Vision From Feeling [Archive]

Jackalgirl

5th November 2008, 05:41 PM

I have not had a scientific test of my ability yet since that is something that needs to be arranged with an impartial and credible party.

Welcome to the Forum!

Let me suggest that your best bet is to come up with a test of your abilities, the result of which is self-evident.

What you do NOT want is a test that requires someone to judge that you are or are not successful.

By having a test in which the results are self-evident, the partiality and credibility of the witness is less important -- in fact, what you end up is with someone who is a witness, not a judge, which is the point.

So here's what I'd recommend -- a "dry run" test that you can do with two friends based on Maldach's suggestion. This is not a very tight protocol in terms of controlling for trickery, and the IIG will want something tighter. But it gets you in the neighborhood.

Requirements:
You, Friend A, Friend B (each friend has a notepad)
Three small beakers
Hot water dispenser* with hot distilled water in it
Three measuring teaspoons
Three stirrers (glass stirring sticks are fine)
Table salt
Baking soda
Powdered alum
Sharpie
Three 1" x 1" pieces of paper
Roll of removable tape
one six-sided die
Tube of Ben-Gay, mentholated cream, or some other very strong-smelling substance.
Three rooms (Prep room, Preparer waiting room, VFF waiting room)

*I am envisioning one of those dispensing thingies that have a button on the top that you use to "pump" hot water into a cup. I haven't the slightest what they're called.

While you and friend A (from here out, the observer) wait in the VFF waiting room, Friend B (from here out, the preparer) goes into the prep room, where all of the equipment except for the tube of strong-smelling stuff is located (that is in the VFF waiting room). The preparer rolls one six-sided dice:

On a roll of 1-2, the preparer starts with salt, taking a leveled spoon of salt and mixing it into x oz of hot water* until it is completely dissolved. This preparation is labelled "1" using the Sharpie, one of the tags, and the tape, and the preparer annotates the number/substance correlation on a notepad. The teaspoon and stirring stick are set aside, not to be used again.

On a roll of 3-4 the preparer does the same as above, but starts with baking soda.

On a roll of 5-6, the prepare does the same as above, but starts with alum.

Once the first beaker is prepared, the preparer rolls the die again. On 1-3, the next preparation will: baking soda if the first item was salt, alum if the first item was baking soda, salt if the first item was alum. On 4-6, the next preparation will be: alum if the first item was salt, salt if the first item was baking soda, baking soda if the first item was alum. The solution is prepared as before (with a new teaspoon and stirring stick), this beaker being labeled "2" and number/preparation recorded on the preparer's notepad. Again, the measuring spoon and stirring stick are set aside.

The preparer then prepares the last beaker with the remaining substance using a new teaspoon and stirring stick and labels it "3", recording the result on his or her notepad.

The preparer leaves the room, taking his/her notepad, and knocks on the VFF door in passing, going to the Preparer waiting room.

VFF and the observer wait 30 seconds to allow the Preparer to get into his/her waiting room. VFF and her observer both apply a bit of the strong smelling stuff underneath their nose, then she and her observer go into the Prep room. VFF does whatever she needs to do in order to determine which beaker contains which solution short of actually tasting or smelling the solution. The observer records the results. VFF and the observer return to the VFF waiting room.

*where "x" is a reasonable amount to allow for solution without allowing the contents to be exceptionally smelly. Perhaps we'll need to go with 1/4 tsp or something -- VFF will need to indicate the minimal amount of substance she needs to be in the water in order for her ability to work.

A couple of notes:

Someone smarter than I in stats is going to have to figure out some stuff, such as how changing the die rolls from 1-2 in the first determination to 1-3 on the second changes the situation (if at all). Also, a stats person would need to tell you how many times you'd have to repeat this single run in order to get statistically significant success (all three right in how many repeats? Two out of three in how many repeats? One in three in how many repeats?). You'd actually end up needing more beakers, teaspoons, and stirrers if you had to repeat each run, since you'd want to use clean equipment each time.

Also, for a tighter protocol, you'll need a third friend: one to prepare the beakers (and write down which ones contained which, without labeling, left-to-right), a second to label the beakers left-to-right with a randomly-determined number or letter (and record which number/letter goes with which beaker, left-to-right), and your observer. If the person labeling the beakers does not know which container has what substance in it, he or she can't give away (purposefully or accidentally) which is why by changing the way they're labeled. Of course, this person would need to have the smelly stuff applied under his/her nose too.

Anyway -- try this out once and let us know how it turns out. Are you able to get all three correctly identified?

VisionFromFeeling

5th November 2008, 06:48 PM

I agree that it is a good idea to test oneself before having an official paranormal test. If only there were people with health problems available for a pre-test I could have one with the health information. The experience and success I have so far on identifying health information has already convinced me that it is worth the time and effort of me and the testing party to have the test.

