safely assume that there exists a lot in our universe that we haven't proven yet. So why not remain open. I have experienced something that gives reason to investigate further, so that is what we do.

I will not comment on my experiences of ghosts on this thread. I will be setting up a website about my investigations of haunted sites soon, and then we can start a new thread to discuss this specific topic if we want to. We have to focus on my main claim because the extent of material posted here is becoming overwhelming to me, and now that school starts Monday I won't have but a few hours a week for this fascinating and very productive conversation! :(

Thank you for your concern about my mental health, but these perceptions do not interfere with my life. They are impressions, that's all, and I'm curious about their apparent accuracy, accuracy that was established not by my personal subjective experience of it but by objective means.

I already checked out the definition of schizotypal disorder. Only 2 conditions agreed with my life, whereas 5 are required for a diagnose. The vast amount of false conclusions and assumptions made by you Forum members already, allow me to have faith in my own knowledge about myself and I can disregard some of your suggestions that I already know to be inaccurate. But sure I can see a psychiatrist about my perceptions, I suppose it is relevant to my claim to do so. I do not think it is an insult that my paranormal claim raises concern.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Belz:
The reason I saw the need for me to begin disregarding some of the posts and comments was because most of them I had answered many times already and if I answered again it would not be productive, and also because I get criticized for posting wall of texts (although all of you seem to be allowed to post wall of texts). I just wanted to focus on real progress toward my investigation rather than discuss endlessly about irrelevant topics and y'alls misconceptions that I had already answered.
I have experienced correlation between my medical perceptions and actual health conditions. Not because I think so. Not because I believe so. Not because I want it to be so. But because it's been so.
How in the blue hell COULD you tell the difference between those possibilities unless you TEST for them ? You keep saying that you're open to be tested and proven wrong but your posts betray you and tell a different story. Oh please why can't you people read what I've said and actually see what it says! I said that I have experienced correlation between my perceptions and actual information. That is, for instance if I tell someone that they had a vasectomy and they say yes. Then that is an experience of accuracy. It does not mean to imply that it was what I call actual accuracy, for instance if the person was lying. Nor does it mean to imply that I was expressing a paranormal ability, because it could have been cold reading. What it does mean to imply, was that there was an experience of what I call apparent accuracy. And I know that. Because that's what happened.

It was an experience of apparent accuracy.

I'm open for tests and to find out that there is no ESP ability. Nothing I've said or done contradicts that, unless in the mind of the skeptic who is fully convinced that I am not studying two B.S. degrees at the same time, that my English is so good that I couldn't possibly be Swedish, that I had a paranormal test at school when I didn't, that I'm here for personal attention when I'm not, that women should be on a vasectomy detection test, and so on.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Akhenaten:
Your gratuitous sprinkling of that page with references and links to this site, and particularly to this thread, speaks volumes. I'd even be annoyed by it except that a foot-bullet like that provokes more pity than vexation. What's wrong with me providing links from my website to this JREF thread? There is a lot of relevant information regarding the investigation to be found here, and any readers who stumble upon my website and would like to know more should definitely be told about this JREF thread! :confused: I don't see why this is being criticized.

On the contrary, had I not referenced to this JREF thread, I'd be criticized for "hiding information from the readers of my webpage". Everything I do is wrong, whether I do it or not. :explode

Or did you criticize the fact that I posted a link on this JREF thread referring people to my website for more information? The material for the study will be rather vast, and I already know not to post tremendous amounts of text on this thread unless I look forward to being attacked by skeptics who didn't want to read quite that much.

[Locknar]

I have demonstrated what I mean by vibrational algebra, see my past posts to Ashles, find them yourself. My interest in doing a project either at school or in my spare time of trying to apply my ideas of vibrations and waves into conventional mathematics is something I have not begun yet nor would I post it here. Ashles, I must have missed this...can you help me out?


I have involved one of my instructors who is an expert in quantum mechanics into my investigation, by telling him about it, however I will not have a paranormal test at my school. My university and professors are not affiliated with my paranormal investigation. Because of the mere nature of a paranormal topic having negative association I will not involve my personal investigation with my professional life. Again, I am confused...as you have in no uncertian terms stated you will not involve your school, and now you state that you have. I wish I could think of that word that begins with a "w"!


If you accept that I believe that my past experiences with the perceptions and their accuracy took place as described <snip>I don't think anyone accepts this.


Just because something has not been proven does not mean it does not exist. It just means it has not been proven. Human perception and the reach of man-made instruments is very limited, and we can all safely assume that there exists a lot in our universe that we haven't proven yet. So why not remain open. I have experienced something that gives reason to investigate further, so that is what we do. A variation of what virtually every "woo woo" claims.


I already checked out the definition of schizotypal disorder. Only 2 conditions agreed with my life, whereas 5 are required for a diagnose. The vast amount of false conclusions and assumptions made by you Forum members already, allow me to have faith in my own knowledge about myself and I can disregard some of your suggestions that I already know to be inaccurate. But sure I can see a psychiatrist about my perceptions, I suppose it is relevant to my claim to do so. I do not think it is an insult that my paranormal claim raises concern.There is a saying that goes along the lines of "A Doctor that treats himself has a fool for a patient".

[VisionFromFeeling]

Cuddles:
You keep using the word "perception" as if you think it means something is real. :mad: Ashles, help me out here. At first I used the word "observations" referring to my subjective impressions of for instance the inside of human bodies. After several thread-pages of discussions Ashles and I agreed that to avoid misunderstandings we would use the word "perceptions" to refer to my subjective impressions that have not been proven to be reality based yet. And now Cuddles comes in and wants another word. I am very upset because it is never right. Don't you guys have like a skeptics' language that you all could agree to and tell me about so that we're all speaking the same language? I'm tired of being bullied around like this.
Synaesthesia is an example of exactly this, where the brain consistently fills in certain details incorrectly. The issue here is that my perceptions have apparent accuracy with the real world, and that is what we are investigating.
More extreme would be outright hallucinations, where the brain fills in images or other perceptions in the absence of any relevant input at all.We don't know whether there is input yet or what that input might be. The study and test should find out, for instance by disallowing certain types of input one at a time until the perceptions cease. For instance, will the perceptions work with the person behind a screen? I intend to find out. It is all testable, and in spite of everyone's (including mine) impatience, I am working on it and making (slow) progress.
I would not say your medical claims are generally hallucinations. They sound a lot like the claims of people who see auras. The input is there, it's just that your brain misinterprets or adds something so that your perception is not an accurate reflection of reality. We are in no position to say that auras are not an accurate reflection of reality. Human perception is very limited and it is safe to assume that reality consists of much more than what humans or their built instruments are able to perceive or measure at this time.
By insisting that your perceptions are real,What I am insisting on is that I have experienced apparent accuracy between my perceptions and the real mutual world. Apparent accuracy since a person might have been lying or mistaken about their health or about me being correct, and also not implying that it would be the case of ESP and not cold reading for instance. Regardless, I am curious since I've had some very interesting accurate perceptions.
you are denying that the null hypothesis even exists, and making any scientific test virtually impossibleI am not denying the null hypothesis. Please start reading from the very beginning of this thread and see how I've consistently stated this.
It doesn't matter how sure you are that you are seeing things that are really there, you have to accept the possibility that it is all in your head, otherwise there is no point in having any tests in the first place. But I know that! Please start reading at the beginning of the thread and when you catch up with where we're at now you might know a little bit more than your false assumptions about me.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:
And she prioritises her own subjective studies over a proper independent test.I was specifically told by the local skeptics group to investigate my claim closer so that I can bring to them a claim that is better understood and that can be taken from its everyday experience into a test setting, and that is what the study is for. If you choose to criticize this then that's just being ridiculous. For instance a test might ask that the person I am looking at is behind a screen. Well, I don't know if I can do that? People aren't usually behind a screen when I see them in everyday life. So by having a study and trying this out I can add to my claim whether I can have a screen or not on a test. I can not simply agree to a test that is not specifically what I claim to be able to do.
Anita claimed she could read photos and video, but when met with failure, she dropped it down to just sometimes. Infrequent perceptions, not part of my paranormal claim that I want to have tested, never claimed to read photos or video over the internet.
Anita claimed she could identify chemicals, but then stopped testing when the results were less than accurate. Stopped when I got headaches and nausea, which were caused by forced effort. Inaccuracy appeared after headache and not before. Not the claim I am investigating.
Anita claimed she could do vibrational algebra, but refused to demonstrate it. Even using dummy data. I presented an example of what I mean by vibrational algebra. I will not present any actual scientific applications of it here in this Forum but if and once they appear you may read about it in the same publications as everyone else.
Anita claimed to detect a vasectomy, but when presented with an opportunity for an objective test, she claimed she could not detect any in her study at the mall. The reason I did not detect it at the survey at the mall was because I was also testing out the details of the perceptions and not specificly testing for vasectomy. Please read the description of the survey, to be posted on my website eventually, before saying ridiculous nonsense about it that isn't true. I have not concluded that I can not claim to detect vasectomy. I just didn't detect any in this brief survey experience for reasons that become clear when you read about how the survey actually took place, rather than hallucinate about it in your own mind and place belief in your inaccurate delusions. Schizotypal personality, if you ask me, or just psychosis.
Anita refuses in general to test small and simple things and insists on only testing the most difficult and time-consuming claims. I am testing the type of perceptions that occur most frequently, that I have most experience with, that come about without effort or headache, and that as such are most testable. It's like if I were to enter a baking contest. Sure I've got lots of recipes, and some dishes might be easier to cook than others, but I'd rather cook my specialty, the one I've done the most at home and am the most confident in, and so what if there is more work involved, I am the one baking it. And if you don't like it, don't eat it.
Anita refuses to involve her instructors who are experts in quantum mechanics. I've shared this with one of my instructors who is an expert in quantum mechanics, although I will not involve any of my professors or university in this investigation. Paranormal topics are automatically negatively associated and I will not bring this personal investigation into my professional life. Any other university is more than welcome to become involved in this investigation.
Anita has approached a Professor of Physics, later upgraded to "three of my favorite professors". None of these Professors has apparently been interested in testing what might be the greatest discovery of the last thousand years. My university is not affiliated with this investigation whether it would want to or not I would not allow it.
Anita claims she is going to use this ability (despite not knowing the technology, maths or even terminology to describe the ability) to build futuristic health devices using optical technology. She refuses to detail in what way she intends to use this ability , citing security and patent reasons. You bet! For once, absolutely correct! :)
She also refuses to describe any optical equipment currently existing she would use for Vibrational Expreimentation. I will not describe any of them here in this humble little skeptics Forum! When the day comes that I present one of my projects at a university, you are all most welcome to come and attend the lecture. See you there.
Anita claims she could, if she wanted, describe the mechanism behind her ability in more detail to a Professor of Physics and they would accept the explanation. But she refuses to provide it here, maintaining a level of scientific description no higher than layman level. It is unclear whether she has provided this detailed explanation to the three "favorite professors" and they have chosen not to explore it further, or whether she has, for some reason, simply not told them Well I've told the truth about it, and it is irrelevant here. Besides, wasn't it you who argued that we should not discuss any theories or mechanism behind the claim?
Anita continually blames IIG for delays in forming a protocol for testing Yes I do, bless their hearts. It takes them months to get back with me each time whereas I reply to them in full within the next day. If they have any specific concerns they know they can contact me. I have agreed to all of their changes to the protocol with the exception that I do not know yet whether music would be a distraction or not, but that is hardly the reason of the delay as of now.
Anita has claimed the ability to experience the effect of chemicals in objects viewed only as images from Scanning Electron Miscroscopes. Despite how easily testable this might be there appears to be no plans to test this latest ability. That's right.
Anita is conducting yet further 'studies' despite being informed by absolutely everybody here that independent testing is the only real way forward at this point I was advised by the local skeptics group to conduct further studies into my paranormal claim so that I can present to them a better researched claim that can be lifted from its everyday experience and adapted into a test situation. Please don't argue with the advice given by them, they are brilliant skeptics not unlike yourselves only more so.
Anita still does not seem to understand that the sensations she is experiencing are not confirmed as resulting from real external information/stimulus, thus cannot accurately be referred to as resulting from Stimuli until confirmed by independent testing Skeptics do not seem to understand that the sensations I am experiencing are not confirmed as not resulting from real external information/stimulus, thus cannot accurately be referred to as not resulting from stimuli until confirmed by independent testing.
Anita is generating new claims and abilities faster than the previous ones can be adequately discussed and focused on. Is doing her very best to stick to her one and only main claim.
Anita's fatigue and recovery time have apparently changed throughout the course of this thread. This only relates to the chemical identification test and has always applied, I just didn't tell you guys right away. Besides it is not the claim I want tested at this point. If you want, you can come down to North Carolina and watch me suffer from a headache and throw up from making several forced chemical perceptions within a short period of time. Of course you can not conclude that I am telling the truth, but seriously, you can not conclude that I am not telling the truth either. Come see for yourself won't you. It can be verified.
Anita assumes her own recollections and perceptions to be entirely accurate despite it being repeatedly explained that there is no way she can make such a gurantee. I understand that. That is why I call it the apparent accuracy.
Independent testing does not appear likely at the moment. No. The IIG West is taking their time, and the local skeptics group wanted me to have a study first. So I am having a study first.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Pup:
Post #1120 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4328483&postcount=1120), it is a wonderful idea. I suggest that I try it at home first before your expense of putting it together. I will keep it in mind, really I will, but I have a study coming up and a main claim to investigate. Thank you for your thought into this. And can't wait to see you in March! ;)

Locknar:
Given you've claimed this gives you headaches and nausea, it must be unbearable for you to enter a drug store.No, Hon. Could you people please sometimes think before you speak? I get headaches from forced effort. I do not enter a drug store and force myself to read things unless I feel like doing so and am comfortable with it.
Does this apply to "medicine" only, or everything in general? For example, if you were to look at a bottle of whiskey would you perceive any effects? What about say ground beef? Everything, Locknar. Everything.
Taking a test on the Internet, self diagnoses, or wishing does not make it so. You have not been medically diagnosed by a neurologist. And the same goes to you skeptics, none of you can diagnose me over the internet. :rolleyes:

desertgal:
Not to be mean, but a person suffering from schizotypal disorder can not diagnose someone else as being delusional. I really don't intend to be mean. Also with the vast amount of obvious and proven to be incorrect assumptions and beliefs made by yourself and some other skeptics reduces your credibilities in evaluating on important subjects like these.

skeen:
It has been a year and a half since you embarked on this, and have still proven absolutely nothing?I was engaged in a waiting game with the IIG for over a year and several months of this time. I then contacted a local skeptics group who advised me to conduct a study to learn more about the claim, and that is what I am doing now.
Simply walk up to someone who is likely to be skeptical and tell them what you see!!! The rest will fall into place. I will not harass a stranger by acting as if I knew about their health, regardless of whether I were correct or not or had an actual ability or not, or make them reveal personal health information. Sorry. The soon-to-be-held study will ask people to volunteer, and at that point they are fair game. :)
Pick any of the professors in your University!I will not allow my university to be involved with my paranormal investigation.
It is also extremely suspect that you claim to have told, and or demonstrated this ability to professor(s), and none of them have followed up on it. What the hell should that tell you? This is the greatest discovery in all of human history!So what. And if it is a great discovery, it should be discovered shortly.
And your insistence on having synesthesia is just plain bizarre. You certainly haven't convinced me that you have it, and you still have no medical diagnoses for it. This is out-of-this-world irrationality. Why should we believe you have synesthesia when you are so clearly lying, or deluded about so many other aspects of what you're claiming? It is this one claim that leads me to believe that more than being delusional, you're a compulsive liar.Since I am not lying, you are being just ridiculous. Besides I took an online test which concluded that I do have at least one form of synesthesia, not that that is an official diagnose. If you break a bone and you know it's broken, you can of course have it verified by a doctor. If you associate things in a manner consistent to synesthesia, you may have it, and can of course have it verified by a specialist.
And all of this, and we're only at the stage where you're gearing up for a study. Not even a test. Not even a simple test. No, a study, which will conclude nothing that we haven't already learned by now.I was specifically advised by the local skeptics group to have a study. And the study will reveal lots, for instance it gives a tremendous opportunity for a non-paranormal ability to be revealed as such. You'll see, my dear impatient skeptic.
This ability should work on animals. If it doesn't, well that makes no goddamn sense whatsoever. It should, though. So to ease some of your false concerns, how about you go and ask pet owners when you "see" ailments in pets? You're always right, afterall. If you are correct, they will be hugely impressed, and again, everything will fall into place. You'll be on the news by the end of the week.Of course it works on pets. But I have had the most practical experience with humans. The study and test will be done on humans, but this presents an interesting option.
It is beyond the point where I am fascinated by your mental condition. I am actually sort of concerned. I can see the wall of logical separation that is fighting you, preventing you from discovering the truth, and so can everyone else.So because I didn't stand up on a soapbox and harass people asking about their health, you are concerned? I am being careful, since this is a sensitive paranormal claim. It is not like your claim of being able to fly, for instance. ;) Patience...

[desertgal]

desertgal:
Not to be mean, but a person suffering from schizotypal disorder can not diagnose someone else as being delusional. I really don't intend to be mean. Also with the vast amount of obvious and proven to be incorrect assumptions and beliefs made by yourself and some other skeptics reduces your credibilities in evaluating on important subjects like these.