Do you seriously want me to use my ability on persons in the bathroom? Do you have any idea of the things that I can see? I would prefer to respect their privacy and not try this. While we're on the subject, I love to tell people when they need to go to the bathroom. It is not visible externally, but I can feel it. I can also see the composition of urine and the contents of the stomach and intestines and am learning to decipher this into what a person ate. It does not bother me at all. One of the clearest things to see that a person ate, is a meal composed mostly of sucrose (tablesugar), and another one is a meal composed mostly of fat.

One might ask themselves, why would a person who is able to see inside the human body, actually spend time looking into a human body? In the very beginning when I realized this ability of seeing inside the human body, I was naturally apalled and uncomfortable with what I saw, but over the years I have learned to truly appreciate human tissues to the point where it is one of the passions in my life today and I can't wait to study histology (human tissues) in graduate school and work with tissues. I could talk on and on about the beautiful structures that I've seen in the human body, and the information I receive from viewing them. It is just wonderful. Humans are beautiful.

I already know that I benefit from seeing the person that I am viewing. Seeing the person should also not pose a problem for the sake of the test since there is plenty of information to test on that is indetectable from the outside with no external cues. I would like to mention some of these, which are not necessarily going to be involved in my test with the IIG:

The presence of infectious bacteria, their type and location / Lung cancer / Removed lobes of the lung / Asthma, allergies, the presence of asthma medicine still on the trachea from the past / Pregnancy / Female cysts of the reproductive system / Prostate cancer / Breast cancer / Stomach ulcers / Pain, a description of its extent and location and the tissues involved as well as its cause / Damages to the normal alignment and structures of the spine / Bone fractures that did not heal properly (can be concealed by clothes) / Contents in urine / Liver worm, parasites / Blood composition / Kidney stones / Gall stones / Liver damage, cirrhosis, holes in the liver tissue, damage from alcohol or infection / Damaged appendix / Colon cancer / Mental illness, may show as dark areas on the brain’s electrical activity / Tinnitus / Obscured vision / Discomforts of all forms in the body, their location and a description of

And many more. I like to use my ability when I get the chance since it is improved by practice. When possible I like to check what I find with the person and so far my accuracy has been excellent. I treat the persons and the information I obtain with respect for the person's integrity and privacy.

VisionFromFeeling

5th November 2008, 06:59 PM

Jackalgirl

5th November 2008, 07:36 PM

Thank you for a well thought-of test protocol. I will try something similar to it when I find the time, and once I do I will remember to post the results here, what ever the results may be. However instead of having only a specific amount of substances randomly distributed among three beakers, I would like to make it more interesting by having so that the substances in the beakers could be any. For instance, two might be baking soda, and one be table salt. Or even with an option that a beaker might not have any substance added to it and contains only water. This would of course be randomly selected with the dice.

I don't have any problem with that -- the important thing is that they're all prepared in the same way, with the same solvent and same quantity of substance. I like your idea that one of the beakers have water only in it. I think this would end up decreasing the number of trials you'd have to do in order to hit the required odds (for the JREF MDC, it's generally 1:1000, depending on the situation -- I'm not sure what the IIG's requirements are).

The other important thing, of course, is that the whole process be double-blind, and that you control for any normal ways a person might identify what's what (for example, by smell, or by touch if there's a significant tactile difference between solutions).

The word you were looking for is thermos.

Thermos is actually a brand name, tho I'm sure they make what I'm talking about. Here is an example list of these beverage dispensers (http://industrial.pricegrabber.com/beverage-dispensers/update-international/p/5205/2/).

I'm looking forward to finding out the details & results of your testing!

Uncayimmy

5th November 2008, 08:11 PM

Do you seriously want me to use my ability on persons in the bathroom? Do you have any idea of the things that I can see? I would prefer to respect their privacy and not try this.

Yes, I am serious. When I'm in a stall, I can't help but hear someone enter the bathroom and subsequently the stall next to me. I hear if they pull out the paper to put on the seat. Not to be crude, but I may hear other, ahem, noises. If the person is a smoker, unclean, or wearing cologne, I'll probably smell them. If you could see illnesses within my body through a bathroom stall door, I wouldn't feel my privacy was invaded.

You used the metaphor about how once you learn to read you can't help but see words when you look at a printed page.

So, can you prevent yourself from "seeing" these people? Is it a matter of focus, like straining to see a distant object or hear a conversation over the background noise?

Really, what I am driving at is whether you have tested your skills through a solid barrier and with people you have never seen before.

roger

5th November 2008, 08:24 PM

Super easy test - you can do this in 10 minutes with a few friends. It's not conclusive, but should yield interesting results.

You claim you can feel what people are eating. The test. Take some coffee cups. Fill sone with hot water, some with cold. The person drinks from one randomly, and you say whether the water was hot or cold.

It's not conclusive since you may be able to tell just from body language which they are drinking, or if the water is too hot it will be steaming, etc. But it'd be a really easy, fun way to test this out.

Edit: you could change this in a number of ways. Instead of hot/cold, you could dissolve sugar in some, and leave the other plain - less likely to get a flinch or whatever from hot water. But I hope you get the idea - the liquids are clear, so you can watch (so long as you don't know which coffee cup contains which liquid, of course!).

edit2: I relooked at your site, and see you claim you can taste food by looking at it. This makes the test even simplier. Have your friend dissolve sugar in half the cups, salt in the rest. Say, 10 cups. Then you look at each and say what is dissolved in it.

Hokulele

6th November 2008, 12:11 AM

To take roger's test a bit further, have a room with a table, one pitcher of sugar water, one of salt water, one of plain water, and 15 paper cups. Have someone pour one cup of each and taste to make sure you can tell them apart when you know which is which.

Leave the room, and have the other person label 12 paper cups with the numbers 1-12. They should then roll a 6-sided die, and if the number is 1 or 2, fill the first cup with sugar water, 3 or 4, salt water, and 5 or 6, plain water. Repeat for all 12 cups, and they should keep a record of which type of water went into each cup. They will then take the record and leave the room.

You can then enter the room and have someone else record what type of water you think is in each of the cups just by looking.

There are a bunch of other controls that would need to be put in place for this to be a true challenge protocol, but it is good enough for you to test yourself.

JWideman

6th November 2008, 04:22 AM

My first post in this thread referred to your "ice cream test". Anyone can tell what someone else is eating if they look at them, sheesh. Or at least are near enough to smell what they're eating and have a good sense of smell. That you have your senses rearranged so that you feel and see smells is medically interesting, but not at all paranormal.

Neurologist Richard Cytowic (Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses, The Man Who Tasted Shapes) identifies the following diagnostic criteria of synesthesia:
1. Synesthetic images are spatially extended, meaning they often have a definite "location." (But not necessarily in the right locations)
2. Synesthesia is involuntary and automatic.
3. Synesthetic percepts are consistent and generic (i.e. simple rather than imagistic).
4. Synesthesia is highly memorable.
5. Synesthesia is laden with affect.

I'm not a neurologist, but doesn't this sound familiar to you? It only seems like a sixth sense because you are observing everything in a more obvious way. I knew someone who saw motion as colors and it allowed her to interpret body language very easily, to the point where she'd know if someone was lying.
Enjoy your colorful, but mundane, life. Do something creative with it, like painting.

VisionFromFeeling

6th November 2008, 07:09 AM

Thank you for commenting. From my experience I still believe that I need to see the person at least partially, as if seeing a part of the body lets me access and download the vibrational information of the entire body. There are still many observations that I have made that come with no external signs, such as detecting the presence of a supplement of the "friendly" bacteria that people take to balance the ecosystem of their digestive system. What someone ate. The electrical activity field of the brain. Cysts in the female reproductive system. And so much more. Although I realize that using a screen would be very beneficial for the sake of a test, I am reluctant to use a screen since it should not be absolutely necessary when testing on the appropriate ailments and since my ability works the best when I can see the object or person in question.

I also want to have a test that more closely resembles what my most frequent everyday experience is with this ability, and that is to find information about people, and without a screen. My ability grows with experience, so this is what I have the most experience and skill with.

My ability is always active, but when I am focused on something else I am not aware of the ability. It is like when you are working on something and there is music playing in the background, you have moments where you do not hear the music at all because you are not paying attention to it and have your mind focused on something else at that time. When I am not doing anything in particular the ability is active and I receive the information. I can choose to focus it at times when I want to obtain information with it, just like when you really want to hear music you can focus and listen to it. I test my ability on people I haven't seen all the time. Most of the time though I am unable to check my observations with them since you do not approach a stranger and say, "By the way, do you have colon cancer?"

Gord_in_Toronto

6th November 2008, 08:14 AM

When the testing has been done by Independent Investigators Group, can someone start a new thread with the results? I only have a finite amount of time and cannot spend much of it on so many posts claiming so many various wonderful things. Let me know the proof.

Thank you. :popcorn1

roger

6th November 2008, 08:35 AM

I'm sorry, but you claim that you want to find out if you really have these abilities, yet don't want to do the very simple tests to prove it.

I know I taste with my tongue. It's so easily proved. I put food in my mouth, I taste it. I've mistakenly put salt in my coffee, and as soon as I tasted it, I knew. etc. That you are questioning whether you have these abilities(tasting by seeing) is a big red flag. That you think you are 'better' at very difficult things like seeing cysts in a body than tasting salt vs sugar, is another big red flag.

These claims are so easyto test. You can see through tissue. Fine. Have somebody put their hands behind their back with one quarter. They put the quarter in either their left or right, then hold them in front of you. You look through the hand and see the quarter. You should be able to do this 100%, with stranger or friend. I predict you will come back and give some reason as to why you can't do this. If so, I suggest looking deeply and honestly at your reaction. Why is it all these easy things to verify you can't do, but the things that can't easily be verified you think you can do? There's a pretty obvious answer to that, if you think about it. OTOH, if you undertake a test like this, awesome, let us know how it goes!