I did not 'diagnose' you as being delusional, I am not a doctor. Unlike you, I do not diagnose people without proper training. However, in my experience, the thousands of words you have shared in this thread have conformed to the definition of delusional-and your complete denial only cements that impression.

I have not made incorrect assumptions or beliefs about you. The only credibility that has been reduced in this thread is your own. Kindly don't address me again. It gets us nowhere, and only serves to further your delusions and your contemptible behavior. I have placed you on ignore, kindly do the same for me.

I will not allow my university to be involved with my paranormal investigation.

Too late.

[Senex]

After 1170+ posts you rascals haven't been able to discredit VisionFromFeeling. You have to admit she has backed off every challenge. She's brilliant.

She deserves an award :)

[Pup]

Pup:
Post #1120 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4328483&postcount=1120), it is a wonderful idea. I suggest that I try it at home first before your expense of putting it together. I will keep it in mind, really I will, but I have a study coming up and a main claim to investigate. Thank you for your thought into this. And can't wait to see you in March!

Well, darn it, my schedule for the trip has changed and now I'll be laying over four hours in Chicago instead. I guess you can't just pop over to Chicago and meet me there instead of North Carolina, huh? :)

But the medicine trial wouldn't be any trouble or expense for me, beyond the cost of a stamp, since I can think of four or five medicines in the cupboard right now that I could sacrifice a pill from each, and I've got food coloring and ziplock bags. Five minutes work, a stamp, and it's done.

You've already said that this is something you experience, and we're only talking four or five medicines to identify, so it wouldn't be a lot of effort on your part--no long test with headaches or nausea. So why not give it a try?

It seems easy for you to talk about these things you experience, but apparently not so easy to demonstrate them to someone who's interested in what you can actually do.

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
The next step for you is to take the test that *I* designed because the ability is unique to the individual, so the test must be tailored to the individual. My test won't allow some moderately clever fellow like myself to fake a synesthetic score.What test? The study? Yes I am taking that, and thank you for a wonderful study design! I am so grateful to have a way of looking into the perceptions while volunteers get to remain perfectly anonymous! :)

I think I am laughing. UncaYimmy, you are so funny. When you asked,
You're avoiding the question: If you performed at a level no better than chance, would you conclude that your perceptions are the result of something ordinary rather than the extraordinary claim of sensing vibrational information?
I answered,
I can't believe this! Not again! Since I've specificly answered this question every time it has been posted, again and again, on this thread, I refuse to answer it again, just because I say so. I will have to make you go back to previous pages, scroll and search, until you come across at least one of the places where I've clearly and specificly answered to this question, with a simple and straightforward 'yes'. I've answered this already! I don't avoid questions!
And then you say,
Okay. I will ask the moderators to close the moderated interview thread since you refuse to answer the question again despite your willingness to answer the questions about your ability for the umpteenth time. The whole purpose of the thread was to give a clear cut explanation of your claims without having to wade through the 1,000+ posts. I think this is so funny. You guys just love to ask this same question over and over again, "would I accept a test result that concludes that I do not have an ESP ability..." and you love to see me answer yes, time and time again. :) I even answered it in that recent post to you, and I can answer it once again, because you skeptics love to hear it, yes I would accept it. You funny thing. :p Alright, I will go back to the other "special" thread and answer it there too, you guys love that question and maybe it isn't the answer you were all expecting from a claimant, so you always have to ask again, maybe hoping for a 'no'? :p And every time you get the same answer, so you ask again.
First, you were wrong. Period. Peanut oil is sold in three gallon containers at Wal Mart, so obviously it cannot be unusual. Honeybunches I am from Sweden. We don't have WalMart. :) Peanut oil is not so common in Sweden and among all the people I know it is highly unusual. Lots of people I knew think about using the healthiest alternatives, so we typically use olive oil. Alternatively rapeseed oil, or "vegetable oil" which is a mixture of various, or even corn oil, but peanut oil I have never seen anyone I knew in Sweden use. Why is this so difficult to imagine? Why would I lie about what my own personal experience is of what oil I would have thought is the most common? Funny skeptics. :)
Your defense is that YOUR background is limited. That doesn't change a wrong answer. My answer is based on my background, yes. It is not a wrong answer. I only moved here three years ago, and I brought with me a different set of experiences and expectations than what you guys might have here.
The issue here is the scientific method. Don't assume anything. If you're going to make a claim about something, know your facts. It would have taken you 30 seconds to type "Peanut Oil" into Google and found out just how commonly it is used and sold. But I was talking about my background. "Don't assume anything"? Thank you, I will be using this quote in my future responses to the skeptics who assume things. I wasn't interested in how often peanut oil is used in America. What I said was that my experience would not have made me expect someone to use it. And regardless of what the actual sales statistics are in this country, that would not have changed what my expectation was at the time the perception took place.
So why even bother with any testing? You were wrong about seeing the intestine where you did.That particular perception consisted of three parts:
1) A region just below the sternum, 0.0006 m2 area out of the average 1.9 m2 surface area of a man, giving it a chance of 1:3100 to guess it right (Locknar: this does not imply to say that I was guessing, I am just saying what the chances are for someone who does guess!). Correct.
2) Describing the feeling of strain and cramp in this region, out of all the many types of sensations this was a pretty good "guess" (Locknar: I am not implying that I would have guessed). Correct.
3) Identifying the small intestine as being associated to this health condition. Has not been confirmed as accurate nor inaccurate. In my opinion it is not plausible, nor is it implausible.
Either case, to get 2/3 of a perception correct, and with these odds, I'd say the paranormal claim has not been falsified.
Why bother with a test? Because my medical perceptions have had good apparent accuracy. That's why. A test provides with the opportunity of falsifying the claim.
Fact is, you didn't see what you thought you saw and you incorrectly interpreted what you say you saw. You're telling a guy to get his heart checked out based on what you saw, but if you can't tell what an intestine looks like and where it is, how can you tell what fatty tissue caused by peanut oil looks like?I did not count the peanut oil or heart condition as correct perceptions. They are also not concluded as incorrect perceptions. My perceptions have very good apparent accuracy, and all I conclude is to have a test to eliminate things like cold reading, and to enable real, actual accuracy to be established, as opposed to the apparent accuracy of everyday experience.
You're not arguing rationally. Yes I am, and you are not.
Incredible accuracy? You have told people that what you are doing is not to be taken seriously, then asked them to confirm what you said. Incredible apparent accuracy. Very often the accuracy has been confirmed by scars or marks or other evidence that the person can provide for me after I have presented the perception. At other times the accuracy has been revealed by means other than me telling the person what I perceived. And all I conclude is to proceed toward a test, because the anecdotes took place as described.
And as is clearly evident here, you turn misses into hits. You don't believe it, but everyone else does. You're unreliable when it comes to reporting results.Because my past experience was that peanut oil is not common, and I said I did not expect a person to use peanut oil, and because I did not count this as accurate nor inaccurate on my page of observations anecdotes? Or because you hallucinate that I'd have had a paranormal test at my university when I haven't nor did I ever imply it?
So, we're left with unreliable results reported unreliably. That does not incredible cases of accuracy make. I never expected the anecdotes to be taken as formal evidence. All I am saying is that they are what compel me toward a test.
You should be testing all of the more easily tested claims first like chemical identification, crystals, tasting, vibrational algebra and reading photographs rather than asking a bunch of strangers to devote time to helping you. Nope. I will proceed with the study on my claim which is medical information from live persons. If you don't like it, then don't. It is my strongest claim, occurs to the highest frequency, the one I have the most experience in, and it is a testable claim. Perhaps not as convenient from a test perspective, but it is the claim I am investigating.
If those simple tests fail (and they will), then nobody will want to spend time testing your medical claims. We all know that. Is that why you are refusing and making excuses? It seems like it. So far the simple tests I have had have not falsified the claim. They have had good results. But they are not simple from my point of view. I get a serious headache and nausea, but, you don't believe it. I've already invited Ashles to come see.
Stop trying to convince us that what you have presented is worthy of investigating. It's not. Seriously. We have explained all of the other things should have done already that would have kept you from reaching this point. I refuse to go through them again.I'm not trying to convince you that my claim is worthy of testing. I'm trying to convince you that I am convinced that my claim is worthy of testing. I've already said many times that my anecdotes are not evidence for others, but that they are evidence to me and that they compel me to further testing, to eliminate cold reading etc.
I speak for many when I say we just want you to see what we already know with a practical certainty: You are not special. You are but one of many who have believed themselves to have a unique, never before seen abilities who, through a lack of critical thinking and with a touch of narcissism, refused to admit the truth.My medical perceptions represent good apparent accuracy. And include cases where I do not know what the cold reading would have been. And all I conclude is to arrange a test which eliminates cold reading, even if all that were to conclude is that I am good at cold reading. I just want to find out, because I seem to be good at acchieving apparently accurate health information. Does not imply that it is actual accuracy, or that I'd have an ESP ability. I just want a test to find out.
Thus we have proven that she cannot differentiate imagination from reality in several cases, which does not bode well for her in further tests.What ever. I still think I may have synesthesia until proven otherwise. The fact that I associate things in a manner consistent to synesthesia (and in ways that were not testable on the website) is not a case of being unable to differentiate imagination from reality. I wasn't able to test for the other areas of possible synesthesia that I experience, such as associating objects to shapes and vibrational pattern. With the various types of music tests I actually perceive two, not one colors because the tones are not constant or straight but vary from start to finish, and the test did not allow a representation of that.
But the point still stands: She believed she was a multiple synesthete, but the testing showed otherwise.The test did not show otherwise. It did not test the main aspects of my synesthetic experience, such as associating to vibration and shapes. :mad: Besides, wasn't it you who said that no conclusions about mental health can be drawn on online tests? And now you are trying to base a conclusion on online tests. Besides the test did report that I'd have at least one form of synesthesia. And it is unscientific of you to conclude that I do not have multiple forms of synesthesia when I wasn't even able to test for the multiple forms that I claim to experience. You guys are exhibiting the exact behavior you accuse me of, but you just aren't seeing it. I see it but out of niceness I try not to point it out.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Hokulele:
VfF, how much do you know about cold reading, and what do you think it entails? I do not know much since I've only recently begun looking into what a paranormal investigation entails. I've been using the term "cold reading" to include all non-paranormal means of, in the case of medical information, obtaining medical information. Such as receiving clues from a person's posture, movement, the look in their eye, facial expression, and maybe even assumptions based on age, gender, clothing and more. Volatile recommended a good book about cold reading and I intend to read it. As we approach a final study protocol and once we begin working out test protocols, I will value everyone's input on what possible sources of cold reading might be available in my paranormal claim and how to eliminate these. It is still an early stage to begin this discussion. The upcoming study is all about, well, the objectives outlined on www.visionfromfeeling.com/study.html I hope Akhenaten isn't upset because I made a referral to my website. :( I thought it was appropriate to do so to save thread-space.

desertgal:
Delusional troll babble speak.
Schizotypal disorder nonsense and hallucinations about inaccurate conclusions speak.
(Sorry. I really don't have anything personal against you, I just want to show you in what manner you are speaking to me.)
No, it isn't that simple. She IS a compulsive liar, but not intentionally. It's the nature of a delusional disorder. In her mind, fiction becomes fact. "I have thought it, so, therefore, it must be." Unfortunately, as you've seen, it is also impossible for her to accept any logical and reasonable arguments against her belief in her "facts". You'd better answer this question! When was I lying? :mad:

Ashles:
This thread should be published as a textbook for standard evasive claimant behaviour. It's got the lot. It will also serve educational purposes of describing good examples of skeptic behavior such as making false assumptions without any supporting evidence and then placing full belief into them, turning it into something negative against a claimant and throwing it at them. Criticizing a claimant when they do something, then criticizing them when they do it the way as was recommended. And the list goes on. (Not necessarily you, Ashles!)
I'm also totally baffled why Anita is giving this new 'study' such a build up. Does she still not understand it adds absolutely no more weight to her claim than the other anecdotes?The study will be documented by attending skeptics. If I detect ailments that are considered undetectable even to any forms of cold reading (unless a person is wearing a shirt that says, "I'm in the I've removed my appendix club! We meet every Wednesday!", or has a tattoo that says, "It's ok - I've had a vasectomy!" ;) then it is definitely interesting. But the main purpose of the study is to form a better understanding of the claim, and to form a stronger and more specific claim. :)
One question - how reliable is the sensation perceived from an image 'ability'? (The one decribed with the marajuana image from the electron microscope).
Is that good enough to test?
Do they have to be microscopic images or would any images do? I don't know whether it is good enough to test. Can we focus on the claim I am here to have tested and perhaps keep this one in mind?

Moochie:
I don't know what "Anita's" up to. That also makes continuing to read interesting.Well, stay tuned.

Locknar:
Using this [the peanut oil example] as one of countless examples, it highlights a systemic problem in that VFF refuses to admit she is wrong about anything. Well I wasn't wrong about this one. My past experience is that people do not use peanut oil. So I was not expecting a person to use peanut oil. That's all. What ever the statistics are in the USA do not alter what my expectation was at the time of the perception. I am from Sweden. We don't even eat peanut butter there! :eek: Can you believe it?

[Jonquill]

Anita, if you are not familiar with cooking with peanut oil, was your first impression that this person had eaten an awful lot of peanuts?

[Uncayimmy]

Well, Anita, I think our time together is drawing to a close. In regards to the moderated thread you said you thought it was a good idea and inquired about how to keep others from "leaking in" as you put it. You said that this thread gets "overflooded with nonsense" and that you and I could make some "real progress" and have more "clarity" in the moderated thread.

Then you dropped out without responding to the single most important question.

UncaYimmy:
In response to post #1104 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4327327&postcount=1104), I have never had a paranormal test at my university. What I said was that during an assignment of identifying unknown chemical species, <snip> It was an experience, not a test.

You were asked to identify unknown chemicals. At your school. You used your super powers to assist you. I called it a test. You called it an experience. Whatever. The *actions* you took were identical. No mention of nausea or fatigue. I mean, if these physical reactions are "typical" why would you use your super powers knowing what might happen to you?

I regret that I did not tell you earlier about the headache and nausea I've experienced during chemical identification tests. At least I know I am being honest so that I can live with myself.

Wow. You can't even acknowledge that this puts a dent in your credibility. You can't even bring yourself to say, "I know it may seem this way and I understand that if affects my credibility."

Let's all focus on my main claim, we've already established that I am currently not interested in testing the other aspects of the perceptions such as chemical identification and I am not likely to change my mind.

It's all one claim, Anita. It's all one claim. You say you have a super power that lets you detect things down to the vibrational level. We're just talking about manifestations, that's all. And you keep avoiding the easiest manifestations to test.

Post #1105 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4327342&postcount=1105), I concluded based on the given definitions of delusions that it is not what the perceptions are.

If I print out our exchange about the diagnostic criteria, which includes your responses and mine, and show it to a mental health professional, will you accept that person's recommendation about whether you should schedule a visit yourself? If this person says no, I'll accept it and stop bugging you about it.

That is how seriously I take this.

I have consistently stated that the "other aspects of the perceptions", which include reading from photos and video, occur infrequently and that I consider them to be untestable.

That is either a lie or a delusion. You solicited people in this thread to test with photos. You tried it twice and failed. You also said:

I have to see the person, but you guys are right, I have received information through television as well. I just mentioned meeting in person because that is what I would prefer and video didn't come to mind at first. Well, on my radio show I would be reading people who are in the room with me, I guess I should have mentioned that.


"I detect information about the health of celebrities when I see them on television, but I'd prefer to meet with a person...I would love to try this with you anyway. Is there any way you could send me a video of yourself? Do you have a webcam?"

I just had a test with Madalch over Skype where he had one beaker with Ammonium chloride, and another with Sodium chloride, and asked me to tell them apart. I gave an answer, and I was incorrect.

Does anyone want to try medical diagnose over webcam? Madalch are you available for that?

Well send me a recent video of yourself. What I say is that I have to see the person. No contradiction going on here. I'd prefer to meet with the person but come to think of it you are right, I have made perceptions over television. The tests will happen, I am not avoiding them. If I am able to read people over video then that would simplify things a lot.


They are not the claim I am investigating. Also I never claimed to be able to read photos or video over the internet, but I gave it a try to satisfy everyone's, including mine, curiosity.

See the above and consider this: You made at least three readings in three attempts by my count. You did not claim that there were no perceptions.
You claimed perceptions. So much for infrequent, huh?

You did not claim they were different than in-person perceptions - you just claimed perceptions. You didn't say you were guessing - you just claimed perceptions.

And they were completely and utterly wrong. Then suddenly you didn't want to test anymore, just like with the chemicals.

I will consider having a few trials now and then and then adding together their results

Do or don't do, there is no consider.

No I have no belief in my perceptions. What I have is apparent accuracy,
No, you don't. Sorry.

If you accept that I believe that my past experiences with the perceptions and their accuracy took place as described,
I do, which is why I am concerned for you.

You can not take that curiosity away from me by stating stories about other claimants. This is my investigation.
You involved us, not the other way around. And we can most certainly tell you that you are exhibiting the same behavior we have seen before. If humans didn't rely on those observations, then there would be no humans.

Of course I could have a skill of cold reading that occurs automatically without my awareness of it,
You've already learned that by failing every reading you have attempted so far where cold reading was not possible.

My experience of being able to taste what others are eating is not necessarily defined as a false perception, since these perceptions accurately correlate with someone else's true perception.