Ocelot

6th November 2008, 09:21 AM

For three solutions randomly ordered, there are 6 permutations. Therefore a one in 6 chance of guessing correctly through chance alone.

If you succeeded in doing this in each of four trials that would be seen as sufficient for the JREF preliminary test. You'd only have one chance in 1296 of succeeding through chance alone. Although the protocol would have to be tightened substantially to avoid other means of detecting the difference seeing bubbles or differences in meniscus, - that sort of thing. I'd suggest fully sealed containers with no airspace.

If we include plain water then we have four solutions. 24 permutations and therefore only a one in 24 chance of guessing correctly through chance alone. In this instance 3 trials would be sufficient for the JREF preliminary test. You'd only have one chance in 13,824 of guessing these all correctly through chance alone.

You might think that against such huge odds some leeway might be allowed. however the odds of getting 10 or more are one in 750(ish) (getting 11 would be impossible - with permutation one wrong means getting at least one other wrong too)
Whilst one in 750 is certainly impressive the traditional passmark in JREF test has always been one in 1000 and this just falls short.

It's possible to achieve the desired probability much quicker with the slightly different test design you mention. In Jackagirl's protocol she's giving you information. She's telling you that in each batch of solutions to be identified there's exactly one of each type.

By the way if that is the route to be taken it might be simpler to draw tokens from a bag than use dice.

If instead as you suggested a number solutions were prepared each entirely at random with no regard to what previous solutions had been prepared we'd have far more possible permutations, including such freaks as all being plain water or the first three being salt and the rest baking soda.

In this instance just five solutions would be sufficient, there'd be a one in 1024 chance of guessing all 5 correctly through chance alone.

Ten is a nice round number. If each of the ten unidentified liquids could independently be any of four options, then the pass mark would be 8/10 correct. There'd be a one in 2405 chance of getting that through simple guessing.

With 5 options the passmark drops to 7/10

With 8 options to choose from the passmark drops to 6/10

Hok's test 12 cups each randomly containing on of three independant options would have a passmark of 10/12 Odds of getting ten or better through guessing are 1 in 1839.

That seems like the simplest to try on your own (well with friends to blind the test) but rememebr that if it does work and you change your mind want to apply for the million, sealed glass containers will probably be one of the many changes you'll need to make to the protocol before it would be accepted.

VisionFromFeeling

6th November 2008, 01:26 PM

roger:
Thank you for suggesting some good ways to test my ability. I will try some of them when I find the time. They are easy to arrange, and I agree that they can not prove an ability but could indicate if I do not seem to have extrasensory perception after all.

Hokulele:
Good suggestions, thank you.

JWideman:
Regarding the ice-cream test, I was looking at my friend's shoulder and back of the neck and shielded my vision with my hand to make sure that I had no view of his face or of the ice-cream. I try to ensure that I am not cheating intentionally or unintentionally in my personal little tests since that would lead nowhere. I do not think I was near enough to smell the difference between plain ice-cream, with pineapple, with chokolate, or no ice-cream. All of these scents would have continuously blended together from the cup I believe. I was aware of myself as sensing the electrical signals of his nerves as he experienced the temperature, texture, and flavor in his mouth. His brain translates these signals into the corresponding information, and it seemed as if I was accessing these electrical signals across the air in between us, and my brain could translate these signals into the same corresponding information as well. However I was not feeling a real sensation of ice-cream in my mouth like he was, I was only perceiving the sensory information in my mind.

This is not an implausible explanation. When people eat food, there are many little signal receptors on the tongue and in the cheeks that respond to the stimuli of pressure and of the shape of molecules, which creates electric signals just as if you would press a button to connect an electrical circuit or press a switch on an electronic device. The nerves in the human body operate through electricity which is nearly identical to the principles of electricity in electronic technology such as computers, or lightbulbs. Electricity is when little particles that have electrostatic charge in themselves move about. In the electrical wires on technical devices, these charged particles are the electrons, and electricity is when these electrons move about in the wires. In the human body, however, these charged particles are much larger ones, such as calcium ions, sodium ions, or chloride ions, but it is the same principle: electricity happens when these ions move about.

Charged particles always have an electrical field around them. This electrical field is like a parallel to a gravitational field. It is the extent to which the charged particles can exert attractive, or repulsive, forces on other charged particles, across that field, and across air and space. A gravitational field is when a mass can exert attractional forces on other masses, and likewise, the gravitational field exists across air and space. These invisible force-fields, such as gravitational, electric, or magnetic fields, decrease in strength with increasing distance from the source. When charged particles are moved about physically in their position, it causes their electrical field to move along with them, causing a moving electrical field. (Which by the way generates a magnetic field.)

All of you probably hate me by now for making this a science lecture, but this involves some of my favorite topics that I am specializing in.

The electrical signals that happen in the mouth as a reaction to stimuli from food, carry the information that can be translated into the taste, the food's location in the mouth, the texture, and temperature. Nerves are like the electrical wires in the body and send the electrical signal to the brain. In the brain the signals are distributed to their various specific destinations where one will stimulate the experience of flavor, another part of the brain is stimulated to make the experience of the temperature, and so on. Different sensory experiences are stored in the brain. Some sensory experiences are probably complex ones composed of a combination of different components of experiences connected together. When these experience-storages are stimulated through the nerves and the electrical signals, they activate and give you the conscious perception of the sensation that they hold.

The electrical signals of the nerves, as well as the electrical fields that surround the charged particles that are responsible for the electrical signals, are not exactly private or fully contained within the body. Electrical fields stretch out far around their sources, even if with diminishing strength as you increase in distance. There are many scientific and medical instruments that register the electricity of the human body, and that try to decode these into the information that it represents.

It is not implausible that the electrical aspect of the sensory stimulus to food extends out from a human being, reaches me, and is perceived by my brain and translated into the food experience. This is one possible way of trying to understand the process behind this phenomenon, but obviously not necessarily the truth of it.

By the way, another aspect of the ability is that I perceive what others perceive from their point of view. I can tell the difference in how the same taste is experienced by me or by another person, since there is some subjectivity involved in how different people experience the same things. So perhaps I am in fact perceiving their perception and signals once it has reached their brain. Or both from the mouth as the information is created, as well as from the brain.

Many aspects of my ability have similarity to synesthesia, which is why I suggest it as the alternative explanation to it being extrasensory perception. However, like I've said, I make observations that would not seem likely to be made with ordinary senses or even with ordinary synesthesia. For instance when I see and feel the presence of specific bacteria that are hidden in the body there is no vision, touch, taste, scent, or sound from its presence that would have been perceived by ordinary senses to be translated by synesthesia. Synesthesia takes information that is perceived through ordinary senses, and then translates that into corresponding aspects of other forms of perception. I believe I am perceiving the vibrational aspect of the bacteria which in itself is extrasensory perception. That is then translated through what is similar to synesthesia, but the original information that started the whole thing was inaccessible to ordinary senses or ordinary synesthesia.

I am not convinced that this would not involve some form of extrasensory perception, therefore I will continue with having the test.

Thank you for your comments.

Gord in Toronto:
I will try to remember to start a new thread to discuss the results of my test with the IIG once that is completed.

roger:
I can access many different types of information with this ability. The type of information that I have by far the most experience with, is dealing with information about human health. It might seem like this should be more difficult to do with any ability, but this is where I have most of the experience which is why my official paranormal test will involve health problems. I am less successful with chemical identification, where less successful refers to the frequency of observations, whereas the accuracy is still good. I am going to test my ability on chemical identification on my own but still have the official test on health information.

I do not question whether I have these abilities. It is more of the case that I am trying to be scientific and humble about it. I am quite aware of what I am perceiving, but I realize that I have to be open-minded about it since it concerns something that is unusual to most people.

Seeing a cyst is a lot easier to me than perceiving the taste information of sugar in water by feeling its vibrational aspect. A cyst comes with a strong feeling of dissonance among the other vibrational information across the human body. It feels out of place and mismatched, and clearly stands out so that I can detect that there is "something there", and that something translates into the visual perception of a cyst. In the case of sugar in water, there is nothing wrong with it. The water doesn't mind having sugar in it, so I have to work harder to look. Health problems are very easy to detect due to the dissonance associated with it. Imagine if you had to skim through a big book to search a specific word within the text. You would have to read it word by word, page after page to find it. Then imagine if the word was highlighted for you, how much easier that would be. That is what the difference between a cyst, and just sugar, is like. Much easier.

To sense a quarter involves sensing something where nothing is "wrong". There is nothing "wrong" with having a quarter in the hand. It would still be easier to detect a cyst. Don't make assumptions on what should be easier to detect or what the ability should be able to do - let me tell you what is the easiest and what it can do.

I am not opposed to failing a test and would not take it personally. Whether this is a form of synesthesia or ESP in either case it is what it is and I continue to use it and to enjoy the benefits of it, and I do not favor one label over the other.

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.

Ocelot:
Thank you, I will try a test similar to that. Still, my test with the IIG will concern health information since that is where my ability is the strongest.

Health information: high frequency of observations, high accuracy.
Chemical identification: low frequency of observations, high accuracy.

VisionFromFeeling

6th November 2008, 03:01 PM

Something I do with this ability is vibrational algebra to compute brand new information.
Everything has a vibrational aspect to it. The vibrational aspect is the deepest and most fundamental aspect that I know of. It is even deeper and more fundamental than the aspect of atoms. Most if not all of the properties of things can be attributed to properties of the atoms that make the things. Weight, color, structure, are all properties because of the atoms that make it. But, on a more fundamental level it is in fact the vibrational level that determines the weight, color, or structure, since the vibrational level is what determines the atoms.