Look, you're not guessing the taste as someone like myself might do. You're actually tasting the taste. Synesthetes do this consistently in response to certain stimuli. They don't have different tastes based on what someone else is tasting at the time.

So, if that's not a false sensation, what is?

I think we need the opinion of an expert on this, I sure don't know the answer and you sure don't. And the fact that nobody has proven to be able to do that before does not allow a conclusion that nobody ever will.

Nobody has proven that your perceptions are not the result of a mind control device implanted by your mother, an Illuminati agent.

People with hallucinations: millions
People with super powers allowing them to taste what others are tasting: 0

You do the vibrational algebra.

I will not comment on my experiences of ghosts on this thread.
That's fine. We will, because it goes to credibility and your own self-analysis of your mental health.

Thank you for your concern about my mental health, but these perceptions do not interfere with my life.
Really? You have devoted hours upon hours to them. They have made you alternately ecstatic, scared, worried, and angry (just to name a few emotions). They have inspired you to create a website, visit skeptic boards, and involve other people.

Maybe that is not "interference" as you mean it, but your life would be different without them because you *act* on them. A synesthete seeing an orange glow around the numeral 3 can say it doesn't interfere with her life if she takes no actions based on that glow.

But sure I can see a psychiatrist about my perceptions, I suppose it is relevant to my claim to do so. I do not think it is an insult that my paranormal claim raises concern.
Please do. And bring a printout of our exchange about the diagnostic criteria.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Agatha:
Seriously, VfF, what the difference between your apparent ability, and the apparent ability of a cold reader? Everything you have told us, including the anecdotes, can be accounted for by cold reading. A wonderfully good question. I've experienced cases of medical perceptions with apparently good accuracy, where I do not know what cold reading would have been available. I say apparently good accuracy to account for the fact that in some cases a person might have been lying, or mistaken about their health, and that can not be ruled out regardless of how things seemed. A test will rule it out.

I've experienced cases where none of the means of cold reading that I am aware of were, as far as I can conceive, available.
*As far as I know I was not aware of the health condition prior to my perception of it.
*It concerned a person I had just met and had no prior knowledge of, let alone knowledge of their medical history.
*Health conditions that are not supposed to be accessible for someone who looks at the person, conditions that should not translate into external symptoms, posture, movement, clothing style etc. Such as a severe case of cysts of the reproductive system, the large vertical cartilagenous scar of a heart bypass surgery, that a person has ingested a significant amount of supplemental Lactobacillus bacteria, vasectomy, that the scull has been crushed from the top in the past, a large, permanent round darkbrown spot in the lower right field of vision of the right eye - all of which are examples of information that was confirmed as accurate. I have also perceived other such information whose accuracy was not possible to be checked.
*Accuracy being confirmed by means other than me telling the person what I think I saw. Such as a person revealing the information to others at a time after I have made the perception and I haven't shared my perception with anyone.

This is of course not evidence toward a paranormal claim. All it is is my personal experiences. And all I conclude is that there is something going on that I am interested in and I can't wait to find out what it is. I am not in favor of any certain conclusion of this investigation. Even if I have a good skill in cold reading I'd be fascinated by that also, since it is occurring automatically and so far with good, though only apparent, accuracy. Of course all means of cold reading must be excluded in each specific account of perceptions in order to rule out cold reading. And there are surely more forms of cold reading available in medical diagnose, than those that I have listed. I would like to wait a while before engaging in a discussion as to what cold reading might be available in my case, until we have reached that stage in the test protocol design.

Thank you for asking. Good question.

[Uncayimmy]

I think this is so funny. You guys just love to ask this same question over and over again, "would I accept a test result that concludes that I do not have an ESP ability..." and you love to see me answer yes, time and time again.

You have not answered it in the moderated thread. That is my specific request and concern. You can't spare 30 seconds to go to that thread and type three little letters, yet you can dance about here telling us how you've answered it a bunch of times already?

I wonder why...

Could it be because there is a major difference between how it has been asked here and how it has been asked in the moderated thread? I was careful to lay down a number of stipulations as background for my question. I did my best to leave as little wiggle room as possible.

I hereby give you permission, nay, I formally request that instead of replying to this post that you instead go to the moderated thread and type YES.

[Uncayimmy]

Well I wasn't wrong about this one. My past experience is that people do not use peanut oil. So I was not expecting a person to use peanut oil. That's all. What ever the statistics are in the USA do not alter what my expectation was at the time of the perception

Oh, I get it now. You're in Sweden where the use of peanut oil is unusual. I thought you were in North Carolina, you know, where they grow peanuts.

Your lack of knowledge do not make you any less wrong in saying that peanut oil consumption is unusual. Nobody is saying you *should* have known that. I, however, am saying that before expressing amazement you should have checked before stating something was unusual.

Furthermore, you have left this on your website as a statement of fact because you say it is "unusual and hard to guess because I would assume that most people use olive oil or other vegetable oils." In fact it is common and and therefore easy to guess.

The *facts* are that it is not unusual in the USA. It is very commonly used in Chinese food. You live in a state that produces peanuts. Therefore, even though you say you didn't know this and were not making an educated guess, it was a guess that was very likely to be correct.

Therefore, nothing of importance could be contributed to you guessing peanut oil.

At the very least you should amend your website to indicate that you simply believed peanut oil to be unusual because it is not used in Sweden but that you acknowledge that you recently learned that North Carolina grows peanuts and that the USA is the fourth largest producer of peanuts in the world.

Your site as it stands now is misleading.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Moochie:
ETA: This is weird -- I type a colon with a capital d and it comes out as colon and lowercase d. Ditto with my initial -- I type it capital m and it comes out lowercase. Is this a glitch in the forum software? Maybe the Caps Lock button was playing tricks with you. It's a mystery.

Dearest UncaYimmy:
Anita refuses to even consider that her perceptions could be irrational. She pays lip service to it, but her actions betray her. She refuses to acknowledge that anyone else could consider her perceptions as irrational. As I've said I'm open to all conclusions of a test that reveals the true, actual accuracy of the perceptions as well as their actual origin. And I've also stated that I understand that my paranormal claim may raise concern due to the nature of the claim. I was presented with lists of symptoms of various mental conditions, I read them very carefully and compared with my experience, and concluded that I do not seem to have any of those conditions. That's all.
And when faced with opportunities to test the rationality, she continually evades. To me, at least, that's a cause of concern.Not at all. When ReverendClog and Pup each suggested that I meet with them for a test of medical diagnose I wholeheartedly accepted. I am not avoiding tests of my main claim of medical diagnose. I am just now focusing on the study that I was recommended by the local skeptics group that I do. :)
It's just not normal to see, hear, smell, taste and feel things that others don't. Could be cold reading, and automatic association from one category of information to other categories of information, so to see an external symptom of an illness through cold reading, and to deduce the ailment, and to associate automatically to visual, felt, understood, and other forms of information relating to the ailment. We don't know that. What I am doing might be very normal. Or it might be something else. I'm just curious because I've had apparent accuracy.
And then to create a website, visit skeptic boards, and ask other people to participate in verifying (not disproving) her beliefs is even more troubling.I am having this investigation, and I hoped that skeptics would be helpful in objective test design and analysis. I do get some of what I came here for, but I have to search for it underneath piles of nonsense, personal attacks, criticism and false assumptions, conclusions and beliefs. By the way I do not consider your concerns about my mental health to be personal attacks, I realize that they are relevant concerns in association to the type of paranormal claim that I'm here with.

tsig:
And he has a book to sell. Of course. They always do. Let's write a book.
I wonder how many books out there contain the "absolute truth". I would think you'd only need one. Of course if experience is any teacher if you have the truth in a book it will take infinitely many other books to explain the "one"Of course. The authors always recommend their entire series of 50 books, cards, DVD's and audio CD's so that you can get the whole idea of what they are trying to teach you. Oh, and you must attend the seminars!

desertgal:
I did not 'diagnose' you as being delusional, I am not a doctor. Unlike you, I do not diagnose people without proper training. However, in my experience, the thousands of words you have shared in this thread have conformed to the definition of delusional-and your complete denial only cements that impression.So when you call me delusional you have not diagnosed me as delusional? I don't think I am delusional. Tell me why you think I am in as clear and concise way as possible. I'm listening.
I have not made incorrect assumptions or beliefs about you. The only credibility that has been reduced in this thread is your own. Kindly don't address me again. It gets us nowhere, and only serves to further your delusions and your contemptible behavior. I have placed you on ignore, kindly do the same for me.I don't ignore any posters, because in amidst the mountains of garbage coming from some of the skeptics here, there are little glimpses of useful progress to my investigation. Somewhere in between the personal insults, inaccurate assumptions, and nonsense, I sometimes find something that actually is relevant to my claim and very good. :) And I take it with me. I've already learned a lot from you guys, so thank you. :)

Pup:
But the medicine trial wouldn't be any trouble or expense for me, beyond the cost of a stamp, since I can think of four or five medicines in the cupboard right now that I could sacrifice a pill from each, and I've got food coloring and ziplock bags. Five minutes work, a stamp, and it's done.

You've already said that this is something you experience, and we're only talking four or five medicines to identify, so it wouldn't be a lot of effort on your part--no long test with headaches or nausea. So why not give it a try?

It seems easy for you to talk about these things you experience, but apparently not so easy to demonstrate them to someone who's interested in what you can actually do. Alright, I'll PM you my address. We'll give it a try.

Jonquill:
Anita, if you are not familiar with cooking with peanut oil, was your first impression that this person had eaten an awful lot of peanuts? No, I've seen peanut oil before and was able to make that connection. Just that based on my past experience with people I could not expect a person to use peanut oil in their cooking. He said he uses loads of it when he fries things. ;)

[Jonquill]

"No, I've seen peanut oil before and was able to make that connection."

Thanks, I was just wondering.

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't think I am delusional. Tell me why you think I am in as clear and concise way as possible. I'm listening. May I try ?
I think you are delusional because you claim and aparantly believe you have x-ray - like vision. You also claimed that looking at a picture of marijuana made you high .

Such beliefs are clearly delusional. It would be a simple matter for you to prove me wrong.

One way, would be to admit you are lying; the other, would be to submit to simple tests and show you are neither delusional or lying.

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
I never get a chance to post in the moderated thread with all the work I have to do here. I will respond to your question in the moderated threat thread (Freudian slip) this evening.
You were asked to identify unknown chemicals. At your school. You used your super powers to assist you. I called it a test. You called it an experience. Whatever. The *actions* you took were identical. No mention of nausea or fatigue. I mean, if these physical reactions are "typical" why would you use your super powers knowing what might happen to you?NOT A TEST! A school assignment in which I perceived information about the chemicals on their own and without having made the choice or effort to do so! So of course no headache or discomfort! Besides it was one or a few perceptions and not tens within a short period of time as was required by chemical identification tests.

It was not a test. I did not make the effort. And it was just a few perceptions.
Wow. You can't even acknowledge that this puts a dent in your credibility. You can't even bring yourself to say, "I know it may seem this way and I understand that if affects my credibility." If you read all of my wall of texts I think I've said it somewhere.
It's all one claim, Anita. It's all one claim. You say you have a super power that lets you detect things down to the vibrational level. We're just talking about manifestations, that's all. And you keep avoiding the easiest manifestations to test.No, I am pushing to test the easiest manifestation of the claim; the medical information in live persons.
If I print out our exchange about the diagnostic criteria, which includes your responses and mine, and show it to a mental health professional, will you accept that person's recommendation about whether you should schedule a visit yourself? If this person says no, I'll accept it and stop bugging you about it.Yes, thank you for doing this it saves me the trouble. I appreciate it. However I might need to elaborate on my answers and explanations of how exactly I perceive these things. How about after I've had the study and have some time at hand again I can construct a more elaborate description of my perceptions which you can present to this specialist?
See the above and consider this: You made at least three readings in three attempts by my count. You did not claim that there were no perceptions.
You claimed perceptions. So much for infrequent, huh? Forced perceptions. Not the same as in real life.
No, you don't [have apparent accuracy]. Sorry. Yes I do have apparent accuracy. Apparent accuracy is what I call when I do what I can to check the accuracy of my perception and find out that it is supposedly correct. With apparent accuracy I still hold that the person might have been lying or mistaken about their health, or other reasons why it would not be what I call actual accuracy. I've had apparent accuracy.
You've already learned that by failing every reading you have attempted so far where cold reading was not possible. Well in several of my anecdotes that took place as described, as far as I know cold reading was not available. The fact that you insist on otherwise is incorrect, perhaps you are hallucinating?
Look, you're not guessing the taste as someone like myself might do. You're actually tasting the taste. Synesthetes do this consistently in response to certain stimuli. They don't have different tastes based on what someone else is tasting at the time.

So, if that's not a false sensation, what is?I don't actually taste the taste. I perceive an impression of the taste. I do not experience it in the same way as I experience my own tastes. What? Synesthetes don't have different tastes based on what someone else is tasting at the time? They have the same tastes? Like me? :confused:
People with hallucinations: millions
People with super powers allowing them to taste what others are tasting: 0If the hypothesis is a paranormal ability, then the null hypothesis is not necessarily hallucinations. I've already compared my experience against the symptoms of hallucinations and it is not likely that I have them. What if I'd be cold reading without being aware of it? Is that hallucinations? No it isn't. We don't know what I'm doing yet. All I know is there's been interesting apparent accuracy, and a study and tests will be done.
That's fine. We will, because it goes to credibility and your own self-analysis of your mental health.In all fairness I don't see how a claimant's mental health would have as much say about their claim as you seem to think. Of course there would be reasons for concern, but, what if there was a claimant with mental problems and paranormal ability, if these were activated in a similar way? I've carefully read all the mental health symptoms posted here and do not find it consistent in my case.
Really? You have devoted hours upon hours to them. They have made you alternately ecstatic, scared, worried, and angry (just to name a few emotions). They have inspired you to create a website, visit skeptic boards, and involve other people.Just because I devote hours upon hours to something does not mean that it would be interfering with my life. I devote hours upon hours upon hours to studies when I am at college and it does not interfere with my life. Ecstatic? Hm. Scared? Nope. Worried? Nah. Angry? Yeah, sometimes, but that's to be expected throwing a piece of meat into a room full of skeptics. Emotions? To create a website is not disturbing to a person's life. It takes very little time, and lots of people create websites about all sorts of things. :)
Of course I've visited skeptic boards and involved other people. That is how a paranormal investigation takes place.
Maybe that is not "interference" as you mean it, but your life would be different without them because you *act* on them. A synesthete seeing an orange glow around the numeral 3 can say it doesn't interfere with her life if she takes no actions based on that glow.I investigate them, that is the only action I've taken. Besides there are synesthetes who investigate their synesthetic experience with scientists.
Could it be because there is a major difference between how it has been asked here and how it has been asked in the moderated thread? No, it's been asked in pretty much the very same way each time. And I've answered it in pretty much the very same way each time. I'm on my way to that thread as soon as I finish in this one, which is soon. :)
And I've invited you many times now to speak with me in a private chat room since I feel that it was much more productive than posting here. I've even suggested that our conversation be made available here for those who are curious, but what if I claimed that you are avoiding my invitation? Are you delusional for avoiding it? Or perhaps you are lying? :confused:

[Uncayimmy]

What ever. I still think I may have synesthesia until proven otherwise.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody can prove you don't have it. You have to prove that you do have it. Unless you are saying that we have not eliminated that it could be a mind control device implanted by your mother, an Illuminati agent.

Have you learned nothing?

The fact that I associate things in a manner consistent to synesthesia (and in ways that were not testable on the website) is not a case of being unable to differentiate imagination from reality. I wasn't able to test for the other areas of possible synesthesia that I experience, such as associating objects to shapes and vibrational pattern. With the various types of music tests I actually perceive two, not one colors because the tones are not constant or straight but vary from start to finish, and the test did not allow a representation of that.

Now you're stepping into my area of expertise as a musician. I'm telling you that the tones do not vary from start to finish except in terms of attack and decay. There's no pitch variation. And because I am a scientist critical thinker, I sampled the notes and ran them through a frequency analyzer. There were no variations in pitch from start to finish except for attack and decay, just like I heard.

Do you really fail to see what's going on here? It looks like your mind is throwing up roadblocks to anything that contradicts your fantasy. You say you are a synesthete without ever once confirming it. You finally take a screening test that is designed to catch as many possible synesthetes as possible at the expense of false positives. You fail all but one test.

As a defense you claim that the tones varied from start to finish. First, do you think they would make a mistake that big? Second, I *know* for a fact that the tone did not vary. I based this on my ears and a scientific test.

This is a further demonstration of your inability to distinguish reality from imagination.

Or maybe you are lying. This is the first mention of seeing two colors that I recall. Even if you do see two colors, pick the same one each time. It was obvious that is what the test wanted you to do.

I'm serious, Anita, this is very troubling. Every time you are presented with contradictory evidence, you either stop testing or make up excuses. Nothing about your claims has been supported in the least.