I can access and download the vibrational information of things with my mind. This combines and wraps up all the relevant individual pieces of vibration of all the components that make the thing. For instance if I am observing a bacteria, the vibration that corresponds to the entire body of the bacteria, all of the chemicals and atoms that it consists of, is perceived as one combined vibrational aspect of the bacteria. The individual components of the thing all seem to be connected together so that they can be perceived together as a sum. So, rather than just seeing a whole big bunch of vibrations floating all over the place in the body, the vibrations are actually already neatly organized for me into compartments for all of the individual things that there are. I can download the complete vibrational aspect of each cell at a time, or each structure or thing at a time, and I do not have to try to gather all the relevant vibrations together. It is like rather than finding a bunch of un-stapled papers all over the place that you would have to pick up one by one and try to sort according to subject, they have already been neatly organized and piled up for you.

What decides how to determine the boundaries of things, for instance one cell from the others? Well, actually the entire human body can be perceived all together as one composite vibrational aspect. Or, I can find an organ and consider it being one vibrational aspect. Or a cell, or a structure, or even a chemical, or an individual atom. But relevant and adjoining things are linked together and their vibrational aspects are easy to perceive in combination.

This is why when if I find one cancer cell, through this kind of automatic compiling of relevant vibrations, I can find other such cancer cells in other locations of the body. Or, when I sense an illness that comes with symptoms in more than one part of the body and symptoms of different kinds, they are also linked together vibrationally so that I perceive all of them together as one thing, and do not have to search the body for relevant information that relates to what I found.

When I've downloaded the vibrational aspect of a bacteria for instance, I can use this information with algebra in my mind. ILLNESS + CURE = HEALTHY Well, since I know what the illness feels like, not just the bacteria itself but all of the adjoining tissues and reactions that are related to it, and I know what healthy feels like, doing algebra to find that HEALTHY - ILLNESS = CURE By superimposing the vibrational aspect of the illness with the vibrational aspect of the healthy body, the vibrational aspects combine on their own and in my mind I am looking at a brand new vibrational aspect that did not come from observations, but that I can then take and translate into its corresponding structure and the things that it represents.

I can compare the result with my past experiences of things to find the match. My favorite example, that I have yet to test in a lab, is that Helicobacter which causes stomach ulcers, can be destroyed with Calcium Carbonate, and from a preliminary point of view this is interesting enough to test.

I can also do addition. By adding the vibrational aspect of an unknown medicine that I am looking at and adding it to the vibrational aspect of a human body, I can observe the vibrational aspect of their combination and translate it into what the effects of that medicine is on the body. I have had amazing results.

I once looked at an unknown pill. I felt its vibrational aspect and combined it with the vibrational aspect of a human body in general to observe the results. I felt that the medicine is in fact a dangerous liver-toxin, and that the body responds with panic by flushing it out of the body and the kidneys with absolutely heaps of water, to the point of nearly dehydrating itself just to get rid of it. The only possible benefit of this process that I could think of, was that it might be a diuretic. And surely it was. If I had access to prescription drugs and a pharmacy, I would love to try a test on medicines! Medicines have very strong vibrational aspects compared to most naturally occurring substances since the structures of medicines look and feel very artificial and abnormal in many cases. And since I can combine them with the feeling of the body, I can make additional observations that provide strong clues as to what they are. This is something that is more difficult to do with other chemicals or materials such as coins.

I don't know whether I can do more complicated math with these vibrational aspects, so please don't ask me to try multiplication, division, logarithms, exponentials or Taylor expansions on these things!

Hokulele

6th November 2008, 03:05 PM

It does not matter how something is done until it is proven it can be done.

I strongly recommend you spend more energy divising and taking a test to show you have a talent before speculating how such a talent might work.

Madalch

6th November 2008, 03:09 PM

I don't know whether I can do more complicated math with these vibrational aspects, so please don't ask me to try multiplication, division, logarithms, exponentials or Taylor expansions on these things!
I wouldn't ask you to do anything more complicated than tell various colourless solutions apart by sight alone. I don't see the point in trying to set up health-related tests (which are subjective and difficult to set up) before doing the simple chemical-based ones.

You claimed that you could tell that a particular compound was biphenyl just by looking at it, and that the other two samples contained nitrogen. So it should be simple to tell salt from sugar when they're dissolved in water- they have no elements in common (apart from those in the water). Try that before booking an extensive trial with IIG.

JWideman

6th November 2008, 03:27 PM

Ever hear of mirror-touch synesthesia? What you describe, perceiving things from another's point of view, sounds similar.
The simplest explanation is that you have synesthesia, and it can explain most of your experiences. The part it can't explain, perceiving what can't be detected by normal senses, has another explanation. You state you have a high accuracy detecting these things. But how often are you able to check yourself? With health issues, obviously, not often at all. This leads to what we call confirmation bias - you forget all the times you've been wrong. Plus you have no way of knowing whether you were right or wrong much of the time.
I'll accept that you are able to recognize a given chemical provided it has clues - such as odor - that your synesthesia can turn into something easy to spot. Just like I'd have perfect pitch if I could see colors when hearing music. There's nothing paranormal about this. But when you look at someone, your synesthesia is turning a variety of subtle clues into obvious ones, and you're mistakenly associating these things with health issues. These subtle clues can be anything - facial expressions, body language, body odor, anything at all. Stuff that most people may not notice, but having it translated to a color must make it very obvious.

VisionFromFeeling

6th November 2008, 04:16 PM

Hokulele:
Agreed, until my ability is understood then all of my opinions about it are just speculations. I still think this is interesting no matter what it turns out to be and I do not mind describing and sharing it with you.

Madalch:
I will try a simpler test, still I want the official test to involve health information.

JWideman:
I understand that a possible explanation is synesthesia, yet I have made observations that are not consistent with synesthesia, that have no externally observable signs that I could think of. This is significant, and I will proceed with having a test on identification of health problems.

What would you suggest that the external signs are for detecting the presence of Lactobacillus in the stomach? I can't think of any, although that doesn't mean that there are none. Any ideas?

I would remember if I had been wrong, and I have not been wrong yet. It is difficult for me to share my past experiences with this ability with you since none of you have experienced this with me, so let's just find out what the test results are with the IIG and then discuss this further.

Professor Yaffle

6th November 2008, 04:40 PM

What would you suggest that the external signs are for detecting the presence of Lactobacillus in the stomach? I can't think of any, although that doesn't mean that there are none. Any ideas?

Can you just tell us how you confirmed for yourself that you were able to detect lactobacillus in the stomach. How was your judgement confirmed in the cases when you detected it?

VisionFromFeeling

6th November 2008, 05:05 PM

One day when I met a friend of mine I was stunned because there was something highly unusual about him. I couldn't even say hi to him but kept looking at his stomach with suspicion. I was seeing his stomach (that is, the stomach organ), which was empty and looked very common in itself, with the gray-brownish color of its tissue along with some red from the hydrogen ions from the stomach acid, but there was something bright, bright white sitting near the pyloric valve, which is the entrance region between the stomach toward the intestines. I kept looking at this thing. It was circular and neither fully round or flat, and had a very strong and clearly-defined external casing. I told him that I see a living organism in his stomach, yet when I checked its vibrational aspect it was not disturbing the stomach in any way, which is suspicious since the stomach detects many types of bacteria and responds with discomfort. I described to him that I see a bright white little bacteria, yet that it was doing no harm or even intending to do harm, which is unusual for bacteria. He then told me that he was taking a supplement of Lactobacillus after a stomach problem, and I immediately realized that that was what it was.

About a year before this I was at the food store walking through the cereal aisle when I suddenly had to come to a halt and stop at a cereal box. I had never seen such a bright, bright white vibrational aspect of something little and roundish, with such a clearly defined outer casing, such an intensely bright vibrational aspect, and sitting inside a cereal box! I picked up the box and read carefully - turns out it contained Lactobacillus. Who would have known.

Lactobacillus is an incredible little thing. So, in both cases I had no way of expecting to come across it, and had it confirmed. What is also interesting is that I recognize it in the identical way whether it is in a person or in a cereal box.

And I know what you are all going to say: Just take some cereal, some plain and some with Lactobacillus, and see if you can feel the difference through a cereal box-type of material. Thanks I will try it.

Professor Yaffle

6th November 2008, 05:13 PM

Yousee, it's a mindset I can't understand. If I thought I had an ability like this, I would be constantly testing myself, just to double check it really worked, and finding ways to rule out other explanations. I certainly wouldn't wait until someone else hinted at it to think of that cereal test. It would be the first thing I would think of if I had the experience you just described. I would want to make really sure I wasn't deluding myself.

I find it admirable that you are willing to put yourself up for scientific testing, but find it amazing that you haven't done systematic blinded tests before, just to satisfy your own curiosity.

VisionFromFeeling

6th November 2008, 05:30 PM

Alright. I've had this ability, what ever it may be, for several years now and it is continuously growing stronger with experience little by little. I've always taken it for granted and for my personal use and experience with it I do not need any kind of confirmation of its authenticity. Whether a scientific test of it shows that it is ESP, or shows that it is something else such as synesthesia would not matter to me or change much of anything. The ability will be the same, and the observations the same.

It is only recently that I have become interested in sharing this with other people since others might find it interesting as well. However as much as I would love to meet with academic and other persons to arrange for various types of tests, it is not always an easy thing to do to admit to having a perceived ability such as this. Just a few minutes ago I wrote to a medical doctor at a university who had conducted a similar study of psychic medical diagnose asking him whether he would be interested in testing my ability with me. So what I am saying is that it is only recently that I have begun to want to test my ability to find out what it really is.

Expecting me to want to test it after each observation over the years is like expecting you to go have your eyes checked every time you see something. I take my ability for granted myself, and only now that I want to share this with others do I want to test it, mostly on behalf of others and to show others what this really is.

And it was me who suggested the cereal test thank you very much.

Hokulele

6th November 2008, 05:34 PM

And it was me who suggested the cereal test thank you very much.

But why didn't you suggest it to yourself when it happened?