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:
I've now responded in the moderated thread. It is done so in a hideous orange. ;)
Oh, I get it now. You're in Sweden where the use of peanut oil is unusual. I thought you were in North Carolina, you know, where they grow peanuts.My expectation of what type of oil a person uses was based on my past experience. At the time I had the experience I could not expect a person to use peanut oil.
Your lack of knowledge do not make you any less wrong in saying that peanut oil consumption is unusual. Nobody is saying you *should* have known that. I, however, am saying that before expressing amazement you should have checked before stating something was unusual. It was unusual to me.
Therefore, even though you say you didn't know this and were not making an educated guess, it was a guess that was very likely to be correct. I fully agree to that. But the thing is, I did not "guess" or "perceive" (which ever it was) that he'd use a lot of olive oil, for instance. Had I said that, he would have said no, he doesn't use olive oil, he uses peanut oil. The fact of the matter is, that each time I express a perception presents it a chance of being inaccurate, and so far I've not been confirmed inaccurate.
Therefore, nothing of importance could be contributed to you guessing peanut oil.The thing is I could have been wrong but I wasn't. All I say is that based on my everyday use of the perceptions, I've failed to falsify this paranormal claim. The study and tests will present plenty of real, tough opportunity to falsify it!

Diogenes:
Diogenes is back! Yay! :)
I think you are delusional because you claim and aparantly believe you have x-ray - like vision. Not to be picky but to clarify what my claim is, I do not believe it is X-ray-like vision, it is far better than that. ;) (Or worse than that, from the concerned skeptics' point of view.) Also I do not believe I have this special vision. I do not experience it with the same sense of reality and belief as I do the things I perceive with my ordinary senses. Often for instance I come across medical perceptions that I find very hard to believe because when I look at the person I can not confirm what I perceived, and it is at times like these I am extra concerned to try to establish the accuracy or inaccuracy of the perception. But so far I've not been confirmed incorrect yet. The study will provide with plenty of opportunities for inaccuracy to be revealed. I've experienced apparent accuracy so I want to have the study and tests to find out what the actual accuracy is, as well as what the source of the information is.
You also claimed that looking at a picture of marijuana made you high .Yes I claim that.
Such beliefs are clearly delusional. It would be a simple matter for you to prove me wrong.If you knew the details of how these experiences took place you might find yourself in the same situation as me - that it is hard to explain what was responsible for it and that the best thing to do, provided one has curiosity in this phenomenon, is to have a study and tests to find out. What I see is that you skeptics seem very eager to simply state that the experiences I had were not what they were, and that is not being objective. Of course my experiences are not evidence, but they are to me. You didn't experience them. But I did. The study and tests will prove what they prove. Wait to find out.

UncaYimmy:
Why are you avoiding my invitation to engage in a private conversation with me in a chat room, where we could make plenty more progress? The conversation can then be posted here and made available for all.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody can prove you don't have it [synesthesia]. Aha! Then why am I being told by Forum members that I don't have synesthesia? Aha!
Now you're stepping into my area of expertise as a musician. I'm telling you that the tones do not vary from start to finish except in terms of attack and decay. There's no pitch variation. Then attack and decay might be it. I really do perceive two colors in association to music and tones. Sorry if that's a bad thing. :(
You fail all but one test.The online test did not test for most of the experiences I have that are similar to synesthetic linkage. Besides I passed one of them.
As a defense you claim that the tones varied from start to finish. First, do you think they would make a mistake that big? Second, I *know* for a fact that the tone did not vary. I based this on my ears and a scientific test. Even the chords? They do vary in the way I perceive them, and I see two colors. For instance one tone might begin with a bright yellow, then towards the end it becomes a purple-pink.
Or maybe you are lying. This is the first mention of seeing two colors that I recall. Aha! When ever I come with additional information, it will always be considered too late!
I'm serious, Anita, this is very troubling. Every time you are presented with contradictory evidence, you either stop testing or make up excuses. Nothing about your claims has been supported in the least. My claim is medical perceptions in live people.

[Akhenaten]

My claim is medical perceptions in live people.


You claim just about everything under the Sun. It's not your job to decide which of your claims we choose to address. If you don't wish to have them addressed, don't make them.


Stop telling people that they have to stick to subjects of which you approve. You're the subject of the thread, not the topic sheriff.


Stop accusing people of impatience. We were here before you arrived, doing sceptical stuff, and will be here long after you go the Way of Mayday™. It doesn't matter to us how long it takes you to fail to produce anything. No expectations will be harmed during this exercise. Take your time.


The rest is pretty good though, so don't stop that. It makes Dr Who seem like a stuffy old documentary.

[sleepy_lioness]

VFF, you said to desertgal:

desertgal:

"Not to be mean, but a person suffering from schizotypal disorder can not diagnose someone else as being delusional. I really don't intend to be mean. Also with the vast amount of obvious and proven to be incorrect assumptions and beliefs made by yourself and some other skeptics reduces your credibilities in evaluating on important subjects like these." and, of her posts:

"Schizotypal disorder nonsense and hallucinations about inaccurate conclusions speak."

I smiled ruefully, because you see I have a colleague at work, whom I manage, who suffers from a schizotypal disorder. They are OK now they are having proper treatment. However, we went through months of hearing ever weirder and more improbable, and finally alarming stories (including self-harm and suicide intent), and still the person would not admit that they had a medical problem. They were convinced that they were being psychically controlled by another person who was trying to harm them. When I challenged them directly about their behaviour I was told, aha, but it's all in YOUR head, you've had a psychiatric diagnosis in the past (which is true, I've had depression), and you're projecting it all onto me ...

Funnily enough, the doctors were able to give my colleague some tablets which made the person controlling her stop.

One thing I often observe on these boards is that people seem to be utterly wedded to their own sensory perceptions and to find it a cause of great shame if what they saw/felt/heard/whatever wasn't really there. I don't understand this shame or loss of face. We all see things that aren't there sometimes - mostly we realize straight away. We know that human perceptions and human memory are very fallible. That's part of what makes us human rather than computers.

I would just add that 'delusional' is not a diagnosis. Many many psychiatric problems have delusions and hallucinations as symptoms and I'm guessing none of us on here is qualified to judge whether you meet the criteria for any of those, or if so, which. People have simply been suggesting that, if you are telling the truth, you appear to be exhibiting delusion and hallucination, and that these *can* be symptoms of various psychiatric disorders so you should probably get yourself checked out. By the way, I think that they can also be symptoms of other issues, such as neurological problems (migraine? I smell weird things in the prodrome period of a migraine, and migraines make me sick and headachy ...). Not to worry you at all, and I wouldn't dream of diagnosing you, but your posts give me cause for concern and if you were a friend or associate of mine I'd be strongly pressurising you to see a doctor.

[Kuko 4000]

After 1170+ posts you rascals haven't been able to discredit VisionFromFeeling. You have to admit she has backed off every challenge. She's brilliant.

She deserves an award :)


It this is an example of brilliance, the meaning of the word needs re-evaluating.

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm a little confused Anita. I can understand your assumption that peanut oil is unusual - its not used all that much in cooking where I am from either. However you said that you notice in particular things that are unusual - they stand out to you, when you see things where you wouldn't expect them.

So, based on what you have said, when you came to America, I would have expected you to have a period where you noticed peanut oil in peoples bodies - with the perception jumping out at you with no effort. Which would lead most people to think to themselves "Ah, they must use peanut oil for cooking here much more than at home". Yet you only seem to have discovered that peanut oil is not unusual on tis very thread.

Hence my confusion. Can you explain what I am missing?

[Belz...]

Belz:
The reason I saw the need for me to begin disregarding some of the posts and comments was because most of them I had answered many times already and if I answered again it would not be productive, and also because I get criticized for posting wall of texts (although all of you seem to be allowed to post wall of texts).

Actually, I'd just critidize you for not using the quote function often enough.

Oh please why can't you people read what I've said and actually see what it says! I said that I have experienced correlation between my perceptions and actual information. That is, for instance if I tell someone that they had a vasectomy and they say yes. Then that is an experience of accuracy.

No, that's not what I was talking about. Those are not double-blind, or even single-blind, tests. You cannot eliminate the possibility of bias, lie or delusion with those standards. That's why I asked how COULD you tell the difference. You can't because you consistently stick to standards that shelter your interpretation from reality.

It does not mean to imply that it was what I call actual accuracy, for instance if the person was lying. Nor does it mean to imply that I was expressing a paranormal ability, because it could have been cold reading. What it does mean to imply, was that there was an experience of what I call apparent accuracy. And I know that. Because that's what happened.

Well, that comes right back to what I said. You CAN'T tell the difference. How's that test coming along ?

that women should be on a vasectomy detection test, and so on.

If you can't tell whether they're women or not I'd agree. That'd be a good way to test your alledged abilities.

[desertgal]

desertgal:
Schizotypal disorder nonsense and hallucinations about inaccurate conclusions speak.

You are taking my comment out of context. YOU said that it was amusing to watch the rest of us annihilate each other. It's typical of psychic claimants to say, when their claims begin to fall apart, that it is the fault of us big bad skeptics. We are just out to "annihilate" claimants. That's not actually true, and it is typical troll speak. They don't want to let go of their delusions - much easier to blame the big bad skeptics. And we haven't been annihilating each other in this thread.

I haven't made inaccurate conclusions about you. I have made conclusions that you don't agree with. Doesn't mean they are inaccurate, nor doesn't it mean they are "garbage". Just means that you don't agree.

(Sorry. I really don't have anything personal against you, I just want to show you in what manner you are speaking to me.)

Irregardless, that isn't the way SD works. The fact that you would turn my mental disorder around to use against me incorrectly says a great deal about you.

You'd better answer this question! When was I lying? :mad:


Lying, by the simplest definition, is to give voice to something that isn't true. With delusions, lying is inherent, not intentional. IF your many wild claims are delusions, and I believe they are, then relating them here is akin to lying, even though you are not aware of it. Do I think you are dishonest? No. That would indicate that the lying is intentional. Do I think you are relating what isn't true? Yes.

So when you call me delusional you have not diagnosed me as delusional?

No. "Delusional" is not a personality disorder or a mental illness. It is a symptom. I have observed that, in my opinion, you have displayed that symptom repeatedly. It's an observation, not a diagnosis.

I was presented with lists of symptoms of various mental conditions, I read them very carefully and compared with my experience, and concluded that I do not seem to have any of those conditions.

When it comes to mental symptoms/conditions, it is impossible to self evaluate and achieve an accurate result. You need to consult with a mental health professional.

The criteria I posed for schizotypal disorder was a snippet from the DSM-IV's comprehensive criteria for that disorder, but I should have never posted it. As a snippet, it was ineffective for comparison value. As well, I am not qualified to attempt to assign any disorder to you, regardless of the similarities I see between your behavior and my own experience inside schizotypal disorder. I admitted that. I apologized for that. I will not do it again. And it does not change the fact that, when it comes to mental symptoms/conditions, it is impossible to self evaluate and achieve an accurate result. You need to consult with a mental health professional.

I don't think I am delusional. Tell me why you think I am in as clear and concise way as possible. I'm listening.

No, thank you. UncaYimmy has already done a meticulous job in that regard, and you didn't listen to him then. Why should I believe you would listen now?

It wasn't easy, to begin with, to admit to a group of strangers that something "went broken" in my mind years ago, but I did it in the interest of helping you. Watching you use it against me again, as the source of "projections", isn't something I relish, so I think I'll skip that.

The best course, for you, to eliminate or confirm any question about your mental stability would be to consult a mental health professional, and to be completely honest with him/her about ALL your claims, and ALL your alleged abilities.

There's nothing "wrong" about being delusional, Anita. It is happening to you, not because of you. The idea that mental problems are "shameful" and something that the victim can eliminate with an effort of will is one of the worst, most misguided beliefs of our society. A mental ailment is no different than a physical ailment. If your thyroid goes haywire, you get it fixed. If something in your mind breaks down, you get it fixed.

[Drs_Res]

VFF,

I am curious.
Anita claimed she could identify chemicals, but then stopped testing when the results were less than accurate.
Stopped when I got headaches and nausea, which were caused by forced effort.

Taking this into consideration, do you get headaches and nausea when you have to use a forced effort to read a live person? You know, someone where nothing just pops out at you?

Thanks.

[Pup]

1) A region just below the sternum, 0.0006 m2 area out of the average 1.9 m2 surface area of a man, giving it a chance of 1:3100 to guess it right (Locknar: this does not imply to say that I was guessing, I am just saying what the chances are for someone who does guess!). Correct.

Actually, I don't think one could say the odds were 1:3100. Any description of pain or discomfort where it actually occurred would have been a hit, and people have quite a few aches and pains, if their attention is drawn to it.

Coincidentally enough, that description would have been close enough for a casual "hit" for both me and my wife. She has an occasional pain or cramping sensation that's been diagnosed as a minor hernia, just below the sternum but slightly to one side. I have a mild ulcer which occasionally acts up by causing minor pain or cramping, also a bit below the sternum and to the right just under the bottom rib. Both, apparently, are fairly common.

In casual conversation, people tend to notice correlations, not contradictions. Rather than saying, "No, you're wrong, it's actually an inch to the right," I expect the typical answer would be, "Wow, I do have a pain there! How'd you know?" That's why these abilities can appear to be real in casual encounters, but fade under stricter examination.


Pup:
Alright, I'll PM you my address. We'll give it a try.


I've got the samples all made up and addressed in the envelope, and I'll stop by the post office Monday and put it in the mail to you. They're:

calcium carbonate (an antacid)
phenylephrine hcl (a decongestant)
cetirizine hydrochloride (a 24 hour allergy medicine)
ibuprofen
aspirin

All individually crushed and mixed with green and/or red food coloring, but otherwise unchanged.

Again, this is way too casual of a test to actual prove anything, other than to satisfy my curiosity, since it's wide open to cheating, lying, lack of controls, and so forth. But neither of us would really gain anything by cheating or lying, since a stricter test would quickly show a different outcome. And in further tests, different ways of avoiding unintentional clues could be added.

If you don't experience anything, there's no pressure, no need to guess--just say so. If you only experience anything for one or two, just state the numbers you're sure of and ignore the rest.

You've said that this is something you experience, so I'm curious to see it work.

[Ashles]

I have demonstrated what I mean by vibrational algebra, see my past posts to Ashles, find them yourself.
No you have absolutely not done so.
I specifically asked for an example (even using dummy data) and you have refused to provide it.
You have provided no reason to assume 'Vibrational Algebra' exists as anything but a made up phrase.

This is where we are at
VFF: I have an amazing ability. I will use it to cure diseases in the future.
Skeptics: How?
VFF: Using the knowledge I see with my ability, a calculation process I have created called 'Vibrational Algebra' and Optical technology
Skeptic: Wow. But how will you do the calculations when you haven't yet done statistics
VFF: I'm going to be studying calculus
Skeptics: Uh okay. So what is Vibrational Algebra
VFF: I haven't learned the proper scientific terminology to describe it
Skeptics: Well use non scientific terminology
VFF: It's a secret. And I already gave you an example of it.
Skeptics: No you haven't
VFF: Well I wont because it's a secret
Skeptics: Well what about the devices you'll be using?
VFF: There are optical decices that do this kind of thing. You don't know anything about optics
Skeptics: Can you give examples?
VFF: I haven't built them yet. Duh!
Skeptics: But you just said-
VFF: And I'm not telling you about the current ones. They're a secret too.
Skeptics: So, to recap, you are planning to develop secret technology using secret calculations based around scientific and mathematical areas you haven't even studied yet to create imaginary future devices modified from secret current ones to solve health issues identified using a paranormal ability that hasn't ever been detailed by anyone other than yourself?
VFF: No it's completely different from that.
Skeptics: Well that's that then.

[Jonquill]

What would be the odds of her getting the five right by chance? 1:120?

[Belz...]

Skeptics: So, to recap, you are planning to develop secret technology using secret calculations based around scientific and mathematical areas you haven't even studied yet to create imaginary future devices modified from secret current ones to solve health issues identified using a paranormal ability that hasn't ever been detailed by anyone other than yourself?

Marvelous. Summarizing this thread in so few words. I commend you!

[Cuddles]

As an early defender of the moderated thread experiment, I must point out that there's no need for the moderators to close the thread. Since you and VfF are the only ones who can post in it, it's effectively closed already (unless she or you decide to revive it).

Not quite. Anyone can post in a moderated thread, their posts just don't appear until approved by a moderator. Since that thread was set up on request for two people to discuss the topic, we have not approved posts by anyone else. In general, people have been pretty good at not posting in threads like this when asked not to, but it is certainly possible for them to do so.

UncaYimmy - if you feel the moderated thread is no longer useful and think it should be closed, feel free to PM a moderator or submit a report requesting it.

Cuddles:
:mad: Ashles, help me out here. At first I used the word "observations" referring to my subjective impressions of for instance the inside of human bodies. After several thread-pages of discussions Ashles and I agreed that to avoid misunderstandings we would use the word "perceptions" to refer to my subjective impressions that have not been proven to be reality based yet. And now Cuddles comes in and wants another word. I am very upset because it is never right. Don't you guys have like a skeptics' language that you all could agree to and tell me about so that we're all speaking the same language? I'm tired of being bullied around like this.

I'm sure you are upset. However, the problem still lies entirely with you. We are all speaking plain English, it is only your refusal to listen to anyone or accept any criticism that forces you to pretend otherwise. And you are in no way being bullied. If you genuinely feel that being confronted by reality is equivalent to bullying, I can only add my voice to those who ask you to seek professional help.

I explained very clearly in the post you just replied to exactly why perceptions are not the same as objective reality. They may be simplified, distorted or completely false and disconnected from reality. Your problem is that despite, as someone else put it, paying lip service to the idea, you consistently refuse to acknowledge this point. Sure, you say that you have agreed to use the word "perceptions" to make this clear, but you use it in a such a way that requires assuming that they are actually real. Note the question I was responding to - "Is not visual perception of a person a stimulus?". No, of course it isn't, because a perception is the result of a stimulus. You use the word, but you do not use the meaning. No matter how much you whine about our use of language, it is yours that is at fault.

The issue here is that my perceptions have apparent accuracy with the real world, and that is what we are investigating.

No, it isn't. The issue here is that you have no evidence at all that your perceptions have anything to do with the real world, and that you refuse to acknowledge this. While you have anecdotes, what has brought everyone to realise that you are no different from all the other woos who come here is that not only do you have no evidence, but that you refuse to admit that some of the anecdotes you have presented were just plain wrong. If you were truly interested in investigating things you would accept negative evidence as well as positive. As it is, when confronted with the fact that your claims about intestines were complete nonsense, you scramble around looking for excuses and complaining that we are being mean, instead of simply conceding the point.

We don't know whether there is input yet or what that input might be. The study and test should find out, for instance by disallowing certain types of input one at a time until the perceptions cease. For instance, will the perceptions work with the person behind a screen? I intend to find out. It is all testable, and in spite of everyone's (including mine) impatience, I am working on it and making (slow) progress.

Except that we have no evidence of any progress. As has been pointed out numerous times, you claim to have been investigating this for a long time, and to have had these perceptions for even longer. Yet you haven't even carried out the simplest of tests and actively run away from them when they are proposed.

We are in no position to say that auras are not an accurate reflection of reality.

And it is statements like this that lead people to question your claims of education. This is just complete nonsense. We know very well that auras don't exist. We have equipment that can measure single photons of a huge range of energy, far more sensitive than any human perception ever could be, and auras simply aren't there. People who see them may have a form of synaesthesia or they may simply be hallucinating or delusional.

Human perception is very limited and it is safe to assume that reality consists of much more than what humans or their built instruments are able to perceive or measure at this time.

It is not at all safe to assume this. In fact, it is incredibly stupid, especially when such an assumption apparently comes from someone who is studying for a physics degree. Of course, what's particularly amusing is that you bring up the standard "human perception is limited" in response to criticism of your claims of extraordinary perception. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

What I am insisting on is that I have experienced apparent accuracy between my perceptions and the real mutual world.

Yes we know. And as I pointed out in the post you are complaining about, and as many other people have also explained, it is exactly this insistence that is the problem. Until you admit that you have no evidence of this apparent accuracy, and acknowledge that at least some of your "apparently accurate" anecdotes are in fact proven to be wrong, you are not going to get anywhere.

I am not denying the null hypothesis. Please start reading from the very beginning of this thread and see how I've consistently stated this.

Again, I know you keep stating this. Most people learn very early in life that repetition does not magically make something true. This claim is in direct contradiction of the preceding paragraph, where you insist that your perceptions appear to be accurate. The null hypothesis is not that your perceptions are accurate but that there is a mundane explanation, the null hypothesis is that your perceptions are simply not accurate. Again, unless you acknowledge that, and I mean actually acknowledge it, not just say that you do and then carry on as normal with more contradictions, every second you spend discussing, or even thinking about, this subject is a complete waste of your time.

But I know that! Please start reading at the beginning of the thread and when you catch up with where we're at now you might know a little bit more than your false assumptions about me.

I suggest you take a good, long look at Matthew 7:3-5. I have read the whole thread, as have many other people responding to you. However, it is painfully clear that either you have not, or that you have completely failed to understand a word that has been said to you. I have not made any false assumptions about you. In fact, I have not made any assumptions at all. Everything I have said is based on your own words and actions. The problem is that there is no "where we're at now" to catch up with. Nothing has changed since this thread was started, or even since you started your webpage. You still have nothing, and you still refuse to admit this or accept criticism.

[Moochie]

Well, here's the thing - I didn't offer a diagnosis. I offered an observation. You, though, in the above statement, ARE offering an armchair diagnosis. You are certain that any observations of a personality disorder and/or psychiatric problems are incorrect. You are diagnosing Anita to be free of any disorder.

No, I'm not. I'm just saying that I don't see what you say you see.

Not arguing with you - just curious as to why you would immediately do something you just advised against.

I didn't.

Probably not, but it is my opinion, and I am entitled to it. And I have not made an armchair diagnosis of a personality disorder. I've said that, speaking from my point of view as someone with a personality disorder, I've observed some marked similarities in Anita's thousands of words, and my belief that she is delusional is not unfounded. Period. It's an observation, not a diagnosis.

No argument from me.

Her words, if true, fit the definition of delusional, and she would benefit from psychiatric help. If they are deliberate lies, then, obviously, not all her dogs are barking, and she would also benefit from psychiatric help. Either way, encouraging her to seek psychiatric help is not a bad thing, nor is it wrong.

No argument from me. And nice to see the qualifier, "if true." :)


M.

[Ashles]

Ashles:
I was specifically told by the local skeptics group to investigate my claim closer so that I can bring to them a claim that is better understood and that can be taken from its everyday experience into a test setting, and that is what the study is for.
We all want to understand your claim better. Unfortunately we have hit a problem in that any part of it that you can describe in more technical detail has suddenly become secret.

If you choose to criticize this then that's just being ridiculous. For instance a test might ask that the person I am looking at is behind a screen. Well, I don't know if I can do that? People aren't usually behind a screen when I see them in everyday life. So by having a study and trying this out I can add to my claim whether I can have a screen or not on a test. I can not simply agree to a test that is not specifically what I claim to be able to do.
Oh wow. Really? You claim to want to be a scientist and you genuinely can't understand why this might be asked or part of the test?
Every single thing you do seems to cry out 'cold reading'. Every single ability you have described appears to be too unreliable to test, except the exact one in which cold reading could be a factor. So obviously there is a desire to remove opportunity for cold reading.
Anita, people are only going by the (limited) descriptions you yourself have provided. You say you can see through clothes so a sheet shouldn't be a problem. But then for some reason it is and you need to see the head. To those of us with more experience of this kind of claim this screams cold reading in many different ways.

And, from a scientific point you try to restrict the variables until you can focus on exactly what is happening. That is a ridiculous complaint from somebody aiming to be a scientist one day.
Someone claiming to be able to read someone else's mind wouldn't be allowed to use their own choice of words and second person because it opens the demonstration up to being passed by other means. This is why the test cannot simply be set up however you personally choose. It has to be agreed by those testing otherwise it is (another) pointless test.
Scientists set up artificial situations to control for variables and understand the central concept being analysed.
It's frankly astonishing this needs to be explained to you. A layman would understand this.

Infrequent perceptions, not part of my paranormal claim that I want to have tested, never claimed to read photos or video over the internet.
Stopped when I got headaches and nausea, which were caused by forced effort. Inaccuracy appeared after headache and not before. Not the claim I am investigating.
Potentially world changing... easier to test than the main claim...
Sure let's ignore them.

I presented an example of what I mean by vibrational algebra.
Completely and totally untrue. Link to the post in which you did so.

I will not present any actual scientific applications of it here in this Forum but if and once they appear you may read about it in the same publications as everyone else.
Your website? :rolleyes:

The reason I did not detect it at the survey at the mall was because I was also testing out the details of the perceptions and not specificly testing for vasectomy. Please read the description of the survey, to be posted on my website eventually, before saying ridiculous nonsense about it that isn't true. I have not concluded that I can not claim to detect vasectomy. I just didn't detect any in this brief survey experience for reasons that become clear when you read about how the survey actually took place, rather than hallucinate about it in your own mind and place belief in your inaccurate delusions. Schizotypal personality, if you ask me, or just psychosis.
Unclear answer follwed by attempted redirect. Yet again.
So we're agreed it was a fail. Good, moving on...

I am testing the type of perceptions that occur most frequently, that I have most experience with, that come about without effort or headache, and that as such are most testable.
Certainly not 'the most testable' as explained many times before.

It's like if I were to enter a baking contest.
Lunatic analogy proximity warning...

Sure I've got lots of recipes, and some dishes might be easier to cook than others, but I'd rather cook my specialty, the one I've done the most at home and am the most confident in, and so what if there is more work involved, I am the one baking it. And if you don't like it, don't eat it.
And that refutes the testing concern regarding cold reading... how exactly?
Oh, it doesn't.
The hard science is coming thick and fast here.

I've shared this with one of my instructors who is an expert in quantum mechanics, although I will not involve any of my professors or university in this investigation.
You'd have thought he would have actually been interested in being involved. You would have thought that, if he believed you, he would be badgering you day and night to test this further.
It is totally incomprehensible that an expert in Physics could hear such a story and believe it and then completely ignore it.
So he either didn't believe you.
Or it never happened. (And what happened to the other two professors?)

I notice we are never told what his actual response was. Other than he agreed it was Vibrational Algebra. (That brand new field of physics. That he also apparently also isn't interested in.)

Paranormal topics are automatically negatively associated
Gee I wonder why?

and I will not bring this personal investigation into my professional life. Any other university is more than welcome to become involved in this investigation.
So you approach skeptical web forums but not universities?
They would have to approach you? And then be told it's all secret so you can't tell them anything anyway. Or be forced to sign draconian non-disclosure agreements.

I guess they could always get in contact with Professor Uninterested at your college.

My university is not affiliated with this investigation whether it would want to or not I would not allow it.
And Princess Anita, Queen Ruler of the Universe makes a welcome reappearance.

I will not describe any of them here in this humble little skeptics Forum! When the day comes that I present one of my projects at a university, you are all most welcome to come and attend the lecture. See you there.
You refuse to describe standard current Optical Equipment that might be relevent to this claim?
Yes this really adds to your credibility and credentials.

It's always interesting what happens when we drill down on the specifics in these claims. Evasion is almost guaranteed.
The 'it's a secret' and 'you'll read about it when everyone else in the world does' excuses are almost crushingly mundane.

Well I've told the truth about it, and it is irrelevant here. Besides, wasn't it you who argued that we should not discuss any theories or mechanism behind the claim?
It is not required by a claimant and is not relevant to a million dollar challenge claim.

However you started this all off with attempts to explain the mechanism. Many here have scientific backgrounds so it is of great interest when a claimant says they have ideas about the mechanism.
With these claims any offered explanation is by definition going to breach new areas of science so we always enjoy listening to such explanations. Up until the point where the person starts either talking nonsense, or runs out of the limited science they know and has been pinned down on areas where they would prefer to be vague.

You claimed you were actually going to build devices based on your knowledge of the mechanism behind this claim. That was of course of great interest. It implied a real demonstrable understanding of a new area of science.
Until (entirely expectedly) you suddenly said it was all secret and couldn't even describe the most basic parts of the mechanism or process.
And now you are trying the old 'But I don't have to explain it' defence.

You didn't have to try to explain it.
But you did choose to try. And you failed.

Yes I do, bless their hearts. It takes them months to get back with me each time whereas I reply to them in full within the next day. If they have any specific concerns they know they can contact me. I have agreed to all of their changes to the protocol with the exception that I do not know yet whether music would be a distraction or not, but that is hardly the reason of the delay as of now.
Why not contact a University? Then you could get proper scientific testing?
I'm interested. Why won't you do that?
(Another University obviously since you have stated a bizarre and inexplicable refusal to use the University you are currently studying at to look at the amazing ability you claim to have)

I was advised by the local skeptics group to conduct further studies into my paranormal claim so that I can present to them a better researched claim that can be lifted from its everyday experience and adapted into a test situation. Please don't argue with the advice given by them, they are brilliant skeptics not unlike yourselves only more so.
Good luck to them. I wonder if they will ever even get these 'studies'.

Skeptics do not seem to understand that the sensations I am experiencing are not confirmed as not resulting from real external information/stimulus, thus cannot accurately be referred to as not resulting from stimuli until confirmed by independent testing.
Or equally literally correctly:

"the sensations I am experiencing are not confirmed as not resulting from a mind control probe, thus cannot accurately be referred to as not resulting from a mind control probe until confirmed by independent testing."

Hopefully that demonstrates why your thinking there is unscientific and silly.
It won't though as all the previous attempts haven't.

Is doing her very best to stick to her one and only main claim.
You have made many claims here. You are only agreeing to testing on one of those claims. The one most likely to be open to cold reading.

This only relates to the chemical identification test and has always applied, I just didn't tell you guys right away. Besides it is not the claim I want tested at this point. If you want, you can come down to North Carolina and watch me suffer from a headache and throw up from making several forced chemical perceptions within a short period of time. Of course you can not conclude that I am telling the truth, but seriously, you can not conclude that I am not telling the truth either. Come see for yourself won't you. It can be verified.
So the only other test you will agree to is that you can be sick?
Funny how none of this appeared in your original claim or on your website.

So how many can you do before the nausea and headache kick in?
Even if it were one per day then a test could be built around it.
If you really wanted to test this.
But of course you don't.

I understand that. That is why I call it the apparent accuracy.
Well that's fine and agreed. But elsewhere you insist we accept your anecdotes as having happened to you and trust your stories and descriptions.
Which we can't without unbiased evidence.

No. The IIG West is taking their time, and the local skeptics group wanted me to have a study first. So I am having a study first.
I think they would rather see properly conducted independent testing.

Still we will see what your 'study' shows.
Although I am feeling strangely psychic about that - it either
1. won't happen or
2. it will happen and apparently confirm your abilities or
3. it will happen and won't entirely confirm your abilities yet through lengthy rationalisations and redefinitions and vagueness of descriptions it somehow then will confirm your abilities

The one thing it won't do is convince you the ability isn't really there.

However I am open to being proven wrong.

[Locknar]

I still think I may have synesthesia until proven otherwise. It is your claim, it is up to you to prove. You haven't.


And it is unscientific of you to conclude that I do not have multiple forms of synesthesia when I wasn't even able to test for the multiple forms that I claim to experience. You guys are exhibiting the exact behavior you accuse me of, but you just aren't seeing it. I see it but out of niceness I try not to point it out.In the absence of credible, acceptable proof it is reasonable and scientific to conclude you do not have synesthesia.

[Ashles]

Ashles, I must have missed this...can you help me out?
Yes.
It didn't happen.

I'm also confused how this:
My interest in doing a project either at school or in my spare time of trying to apply my ideas of vibrations and waves into conventional mathematics is something I have not begun yet nor would I post it here.

can be ratified with this:
I can do vibrational algebra to calculate theoretical effects in resultant vibration which translates back into real world physical things.

Are these not directly contradictory?

[Ashles]

Cuddles:
:mad: Ashles, help me out here. At first I used the word "observations" referring to my subjective impressions of for instance the inside of human bodies. After several thread-pages of discussions Ashles and I agreed that to avoid misunderstandings we would use the word "perceptions" to refer to my subjective impressions that have not been proven to be reality based yet. And now Cuddles comes in and wants another word. I am very upset because it is never right. Don't you guys have like a skeptics' language that you all could agree to and tell me about so that we're all speaking the same language? I'm tired of being bullied around like this.
Okay I have to say I do not think I have personally been entirely clear enough about that. I'll put my hands up to that.

I previously stated at one point that Perception implied real external stimuli. I was using that (in the context of the previous posts) to imply the perceptions exist as a layer of processing on top of observations from real world stimuli.
But I don't think that explains it clearly enough. And isn't strictly speaking (which we should be here) accurate.

So I will try harder this time.

"Perceptions" is the correct word.

"Observations" implies detection of real world stimuli.
"Perception" is what is experienced subjectively by a person. It adds the processing of the environment performed (correctly or incorrectly) by the sensory systems of an individual.

You can only Observe what is real.
You can Perceive that which is incorrect or imagined.

To clarify yet further.
In this illusion:
http://www.myoops.org/twocw/mit/NR/rdonlyres/Brain-and-Cognitive-Sciences/9-35Spring-2004/EB3B2587-5D14-4DFB-AE5F-8D1BD65B615D/0/chp_checkerboard.jpg

It would be fine to say you "Perceived" that squares A and B were different colours.
You would be incorrect (they are exactly the same colour), but that is due to the nature of your visual system.

But it would be incorrect (within the scope of the strict language we are using here) to say you "Observed" the colours were the same, as it is an incorrect assumption.

PhotoShop could, to all intents and purposes, "Observe" the colours correctly as the eyedropper tool would record the same value for both squares. It obviously doesn't have the same processing as our visual system does.

Similarly someone on drugs may "Perceive" strange hallucinations and creatures.
They would not be able to say they "Observed" them as it is based on no real-world stimuli.

So yes, "Perceptions" is the correct word.

I think the point Cuddles is making is that you are using the word "Perceive" as a simple substitution for "Observe" without the necessary difference in meaning.
That is illustrated in your asking "Is not visual perception of a person a stimulus?".

Cuddles has already explained why that doesn't make sense (actually so did I) but again, to clarify.

You can observe a person standing in front of you. The person (specifically the light reflected from them) is real world stimulus.
You may perceive they have an aura around them.
But the perception of the aura cannot be said to be coming from real world stimulus. The aura isn't real or detectable by anyone or anything outside of your own sensations.

If it were subsequently discovered that you had receptors in your eyes never before encountered by science, that, for example, detected heat eminating from the person, and that was what had appeared to you as an aura, then it would at that point (when demonstrated that the information you detected did genuinely relate to real detectable stimulus) be correct to say you were observing an aura.
(Well, more correct to say you were observing thermal information as we would now know that's what it was.)

My previous reference to Perception was in reference to this claim in which the Perceptions Anita are describing are as a result of looking at people. The stimulus of the person is an observation. What is actually experienced by Anita that is her "Perception", whether it includes real stimuli or anything else not detectable or experienced by anyone else. Or any independent detector.
I think I now see her confusion on this issue. Apologies if any confusion there came from me.

[EHocking]

1) A region just below the sternum, 0.0006 m2 area out of the average 1.9 m2 surface area of a man, giving it a chance of 1:3100 to guess it right (Locknar: this does not imply to say that I was guessing, I am just saying what the chances are for someone who does guess!). Correct. Actually, I don't think one could say the odds were 1:3100. Any description of pain or discomfort where it actually occurred would have been a hit, and people have quite a few aches and pains, if their attention is drawn to it...
All this is post-hoc excuses from vff.
This is the description of her "ability", from her website (http://visionfromfeeling.com/page2.html):

...I see images in my mind of the inside of their bodies. I see organs, tissues, cells, and chemicals
...The images appear on any level of magnification
...in my mind ...images of the atoms that they make, and then into images of molecules, cells, and tissue.
...Anything unusual, especially health problems, are what most often form the images.
...The images that form on their own show health problems in their most appropriate level of magnification, sometimes combining more than one magnification at once.
...This is similar to but beyond magnetic resonance imaging used by the medical field to detect some forms of illness that show as darker areas on a photographic image.
...I do not have to look for diseases, they are already highlighted for me to see, with all the relevant structures and areas of the body shown together.

So all of vff's talk of odds of hitting a general area is pure post-hoc rationalisation of a miss. She claims to be able to SEE THE ORGANS.

It was a miss.
No argument.
Boasts of 100% accuracy of medical diagnoses by vff are similarly contradictory to the evidence provided by herself.

[sleepy_lioness]

You know what, I suffer from migraines. They're nasty. They make me feel nauseous, throw up, get very dizzy, and have a thumping headache.

I used to get them a lot, then I learned that I have some control over them and now I rarely get them. I probably wouldn't get them at all (or only very rarely indeed) if I made some more lifestyle adjustments. For instance, if I gave up alcohol altogether, or caffeine, or prioritised exercise some more, or never ever went to bed late or had a lie in.

However, I'm willing to make the trade off: lie ins, the occasional beer, my morning coffee, some sick headaches.

Now, if you were to offer me the chance to prove that I was the most amazing person alive, that I finally, scientifically and beyond doubt could prove I had extra-sensory powers, that scientists would be queuing up to study me, that I'd be on chat shows and in magazines and winning Randi's million and all ... I think I wouldn't mind risking a coupla migraines. Hell, I risk them for the odd beer with my mates.

At the very least I'd be working really hard to find a protocol that allowed me to test my abilities while minimising the headaches and consequent falling off in ability. Come on girl, it's fame, fortune and the ability to go down in history as a major scientific innovator here! Don't let a couple of headaches stand in your way! People have suffered far more than that for science - have you no backbone?

[Ashles]

You know what, I suffer from migraines. They're nasty. They make me feel nauseous, throw up, get very dizzy, and have a thumping headache.
Found this on Wiki:

Migraine with aura
The second-most common form of migraine headache: the patient primarily suffers migraine with aura, and might also suffer migraine without aura. The International Classification of Headache Disorders[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migraine#cite_note-pmid14979299-8) definition is:
Description: Recurrent disorder manifesting in attacks of reversible focal neurological symptoms that usually develop gradually over 5–20 minutes and last for less than 60 minutes. Headache with the features of "migraine without aura" usually follows the aura symptoms. Less commonly, headache lacks migrainous feature or is completely absent [i.e., the aura may occur without any subsequent headache].

Any thoughts?
(Apologies if this has already been raised - it's hard to keep track)

[Old man]

Also I never claimed to be able to read photos or video over the internet… Except for electron microscope imagery. :rolleyes: ETA: Which, by the way, gets you stoned. :D:D:D

Originally posted by Ashles:
Anita claimed she could identify chemicals, but then stopped testing when the results were less than accurate.
Stopped when I got headaches and nausea, which were caused by forced effort. Inaccuracy appeared after headache and not before. Anita, in Post #220, you wrote the following :
Today, Sunday November 16 2008 I had the second cereal test. Several variations of the test procedure were tried before one was found that I was comfortable with. C = Correct trial, F = Failed trial

Test procedure 1
The first test procedure…(snipped)

Results: Very bad. I felt nothing. I made two forced attempts although I hate to guess when I don't feel the answer and both were incorrect.
1) F
2) F
Comments: Were five cups too many? Or did the paper cover stop what ever radiative information is emitted from the bacteria? Or both? (Paper blocks some types of low-energy radiation.)

Test procedure 2
Procedure as earlier but no paper covers.

Results:
1) F
Comments: Am I overwhelmed by the five cups?

Test procedure 3
Procedure as earlier but no paper covers and with a total of 4 samples, one of which has the bacterial supplement.

Results:
1) F
2) F
Comments: Were four cups also too many and overwhelming? Since I have to try to feel all of them. My strategy has so far actually been to "find the heavy vibrations of plain cereal-cups and eliminate those, and then figure out which one is the supplement one". (I don't know why but that is how I had come to do these tests.) Test procedure 5
Procedure as earlier, no covers, but a total of three cups, one with the bacterial supplement which has been wetted with a drop of warm water.

Results:
1) C
2) C
3) C
4) F
5) C
6) C
7) C
8) C
9) C
10) C
11) F
12) F
Comments: Starting with trial … (words, words, words)… I worried that being so incredibly confident, what if I'd be wrong? That would have been the end of it. But each time I was confident, it turned out to be correct. On trial 11 I wasn't sure and guessed, and sure enough, with a 1/3 chance of guessing it was incorrect. Trial 11 and 12 I was tired with headache and nausea and had to stop. Kinda puts the lie to this –

“Inaccuracy appeared after headache and not before”

- doesn’t it? :cool:

That particular perception consisted of three parts:
1) A region just below the sternum, 0.0006 m2 area out of the average 1.9 m2 surface area of a man, giving it a chance of 1:3100 to guess it right (Locknar: this does not imply to say that I was guessing, I am just saying what the chances are for someone who does guess!). Correct. Anita, you have prior knowledge of GERD, and how common it is. Claiming that it was a highly unlikely ‘guess’ is absurd. A person who is consciously cold reading will point to his subject’s xiphoid process and say “sometimes you experience discomfort right here”. A person who is subconsciously cold reading will do exactly the same thing, as did you. It is a guess, but it’s a guess about a specific problem, in a specific place, with a very high probability of being right, not “a chance of 1:3100”.

2) Describing the feeling of strain and cramp in this region, out of all the many types of sensations this was a pretty good "guess" (Locknar: I am not implying that I would have guessed). Correct. See above.

3) Identifying the small intestine as being associated to this health condition. Has not been confirmed as accurate nor inaccurate. In my opinion it is not plausible, nor is it implausible. Evidence that sometimes someone with some knowledge of anatomy and common health disorders (i.e. Anita) makes mistakes during her cold readings.

Originally posted by VisionFromFeeling:
What ever. I still think I may have synesthesia until proven otherwise.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Don’t be tearin’ yer hair out, UncaYimmy! You can’t afford it. :p

[sleepy_lioness]

I mentioned migraine only really to illustrate that I know what it is to have sick headaches, yet I still risk them for something as small as a beer: how much more likely would I be to risk them for the fame and fortune Anita would find if she could demonstrate her chemical-identification tests ...

But it's also a possibility that Anita's sensory experiences are caused by some sort of neurological disturbance - I said this earlier. I have common migraine (without aura) but even with that I have sensory disturbances - not only do lights become too bright, but I smell funny things and sounds sometimes get distorted. Even my sight can become grey and blurry round the edges due to the nausea and dizziness, in a bad attack. I can only imagine that an aura is even weirder, and certainly some people have had very odd experiences during one.

There are, however, many possible explanations for Anita's experiences and migraine is only one, and probably not even the most plausible (and I'm not qualified to diagnose at all). Nausea and headache are common psychosomatic symptoms - they could be caused by her body rebelling at the idea she might be wrong and finding a way to stop the test (I know I've certainly felt ill when faced with failure). Or she could simply be making it up. There's no way of knowing. But I do think she should get a proper medical check-up and tell her clinician all she has told us.

[Old man]

There are, however, many possible explanations for Anita's experiences and migraine is only one, and probably not even the most plausible (and I'm not qualified to diagnose at all). Nausea and headache are common psychosomatic symptoms - they could be caused by her body rebelling at the idea she might be wrong and finding a way to stop the test (I know I've certainly felt ill when faced with failure). Or she could simply be making it up. There's no way of knowing. But I do think she should get a proper medical check-up and tell her clinician all she has told us. Where, oh where, did I see this suggested once before? :duck:

[sleepy_lioness]

Where, oh where, did I see this suggested once before? :duck:

I vaguely remembered someone might have said something similar but I didn't feel like traipsing back through 31 pages to look for it ...

Sorry if I plagiarised you :blush:

[Ashles]

The study will be documented by attending skeptics.
I'm not sure if this question has been asked or answered before -

Who are the skeptics? Are they part of a specific group or organisation?

If I detect ailments that are considered undetectable even to any forms of cold reading
What ailments do you considered undetectable to cold reading?

If you don't actually speak to the person (and neither do they) then I would contend that non-region specific ailments would be pretty much immune to cold reading. E.g. blood disorders.
I assume neither you or the subjects will be speaking. Is that correct?

[Old man]

I vaguely remembered someone might have said something similar but I didn't feel like traipsing back through 31 pages to look for it ... I would have linked to it, but I feel the same way...

Sorry if I plagiarised you :blush: Not at all, friend. Great minds think alike!! ;)

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
I never get a chance to post in the moderated thread with all the work I have to do here. I will respond to your question in the moderated threat thread (Freudian slip) this evening.

Thank you.

BTW, you are choosing your priorities. It is your choice to not answer in the moderated thread until you are completely caught up here, which apparently hasn't happened in a week. Answer the questions in chronological order. If anybody complains, tough luck.


NOT A TEST! A school assignment in which I perceived information about the chemicals on their own and without having made the choice or effort to do so! So of course no headache or discomfort! Besides it was one or a few perceptions and not tens within a short period of time as was required by chemical identification tests.

See the words in bold and reconcile that with this statement you made:
The other aspects such as chemical identification requires effort and I get headaches

No, I am pushing to test the easiest manifestation of the claim; the medical information in live persons.
Let's put it this way: You're clearly not following the advice of people who have vastly more experience in this arena than you.

Well in several of my anecdotes that took place as described, as far as I know cold reading was not available. The fact that you insist on otherwise is incorrect, perhaps you are hallucinating?
Cold reading is always available when you 1) know the person and/or 2) can see the person.

If the hypothesis is a paranormal ability, then the null hypothesis is not necessarily hallucinations.
I really don't have the energy to explain how you are not using these terms correctly or in the right context. Suffice it to say I strongly disagree with the above.

Just because I devote hours upon hours to something does not mean that it would be interfering with my life.
Like I said, it's just a definition of interfering. It affects your life, that's for sure. If you take actions based on a delusion, it is by definition interfering with your life. So, if I were told I had delusions but really wasn't acting on them, who cares? If, however, I devoted countless hours in the pursuit of something others believed may be the result of a delusion, I'd get it checked out since *I* would not be able to tell on my own.

Of course I've visited skeptic boards and involved other people. That is how a paranormal investigation takes place.
It's not a paranormal investigation in anyone's mind but your own. The hypothesis on this end is cold reading, confirmation bias, wishful thinking, etc.

And I've invited you many times now to speak with me in a private chat room since I feel that it was much more productive than posting here. I've even suggested that our conversation be made available here for those who are curious, but what if I claimed that you are avoiding my invitation? Are you delusional for avoiding it? Or perhaps you are lying? :confused:
Three times in one night, once the next day. We missed each other. I did poke you on Facebook to tell you I had stopped by. It happens.

If you claimed I was avoiding you, I would say that what you have is a reasonable premise considering how fast I usually respond. As for the delusional/lying premises, I have no idea what you're driving at. I don't see the analogy.

We've had our chat now, so relax.

[Uncayimmy]

Except for electron microscope imagery. :rolleyes: ETA: Which, by the way, gets you stoned. :D:D:D

I volunteer to be the control in this experiment! :-)

Don’t be tearin’ yer hair out, UncaYimmy! You can’t afford it. :p

LOL! No doubt. If only this stuff would make me *not* want to eat...

[desertgal]

I volunteer to be the control in this experiment! :-)

After the incredible patience you have shown in this thread, I think that's only fair. I'll even throw in some munchies. :p

[desertgal]

But it's also a possibility that Anita's sensory experiences are caused by some sort of neurological disturbance - I said this earlier. I have common migraine (without aura) but even with that I have sensory disturbances - not only do lights become too bright, but I smell funny things and sounds sometimes get distorted. Even my sight can become grey and blurry round the edges due to the nausea and dizziness, in a bad attack. I can only imagine that an aura is even weirder, and certainly some people have had very odd experiences during one.

This is certainly possible. I have a friend who developed a rare condition of false bone behind her nasal passages - she continually smelled burning wire, and, when the false bone grew in size, she developed double vision and would often see people or things in her peripheral vision that weren't actually there. (I know a lot of us do that, but it became a continual thing for her because of pressure on her optic region.)

But I do think she should get a proper medical check-up and tell her clinician all she has told us.

I agree. You might want to consider that seriously, Anita. If nothing else, it can't hurt.

[Akhenaten]

Aha! When ever I come with additional information, it will always be considered too late!



It's never too late for post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[nathan]

You refuse to describe standard current Optical Equipment that might be relevent to this claim?

What we need is some kind of laser!

[Ashles]

What we need is some kind of laser!
Frankly, I never thought the request for current relevant optical equipment would turn out to be controversial.
I was just hoping Anita could demonstrate a knowledge of some scientific field. And my request was supposed to be a genuine, straightforward starting point for us to discuss the claim in more technical detail and Optics is supposedly one of her strongest subjects.
But the technical discussion that Anita started never got off the ground in any field.

Right now I am baffled as to what Anita has learned in three years of college science.

[desertgal]

...unless in the mind of the skeptic who is fully convinced that I am not studying two B.S. degrees at the same time, that my English is so good that I couldn't possibly be Swedish...

Why do you keep bringing those two things up, ad nauseum? The issue about your college degrees was an honest misunderstanding by an Australian national about the American university system, and it was corrected by another poster almost as soon as it happened. The original poster apologized for the misunderstanding and, after being mocked by you- even though the issue had been resolved-hasn't posted in this thread since. She is not "fully convinced" that you are not studying two B.S. degrees at the same time. She made an honest mistake. Are honest misunderstandings not allowed in your world or something?

The question about your nationality - same thing. It was a negligible issue that was settled almost immediately.

The only person who continually makes those two things an issue here is YOU. None of the rest of us are repeating them as fact.

Jeez. Drop it, already.

[Uncayimmy]

But I do think she should get a proper medical check-up and tell her clinician all she has told us.
I agree. You might want to consider that seriously, Anita. If nothing else, it can't hurt.

In our Facebook chat last night Anita asked me if I "seriously" thought she might be having delusions. I was taken aback. I told her I was serious, of course.

[desertgal]

In our Facebook chat last night Anita asked me if I "seriously" thought she might be having delusions. I was taken aback. I told her I was serious, of course.

I'd have been taken aback, too. We've only mentioned it here 923 times. Are we not serious until we hit 924?

Her disingenuous bit is getting old.

[desertgal]

You'd have thought he would have actually been interested in being involved. You would have thought that, if he believed you, he would be badgering you day and night to test this further.
It is totally incomprehensible that an expert in Physics could hear such a story and believe it and then completely ignore it.
So he either didn't believe you.
Or it never happened. (And what happened to the other two professors?)

I notice we are never told what his actual response was. Other than he agreed it was Vibrational Algebra. (That brand new field of physics. That he also apparently also isn't interested in.)


Post #284 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4253497&postcount=284): "Alright I will share this with you. The first professor I shared this with thought it was very "unusual" although he was objective and did not assume one way or the other and I was happy to have been able to share this with someone, especially someone such as a science professor. The second professor I shared this with expressed tremendous interest and curiosity in knowing more, and let me know that he would be interested in finding out what the results of the tests are. With this professor I discussed my theories as to what the nature of this ability could be. The third professor was very objective and offered a suggestion of how this might be possible, suggesting that I might be picking up on thermal information. He specializes in optical instruments and has great interest in how different species take in information to translate this into understanding of the world. I do not want to involve any of the faculty in my private and somewhat unconventional study. Do they wish to have involvement they will have to take that step not me."

[VisionFromFeeling]

sleepy lioness:
Post #1188 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4333201&postcount=1188), thank you for your concern for my well-being, and I understand that the mere nature of the paranormal claim that is under investigation in my case is enough to raise concern. The upcoming study is fairly easy to set up and it will answer some of the questions regarding my experiences, and I am sure I will be able to take in the conclusions of the study, what ever it may reveal.

I suspect that some of the concerns expressed by Forum members arises from the fact that they can not take part in the past experiences I've had like I can, and some of the skeptics' concerns and conclusions are based on that lack, whereas I am in a position to base my thoughts on the experiences I've had, so we find ourselves in different positions in this claim. That is why I feel that the study is a necessary next step, because its experiences and results will be made equally available for both myself and others, by being verified by the attending skeptics. That will allow us all to be on the same page, for all of us to base our concerns and conclusions on the same material, and it is then I will be better able to take in concerns expressed by Forum members.

Professor Yaffle:
So, based on what you have said, when you came to America, I would have expected you to have a period where you noticed peanut oil in peoples bodies - with the perception jumping out at you with no effort. Which would lead most people to think to themselves "Ah, they must use peanut oil for cooking here much more than at home". Yet you only seem to have discovered that peanut oil is not unusual on tis very thread. Hence my confusion. Can you explain what I am missing? What oil a person consumes is among the health information that I perceive from effort, and not on its own. So by walking among American people I have not been forming a new understanding of what oil consumption is typical here locally. My understanding of what oil consumption was typical back in Sweden was based on what I knew people were eating, and again not based on perceiving this with the medical perceptions. I hope that answers the question, if not - ask again!

Belz:
No, that's not what I was talking about. Those are not double-blind, or even single-blind, tests. You cannot eliminate the possibility of bias, lie or delusion with those standards. That's why I asked how COULD you tell the difference. You can't because you consistently stick to standards that shelter your interpretation from reality.Everyday experience, which is all that I have at this point, has not allowed for the perceptions to take place under proper test conditions. And that is why I look forward to the study (which will try out some test conditions but is not a test) and tests.

desertgal:
You are taking my comment out of context. YOU said that it was amusing to watch the rest of us annihilate each other. It's typical of psychic claimants to say, when their claims begin to fall apart, that it is the fault of us big bad skeptics. We are just out to "annihilate" claimants. That's not actually true, and it is typical troll speak. They don't want to let go of their delusions - much easier to blame the big bad skeptics. And we haven't been annihilating each other in this thread. I was hoping that it would have been obvious that I was trying to be funny when I posted that. Of course you guys are not "annihilating" each other. That was just my fun way of saying that I am pleased you are all answering each others' questions and taking care of each other in my absence. My claim is not beginning to fall apart. And if my claim does fall apart later on it is no one's "fault" since it would only be able to fall apart if there is no paranormal ability, and if so then falling apart is the real objective of the investigation and I would appreaciate your help with acchieving that. And you're not bad skeptics, you're very good ones, you guys take everything I say and dissect it into little pieces, and we need those skills once we reach protocol formation and results.
Irregardless, that isn't the way SD works. The fact that you would turn my mental disorder around to use against me incorrectly says a great deal about you. On the contrary I tried to make it clear that I am not offending a person based on what problems or issues they might have, hence I apologized for bringing up the point that I made. I was just saying that a person diagnosed with schizotypal disorder is not reliable to make an online diagnosis of another person to have various mental conditions. To use against you incorrectly? So, you are entitled to diagnose other persons? And on the contrary, as soon as you have as much as suspected or falsely assumed that I would be suffering from a mental disorder you have done your best to use that "against me" and to throw it at me, and perhaps that says a great deal about you?
It wasn't easy, to begin with, to admit to a group of strangers that something "went broken" in my mind years ago, but I did it in the interest of helping you. Watching you use it against me again, as the source of "projections", isn't something I relish, so I think I'll skip that.Although you are a tough skeptic, which often makes a good skeptic, I often feel that you approach things in a manner that is unnecessarily hostile and negative. I often feel that your comments and suggestions to me are formulated as insults rather than as constructive criticism. Other Forum members have presented their concerns regarding my mental health but done so in a polite and civilized manner and I have taken in their advice, I acknowledged their point of view and even thanked them for it. There are good ways of saying bad things.

Even though I feel that the way in which you express most of your comments is often at times uncomfortable and that that takes away from the statements you want to come across I continue to listen to you very carefully. I have absolutely no disrespect against you and would never hold a personal issue against you. I value having you here on this thread and I know that you will be excellent in analyzing protocols and results and you'll probably be one of the best contributors, and I look forward to when I can actually present some material. You're all ready for it.
There's nothing "wrong" about being delusionalOf course not. I'm just considering that another possibility might be that I'd be cold reading. I objectively acknowledge the possibility that my perceptions could be delusions, yet I remain open to other possibilities. I don't think my perceptions are consistent with delusions, especially since they so far lead to accurate information. Unintentional cold reading perhaps?

Thank you for expressing concern about my well-being, and I'm glad you're still here because I need the toughest skeptics to look into protocol design and results later on. You guys are excellent, and at times difficult, but I'm still here.

Drs Res:
Taking this into consideration, do you get headaches and nausea when you have to use a forced effort to read a live person? You know, someone where nothing just pops out at you? No I've never experienced any discomfort from making the effort to read live people. My main theory as to why, although I wasn't supposed to make theories here, is that human tissue is a more "comfortable" and more familiar material for perception to delve into, than for instance copper pennies or cereal.

Pup:
Coincidentally enough, that description would have been close enough for a casual "hit" for both me and my wife. She has an occasional pain or cramping sensation that's been diagnosed as a minor hernia, just below the sternum but slightly to one side. I have a mild ulcer which occasionally acts up by causing minor pain or cramping, also a bit below the sternum and to the right just under the bottom rib. Both, apparently, are fairly common.And you are absolutely right. To claim a perception of discomfort or pain in a certain part of the body might not be a specific enough ailment in all cases to be useful in a test. Point remains that the person in this experience did not tell me I was wrong, so there was nothing to falsify the claim at that point and I've continued with the investigation toward a study that will be better able to establish actual accuracy.
calcium carbonate (an antacid)
phenylephrine hcl (a decongestant)
cetirizine hydrochloride (a 24 hour allergy medicine)
ibuprofen
aspirinOh Pup! Before you mail anything! Is it possible for you to include in the envelope one each uncrushed sample, without food coloring, so that I can attempt to "tune in" to the pure and unaltered specimen, to get the strongest possible perception of the pure and unaltered material for matching purposes? Please?
You've said that this is something you experience, so I'm curious to see it work. Thank you. Let's find out.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:
What I mean by vibrational algebra is superposition of my perceived vibrational aspects from different sources, in my mind. In ways that are like addition or like subtraction, and yield my perception of a new resulting vibrational aspect. If I perceive a vibrational aspect of a medicine, and a vibrational aspect of a human, and I add these two vibrational aspects together in my mind, I am doing what I call vibrational algebra. That is what I meant by it, and I did provide examples, and I regret that you are falsely accusing me of not having provided an example and trying to force a different answer out of me. The question was answered long ago.

I may have also mentioned that I have an interest in applying my concepts of vibrational aspects to conventional mathematics, but that is something I have not done yet. My interest in applying my ideas that are based on the perceptions to science are not part of my paranormal claim and I will not discuss them here or with you Ashles. Further inquiry into it will not be considered.

[Uncayimmy]

Ashles:
What I mean by vibrational algebra is superposition of my perceived vibrational aspects from different sources, in my mind. In ways that are like addition or like subtraction, and yield my perception of a new resulting vibrational aspect. If I perceive a vibrational aspect of a medicine, and a vibrational aspect of a human, and I add these two vibrational aspects together in my mind, I am doing what I call vibrational algebra. That is what I meant by it, and I did provide examples, and I regret that you are falsely accusing me of not having provided an example and trying to force a different answer out of me. The question was answered long ago.

Right. Just like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. Reese saw the chocolate. Then he saw the peanut butter. He performed culinary algebra in his head and created one of most popular candies around.

Anita, your explanation is, in a word, silly.

I may have also mentioned that I have an interest in applying my concepts of vibrational aspects to conventional mathematics, but that is something I have not done yet. My interest in applying my ideas that are based on the perceptions to science are not part of my paranormal claim and I will not discuss them here or with you Ashles. Further inquiry into it will not be considered.

Conventional mathematics? You mean mathematics, right? Because what you're doing in your head is just your imagination.

If you're going to bring up subjects, then be prepared to discuss them. It's really quite obnoxious to bring it up, then refuse to discuss it.

[Akhenaten]

thank you for your concern for my well-being, and I understand that the mere nature of the paranormal claim that is under investigation in my case is enough to raise concern.


No. Paranormal claims raise curiosity, disbelief and the like. It's your mental state that is raising concerns.



The upcoming study is fairly easy to set up and it will answer some of the questions regarding my experiences, and I am sure I will be able to take in the conclusions of the study, what ever it may reveal.


There aren't any questions regarding your experiences. They were dismissed as the anecdotes they are as soon as they were presented.

I'm also sure you'll be able to take in the results of your study, since you're incapable of even seeing any result which casts doubt on your ability, much less absorbing its import.



I suspect that some of the concerns expressed by Forum members arises from the fact that they can not take part in the past experiences I've had like I can, and some of the skeptics' concerns and conclusions are based on that lack, whereas I am in a position to base my thoughts on the experiences I've had, so we find ourselves in different positions in this claim.


Yes. You're totally subjective in everything you do. It's led to you fabricate your own reality, which of course we don't share. This is unlikely to change.



That is why I feel that the study is a necessary next step, because its experiences and results will be made equally available for both myself and others, by being verified by the attending skeptics. That will allow us all to be on the same page, for all of us to base our concerns and conclusions on the same material, and it is then I will be better able to take in concerns expressed by Forum members.


The main reason we've never been on the same page is your obsession with making empty, wordy replies to everything that's posted, in great slabs of waffle covering material that was written days ago. The occasional inclusion of a new, more outlandish claim doesn't help the flow either.

Your study will alter nothing. Have you considered a test? Oh, wait . . .



What oil a person consumes is among the health information that I perceive from effort, and not on its own. So by walking among American people I have not been forming a new understanding of what oil consumption is typical here locally. My understanding of what oil consumption was typical back in Sweden was based on what I knew people were eating, and again not based on perceiving this with the medical perceptions. I hope that answers the question, if not - ask again!


I'm sick of hearing about peanut oil. Tell us about the first time you perceived someone in the US with malaria. Were you able to relate it to your experiences with malaria in your Swedish village?



Everyday experience, which is all that I have at this point, has not allowed for the perceptions to take place under proper test conditions.


Except for the times you've tested your perceptions here and failed.



And that is why I look forward to the study (which will try out some test conditions but is not a test) and tests.


You quoted that from a Monty Python sketch, didn't you?


I was hoping that it would have been obvious that I was trying to be funny when I posted that. Of course you guys are not "annihilating" each other. That was just my fun way of saying that I am pleased you are all answering each others' questions and taking care of each other in my absence.


Just who do you think you are exactly? Queen of the JREF?

Also, don't try too hard with the humour. The stuff you say normally is pretty risable, and there's no point in guilding the lily, is there?



My claim is not beginning to fall apart.


No. It finished doing that some time ago.



And if my claim does fall apart later on it is no one's "fault" since it would only be able to fall apart if there is no paranormal ability, and if so then falling apart is the real objective of the investigation and I would appreaciate your help with acchieving that.


My goodness. This is the sanest thing you've said for ages, however, you're talking about a fait accompli.

Your claim(s) are dust. Your credibilty is zero. You have been told this repeatedly and advised to do something in the real world about finding out what's causing your delusions. That's the only investigation that most people here would be happy to help you to achieve.



And you're not bad skeptics, you're very good ones, you guys take everything I say and dissect it into little pieces, and we need those skills once we reach protocol formation and results.


On what basis do you claim to be a competent judge of the relative merits of various skeptiks? And when you say "we need those skills", you're absolutely correct. We all need critical thinking skills, and hopefully you'll have some of your own one day. It's very unlikely that any of the skeptikal skills available here will be used to develop any protocols relating to your current claim(s).



<snipped confusing rant @ desertgirl for being a meanie>


There are good ways of saying bad things.


"All of those people not suffering delusions, please take one step forward."

"Where are you going, Private VfF?"



Even though I feel that the way in which you express most of your comments is often at times uncomfortable and that that takes away from the statements you want to come across I continue to listen to you very carefully. I have absolutely no disrespect against you and would never hold a personal issue against you. I value having you here on this thread and I know that you will be excellent in analyzing protocols and results and you'll probably be one of the best contributors, and I look forward to when I can actually present some material. You're all ready for it.


I've never seen anyone do obsequious arrogance before. It's an amazing ability that might be worth studying (not testing).



Of course not. I'm just considering that another possibility might be that I'd be cold reading. I objectively acknowledge the possibility that my perceptions could be delusions, yet I remain open to other possibilities. I don't think my perceptions are consistent with delusions, especially since they so far lead to accurate information. Unintentional cold reading perhaps?and fully intend to ensure that this possibility is eliminated before I attempt anything else.


May I respectfully submit the above revision for your approval, Your Majesty?



Thank you for expressing concern about my well-being, and I'm glad you're still here because I need the toughest skeptics to look into protocol design and results later on. You guys are excellent, and at times difficult, but I'm still here.


Your just being arrogant now. And the wishful thinking is getting worse too.



No I've never experienced any discomfort from making the effort to read live people. My main theory as to why, although I wasn't supposed to make theories here, is that human tissue is a more "comfortable" and more familiar material for perception to delve into, than for instance copper pennies or cereal.



Another main theory? This does not bode well. Neither does the fact that's it's as bad as all your other theories. Are you sure you don't have a theory about Brontosauruses?



And you are absolutely right. To claim a perception of discomfort or pain in a certain part of the body might not be a specific enough ailment in all cases to be useful in a test. Point remains that the person in this experience did not tell me I was wrong, so there was nothing to falsify the claim at that point and I've continued with the investigation toward a study that will be better able to establish actual accuracy.


Stop it. Just stop it. It was rubbish the first time you said this, and the dozens of repetitions haven't changed the situation.



Oh Pup! Before you mail anything! Is it possible for you to include in the envelope one each uncrushed sample, without food coloring, so that I can attempt to "tune in" to the pure and unaltered specimen, to get the strongest possible perception of the pure and unaltered material for matching purposes? Please?


There's always just one more thing, isn't there?



Thank you. Let's find out.



We already know. Over to you, Blue Leader.

[Professor Yaffle]

Anita, do there seem to be any "rules" surrounding what information you percieve automatically and what information you have to use effort for? Or is it completely random? From earlier discussion in the thread, you were talking about not seeing nitrogen in the air all the time because it is normal and usual there, but that nitrogen in a place where you wouldn't expect it would stand out to you (if I am remembering it wrongly, just point that out, as I have no idea where in the thread it was to check my memory). From this I thought you were saying that this was a general rule - that things that are out of place or unusual are the things that "jump out at you", so to speak, and everything else take conscious effort. Did you mean your nitrogen example to say something about your ability in general, or is it different in every type of chemical or illness etc (as to whether you would perceive it without effort)? It would help me if I knew more of a general guide in this area if you have one.

[Akhenaten]

What I mean by vibrational algebra is superposition of my perceived vibrational aspects from different sources, in my mind. In ways that are like addition or like subtraction, and yield my perception of a new resulting vibrational aspect. If I perceive a vibrational aspect of a medicine, and a vibrational aspect of a human, and I add these two vibrational aspects together in my mind, I am doing what I call vibrational algebra. That is what I meant by it, and I did provide examples, and I regret that you are falsely accusing me of not having provided an example and trying to force a different answer out of me. The question was answered long ago.


The following are examples of algebraic equations:


x = 7

7 = x

t + 3 = 8

3 × n +12 = 100

w + 4 = 12 - w

y - 1 - 2 - 9.3 = 34

3 × (d + 4) - 11 = 321 - 23


Please provide an example of vibrational algebra in a similar format.



I may have also mentioned that I have an interest in applying my concepts of vibrational aspects to conventional mathematics, but that is something I have not done yet. My interest in applying my ideas that are based on the perceptions to science are not part of my paranormal claim and I will not discuss them here or with you Ashles. Further inquiry into it will not be considered.


Oh, OK, don't then.

[Pup]

Oh Pup! Before you mail anything! Is it possible for you to include in the envelope one each uncrushed sample, without food coloring, so that I can attempt to "tune in" to the pure and unaltered specimen, to get the strongest possible perception of the pure and unaltered material for matching purposes? Please?

Unfortunately, I don't have access to any pure samples of the medicines. Not sure where one would find them, outside of a pharmaceutical manufacturer's lab.

But I'm guessing you mean the original pills with all their fillers and colorings, and not the actual pure medicines. The first thing that occurs to me is that wanting to be aware of the size, odor and perhaps texture or appearance of the original pills might help you sense which is which through normal means.

Just looking at some of the boxes or bottles, I see ingredients and alterations to the pure medicines, like carnauba wax, FD&C red No. 40, FD&C Blue #1, talc, etc. Coincidentally, "red No. 40" is also the kind of red food coloring I added. But apparently those other impurities don't detract from the effect the medicine has on the body, and this is about sensing the effect on the human body, right, and not about distinguishing the appearance of the commercial pills? Crushing might make the 24-hour medicine work faster for a shorter period, but otherwise, I doubt if a little more red No. 40 and some FD&C green would make any substantial difference. Any chemists or pharmacists or doctors want to weigh in with an opinion?

In their commercial form, these are common medicines, all available in any drugstore, so if you're not aware of them already from everyday life, it would be simple to look at someone's bottle of aspirin or Zyrtec or Rolaids, or take a "look" at them in a drugstore through the cardboard boxes, like the cardboard-enclosed cereal you saw. True, you might not be seeing the same brand (my samples are all store generics so might not be the same size or color or flavor as others), but it's not about identifying brands, it's about identifying their effects on the human, body, right?

[desertgal]

I suspect that some of the concerns expressed by Forum members arises from the fact that they can not take part in the past experiences I've had like I can...

No, our concern arises from the fact that your "experiences" are delusional and your mental state is questionable. I think we've made that pretty clear.

That was just my fun way of saying that I am pleased you are all answering each others' questions and taking care of each other in my absence.

Oh, please. Get over yourself.

desertgal:
My claim is not beginning to fall apart.

No, it already did that some time ago.

I was just saying that a person diagnosed with schizotypal disorder is not reliable to make an online diagnosis of another person to have various mental conditions.

a) I did not diagnose you; and b) you are not qualified to make any assessment about whether I am "reliable" or not. I was diagnosed with the disorder before you were born, and I have successfully battled it longer than you have been alive. I've been where you are now. I know, intimately, how real delusions can be...how intoxicating, how much fun, how special they can make one feel. On the other hand, you have never been where I am. I had the sense to realize they were delusions, seek help for them, and fight to overcome them. So, before you say that anyone with a mental condition isn't reliable, I suggest you take yourself down to a psychiatrist's office and take a good hard honest look at yourself first.

To use against you incorrectly?

Yes. Schizotypal dsorder does not work in the way that you suggested.

So, you are entitled to diagnose other persons?

No. I did not diagnose you. The one thing that I did do was to mistakenly post a snippet of diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV. A mistake I admitted to, and apologized for.

And on the contrary, as soon as you have as much as suspected or falsely assumed that I would be suffering from a mental disorder you have done your best to use that "against me" and to throw it at me, and perhaps that says a great deal about you?

No, I mistakenly posted a snippet of diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV, something I have admitted to, and apologized for. Otherwise, I have simply observed that you are delusional-a symptom, not a disorder. I don't know that you suffer from a mental disorder - and neither do you. Self diagnosis is inaccurate.

You are nitpicking over words here, and ignoring the larger issue.

Yes, I will keep reminding you that I have observed you to be delusional. I will continue to advise you to see a mental health professional. You can choose to continue to ignore it. But, what can be said about me is that I speak plain English and I am not here to coddle you, pat you on the head, and remark on how "brilliant" you are. If advising someone that they need professional help is a bad thing, then I'll gladly be the bad guy. Hopefully, at some point, it will sink in.

Although you are a tough skeptic, which often makes a good skeptic, I often feel that you approach things in a manner that is unnecessarily hostile and negative. I often feel that your comments and suggestions to me are formulated as insults rather than as constructive criticism.

No, again, I speak plain English. I don't beat around the bush, and I have very little patience with people who refuse to help themselves. You won't help yourself, Anita. You keep rambling on about tests and studies and perceptions and experiences, and, yet, you are absolutely oblivious to the overall picture that your thousands of words has given to the skeptics here, which we see quite clearly. YOU NEED HELP. If your words are true, then you need help, because they indicate you are delusional. If your words are not true, and all of this is just another psychic claimant looking for attention, then you clearly have some other problems, and you need help. Instead of sitting here posting walls o'text and arguing over every excruciating detail, try getting up from the computer and hiking yourself down to a doctor.

Other Forum members have presented their concerns regarding my mental health but done so in a polite and civilized manner

I'm not your mother, and I'm not here to baby you. You may not like blunt English, but I certainly won't leave you in any doubt about what I think.

and I have taken in their advice, I acknowledged their point of view and even thanked them for it.

Stop taking in their advice, and just take their advice. See a mental health professional.

There are good ways of saying bad things.

Good, bad, or indifferent - none of it matters if you don't listen.

I objectively acknowledge the possibility that my perceptions could be delusions, yet I remain open to other possibilities. I don't think my perceptions are consistent with delusions, especially since they so far lead to accurate information. Unintentional cold reading perhaps?

As I said before, self-analysis of a mental condition/symptom is always inaccurate. You are not in the position to objectively assess whether your perceptions are delusions, by the simple fact that you can only view them subjectively. See a mental health professional, and present him with ALL the claims that you have made. If nothing else, it will eliminate the question, and you can move on with your studies/tests. Don't say that you are approaching any of this scientifically if you are not willing to eliminate that variable. There must be a clinic at your university. It would be an easy thing to accomplish.

And stop saying that so far, you have had accurate information from these perceptions. Several people here have pointed out repeatedly that that is not true.

[Sideroxylon]

You know, there is nothing to this illness perception caper. I was talking to a colleague today about the goings on in this thread (clearly not much going on in my life at the moment) and I said I might have a go on him. Putting on my best John Edwards, I looked him in the eye and said, “I’m getting something in the stomach area.” What do you know? He’d just had a bad case of gastro this last week!

[Jonquill]

“I’m getting something in the stomach area.”

Pffft, just guessing. Locate something amiss in the sternum area of the small intestine if you want to impress this skeptic!

[Sideroxylon]

“I’m getting something in the stomach area.”

Pffft, just guessing. Locate something amiss in the sternum area of the small intestine if you want to impress this skeptic!

Yeah I guess you're right. I really need to bone up on some of this medical lingo from books. The one you are using sounds like the ticket. Reckon I could borrow it?

[Jonquill]

Sorry, but I get a headache when I lend my book out.

[desertgal]

Ashles:
That is what I meant by it, and I did provide examples, and I regret that you are falsely accusing me of not having provided an example and trying to force a different answer out of me. The question was answered long ago.

You didn't provide an example, and you didn't answer the question "long ago". Would you please pull your extraterrestrial mind back from your distant star and down to Earth before you falsely accuse someone of falsely accusing you again?

I may have also mentioned that I have an interest in applying my concepts of vibrational aspects to conventional mathematics, but that is something I have not done yet. My interest in applying my ideas that are based on the perceptions to science are not part of my paranormal claim and I will not discuss them here or with you Ashles. Further inquiry into it will not be considered.

Oop...guess not.

[desertgal]

No you have absolutely not done so.
I specifically asked for an example (even using dummy data) and you have refused to provide it.
You have provided no reason to assume 'Vibrational Algebra' exists as anything but a made up phrase.

This is where we are at
VFF: I have an amazing ability. I will use it to cure diseases in the future.
Skeptics: How?
VFF: Using the knowledge I see with my ability, a calculation process I have created called 'Vibrational Algebra' and Optical technology
Skeptic: Wow. But how will you do the calculations when you haven't yet done statistics
VFF: I'm going to be studying calculus
Skeptics: Uh okay. So what is Vibrational Algebra
VFF: I haven't learned the proper scientific terminology to describe it
Skeptics: Well use non scientific terminology
VFF: It's a secret. And I already gave you an example of it.
Skeptics: No you haven't
VFF: Well I wont because it's a secret
Skeptics: Well what about the devices you'll be using?
VFF: There are optical decices that do this kind of thing. You don't know anything about optics
Skeptics: Can you give examples?
VFF: I haven't built them yet. Duh!
Skeptics: But you just said-
VFF: And I'm not telling you about the current ones. They're a secret too.
Skeptics: So, to recap, you are planning to develop secret technology using secret calculations based around scientific and mathematical areas you haven't even studied yet to create imaginary future devices modified from secret current ones to solve health issues identified using a paranormal ability that hasn't ever been detailed by anyone other than yourself?
VFF: No it's completely different from that.
Skeptics: Well that's that then.

Mahvelous! :D

[desertgal]

Sorry, but I get a headache when I lend my book out.

Too much peanut oil. :D

[tsig]

Too much peanut oil. :D

Too much of this thread!

[TheSkepticCanuck]

This has been an exceptional thread here on the JREF forums! I have had a lot of entertainment, and learned a great deal about the application of critical thinking to outlandish claims. This thread should be saved for prosperity as an educational tool on how to dissect a psychic / supernatural / paranormal claim. The ebb and flow of the critical analysis has been inspiring! Thank you one and all!

[Ashles]

Post #284 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4253497&postcount=284): "Alright I will share this with you. The first professor I shared this with thought it was very "unusual" although he was objective and did not assume one way or the other and I was happy to have been able to share this with someone, especially someone such as a science professor. The second professor I shared this with expressed tremendous interest and curiosity in knowing more, and let me know that he would be interested in finding out what the results of the tests are. With this professor I discussed my theories as to what the nature of this ability could be. The third professor was very objective and offered a suggestion of how this might be possible, suggesting that I might be picking up on thermal information. He specializes in optical instruments and has great interest in how different species take in information to translate this into understanding of the world. I do not want to involve any of the faculty in my private and somewhat unconventional study. Do they wish to have involvement they will have to take that step not me."
Thanks desertgal - it's hard to keep up with all the different claims.

This is interesting as I have received a PM from Anita.

In it she 'explains' that she has reticence in sharing her ideas because she told her theories to another student who stole her ideas and has since been claiming credit for them.
Also this other student has been using the ideas in experiments.
Also that she is particularly annoyed because the other student cannot explain the concepts underlying the ideas (obviously because he 'stole' them from Anita.)

(Yes I did explain why that was all colossally inconvincing.)

So bearing in mind she has supposedly told three Professors already, and another student, who has also told Professors and is actually using these ideas in experiments... it is even more bafling that she won't explain the ideas in more detail.

These ideas are, according to Anita herself, already in the public domain and being used!

And this doesn't really gel with having told these Professors.
If she told them before the other student stole her idea she can easily discredit him.
If she told them afterwards, why did they not refer to this other amazing student with similar ideas?
Or else they are in different departments and haven't heard about the other student.

In which case, again, the amazing ideas are so unremarkable no-one ever takes any interest in sharing them.

There was some stuff trying to explain Vibrational Algebra further but, trust me, it adds absolutely nothing to what we have already seen.

I think we can now safely say though that 'Vibrational Algebra' does not in any way involve algebra, or any maths at all.

It is sort of an umbrella term for "All the sciency stuff that could describe various random physical properties of an object, lightwave, or anything really, I dunno".

It strikes me as the sort of thing someone might come up with who likes the idea of coming up with a scientific breakthrough but doesn't know enough science to actually do so.

Words, and phrases are a lot easier to invent than original scientific concepts.

[Ashles]

Ashles:
What I mean by vibrational algebra is superposition of my perceived vibrational aspects from different sources, in my mind. In ways that are like addition or like subtraction, and yield my perception of a new resulting vibrational aspect. If I perceive a vibrational aspect of a medicine, and a vibrational aspect of a human, and I add these two vibrational aspects together in my mind, I am doing what I call vibrational algebra.
You can call it 'Trans-Dimensional Quantum Compensation' for all that means to anyone else.

At the moment we call it 'imagination'.

Still it seems clear now that Algebra or maths in general has absolutely nothing to do with this.

That is what I meant by it, and I did provide examples, and I regret that you are falsely accusing me of not having provided an example and trying to force a different answer out of me. The question was answered long ago.
Again I cannot state more clearly that you have done no such thing.
You state now you have provide 'examples' - plural? Link to one. Provide the post number. Demonstrate this isn't a lie.

I may have also mentioned that I have an interest in applying my concepts of vibrational aspects to conventional mathematics, but that is something I have not done yet.
Studying maths first has got to be a useful first step.

My interest in applying my ideas that are based on the perceptions to science are not part of my paranormal claim and I will not discuss them here or with you Ashles. Further inquiry into it will not be considered.
You raised it in the first place. You didn't need to.
You then couldn't explain it.
You also claim you have given examples of it. But can't provide details of where.
You also claim it is a secret.
You also claim you have told it to three Professors, none of whom has taken it any further.
You also claim that you joined a project into which you introduced your ideas.
You then claim you told another student about this who stole your ideas and is getting credit for them. Even though they can't answer questions about the ideas. And joined the project after you did!

Even if we took your unconvincing stories at face value, it appears Professors at your University find other students more convincing than you at presenting your own ideas. Even if they can't explain the concepts behind them!

The more you write, the more contradictions and just plain illogical claims appear.
That's why this thread is so fun!

[Uncayimmy]

I made a few posts in the moderated thread if anyone is interested. Much of it we have covered here, but there are a few new wrinkles.

I've had a couple of chats with Anita on Facebook. It's interesting how a one-on-one interactive chat can reveal things not really seen in her posts. One of the most interesting things I noticed, which I predicted early on in this thread, is that she can be charming especially when she's being very persistent. She talked about feeling vulnerable. She was flattering me, and we were both flirting in a harmless way while at the same time we were having serious discussions. She was simultaneously disarming and extremely persistent.

In my personal opinion I think she's reporting the "apparent accuracy" of her anecdotes in an apparently accurate manner. By that I mean I'm reasonably confident that she is being told she is accurate. What she is discounting is the sheer effect of her personality. She is not a woman you dismiss or disagree with lightly. It's just not worth the trouble - just agree and move on.

I mean, if *we* can't get her to dismiss her paranormal claims and look to the known and ordinary world, do you think your average mope could do it, especially one who is friend or family? I'm sure they humor her rather than engage her because it's a fruitless endeavor. Who's gonna tell her she's wrong about a reading and risk getting a "wall of words" about how she's never wrong?

Like I said, this is just my opinion, but it certainly explains a lot of things. I don't think she's being majorly deceptive to anyone but herself. Minor stuff? Sure, we're all guilty of that. But overall she wants to believe and finds way to make things fit. When they don't fit, she gets sick, backs off, and heads in a direction where she's less likely to hear what she doesn't want to hear. Sounds like the night I lost my virginity.

[desertgal]

This is interesting as I have received a PM from Anita.

In it she 'explains' that she has reticence in sharing her ideas because she told her theories to another student who stole her ideas and has since been claiming credit for them.
Also this other student has been using the ideas in experiments.
Also that she is particularly annoyed because the other student cannot explain the concepts underlying the ideas (obviously because he 'stole' them from Anita.)

(Yes I did explain why that was all colossally inconvincing.)

And colossally confusing, as well. Earlier, she said:

Post #905 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304636&postcount=905):"My research ideas in the rearrangement of physical structures with light, and in the creation of light structures are highly acceptable research interests within the field of optics.

Thank you for expressing interest in my research ideas. My research ideas are much more elaborate and in depth than what I have expressed here. Of course I can not share top secret information here in public. You will be reading about it in scientific publications like everyone else."

One minute, we will be reading about her theories in scientific publications, and the next, someone stole them and they are already in the public domain. I'm lost.

And I still really fail to see how she 'cannot' share her theories here, for fear of someone stealing them. Wouldn't posting them in this thread, with the time, date, and her IP address, be sufficient to prove she is the author of the theories? Is she concerned that Chillzero would snatch her theories, delete the thread to cover her tracks, and disappear cackling into the night?

Or am I missing something here?

So bearing in mind she has supposedly told three Professors already, and another student, who has also told Professors and is actually using these ideas in experiments... it is even more bafling that she won't explain the ideas in more detail.

Not to mention baffling that she has continually claimed that she 'forbids' involving her university, but, yet, has told three Professors already.

[Ashles]

Not to mention baffling that she has continually claimed that she 'forbids' involving her university, but, yet, has told three Professors already.
Well if we include the tungsten study she desribed in the PM (that the other bad student gatecrashed) then it is even more.

I will include the relevant paragraph:
We have a physics professor who works on a project where laser is used to rearrange tungsten metal. I fell in love with the project as soon as I heard about it, and once I expressed my ideas and interest in these areas of optics the professor was impressed and invited me to join his research team! But then this other student had to join and tries to impress with my ideas.

Actually now I re-read it it raises further issues - she was invited to join the tungsten study based on her ideas. Yet the other student managed to get involved somehow? Wasn't it an invite-only study? Did he present the ideas and somehow also get invited? Does the Professor have a poor memory or not care about plagiarism?

N.B. - Nothing in the PM was of a personal nature and I have explained to Anita that I will reproduce any sections of PMs I feel are relevant to claims.
I totally understand if she chooses not to PM me in future - in fact I would prefer it if communication remained in the thread, especially if, like this, it involves matters directly relevant to issues discussed on the thread.
I don't really get why she PMd me the story - my responses won't be different in PM from the thread and I may also have to end up responding to some of it twice.
Anita, in my opinion, has used a lot of tricks on this thread to try and force people to accept her opinions, and she simply refuses to be wrong about anything. And refuses to accept that some people just do not believe some of her claims and stories. Which is why she almost obsessively can leave no comment without response.
I don't know where she is getting the time to study at the moment.
When I have some time I may read through the entire thread again from the start. It's pretty interesting.

[Locknar]

I don't really get why she PMd me the story - my responses won't be different in PM from the thread and I may also have to end up respond to some of it twice.
Because "one on one" VFF hopes she can sway you, without others interjecting into the conversation.

[Akhenaten]

Doh! As if "guilding the lily" wasn't embarassing enough, I've just noticed that I referred to desertgal as desertgirl in an earlier post. Soz.

[Akhenaten]

Sorry, but I get a headache when I lend my book out.


:D

[desertgal]

Actually now I re-read it it raises further issues - she was invited to join the tungsten study based on her ideas. Yet the other student managed to get involved somehow? Wasn't it an invite-only study? Did he present the ideas and somehow also get invited? Does the Professor have a poor memory or not care about plagiarism?


Even more confusing. I find it unlikely that a Professor would not care about plagiarism, especially when it was happening in his own study, or that he would invite the plagiarist to join the same study as the original theorist.

If so, he's a rather unethical Professor. If he did do that, why, then, would Anita not complain to the powers that be? Surely, there must be some type of student ethics committee or such to report such things to. I would assume that the plagiarist would not be able to present proof that he originated the theories-since he stole them-so she would have had, at least, some grounds for proving a complaint.

Poor memory? Possibly...but, really, it's a stretch.

Very puzzling. And, really, as you said, unconvincing.

[Ashles]

Because "one on one" VFF hopes she can sway you, without others interjecting into the conversation.
Yeah, that's what I thought. :)