I have had strange things happen to my vision, and the first thing I did was try to devise a self-test to see if a) it was consistent, b) it was just me.

She will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is what Professor Yaffle is referring to by "mindset".

VisionFromFeeling

6th November 2008, 05:35 PM

Professor Yaffle

6th November 2008, 05:39 PM

But why didn't you suggest it to yourself when it happened?

I have had strange things happen to my vision, and the first thing I did was try to devise a self-test to see if a) it was consistent, b) it was just me.

She will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is what Professor Yaffle is referring to by "mindset".

No need for a correction.

It just seems to me that having made the connection that x (visual experience) seemed to correspond to lactobacilli presence, the first thing I would do would be to do a little test and check whether I was right. OK, if I had had this for years I might not have done so on this occasion, but at the beginning, I would have been doing it all the time, and getting very excited if it seemed to be consistent.

I'm not really directing this as a criticism of you, its just a mindset that is totally alien to me.

Professor Yaffle

6th November 2008, 05:45 PM

VisionFromFeeling

6th November 2008, 05:58 PM

Hokulele:

I have had strange things happen to my vision, and the first thing I did was try to devise a self-test to see if a) it was consistent, b) it was just me.

The things that I perceive with my ability are not strange to me. They are an integrated part of how I perceive the world, and I find it more strange that others can not perceive these things. To me, whether I turn out to be able to successfully detect this information under test-settings, and in repeated trials, will not change the fact that I will continue perceiving the information in individual cases as before. I have not had personal reason to want to test the ability on my behalf until now that I have gotten a scientific interest in finding out what it is, and now that I want to share this with others. The test is mostly on behalf of others.

Professor Yaffle:
The ability developed gradually and most of it began when I was still very young and not thinking about scientific tests. To me I've always taken the information for granted as simply "something I see" and not had to try to understand it as "real" or "not real" based on how others perceive and relate to the world.

Hokulele

6th November 2008, 06:02 PM

<snip>

To me, whether I turn out to be able to successfully detect this information under test-settings, and in repeated trials, will not change the fact that I will continue perceiving the information in individual cases as before. I have not had personal reason to want to test the ability on my behalf until now that I have gotten a scientific interest in finding out what it is, and now that I want to share this with others. The test is mostly on behalf of others.

<snip>

No offense intended, but to many critical thinkers, that is a red flag.

Is there anything that would convince you that you are misinterpreting what you think you see?

Jackalgirl

6th November 2008, 06:28 PM

Just to back up Hok, let me phrase it another way:

Scientific thinking includes the acceptance that you might be wrong about your assumptions. What would it take to falsify your hypothesis that you have paranormal perception abilities?

Edited to add: note that I am not saying that admitting that something can be falsified means that it can't be true. Many people who come here with hypotheses about their (or others') paranormal abilities are highly threatened by even the suggestion that their hypotheses could be false. What they're forgetting is that if their hypotheses are true, then the things that could falsify them - which should always be itentified - would simply not happen.

Example: My hypothesis: I am able to move a key on a string in a jar attached to the lid of the jar by telekenesis without touching the jar. My fingers must be lightly resting on the surface on which the jars are set so that I have access to the vibrational essence of the keys.
My demonstration: I will set up two identical jars and put them next to each other. An observer will roll a die. On an even number, I'll move the key in the left-hand jar. On an odd number, the key in the right-hand jar. The key in the un-chosen jar will be unaffected.
If I am able to do this, the demonstration is a success. If I am not, the demonstration is a failure.

If I fail, I need to look for other reasons for why I wasn't able to suceed. For example, was I inadvertedly rocking the table because I was touching it? If my abilities only work when I am touching the table, I must be open to the idea that my contact with the table is what's moving the keys. Ways to test further: put the jars on an unyielding (concrete) floor and touch the floor. Does it work? No? The likelihood that I was mistaking inadvertent movement for telekenetic ability has now increased.

However, if I can actually do it, then I did it. Yay me!

This scenario was taken from an actual recent application for the Million Dollar Challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97889).

My apologies if you are thoroughly familiar with the need for being open to the idea that an hypothesis is false. But there may be other readers who do not quite grok this yet, and with the absolutely important idea that one should not continue to cling to a (scientific) idea just because one likes it -- an idea should be supported by (testable, observable) evidence.

Miss_Kitt

6th November 2008, 06:55 PM

Ladies and Gents, I am putting a $50 bar-tab at my next TAM appearance on VFF conveniently "not being able to find the time" to do any real testing unless she has the ability to 'read' human subjects. Having been a "sensitive" in my younger days, I know that feeling of being sure something REAL is going on--and it is! -- it just isn't what you think it is. I read even subtle non-verbals really well, but can't articulate what the 'signals' are, just what the net emotion is.

VFF, I hope you are able and willing to be open to the possibility that what you are doing is something quite different from what you think it is.

Also, just for your information, there are professional chemists, biologists, physicians, physicists, and magicians on this board. So don't be surprised if you get called on some technical inaccuracies that other people might miss.

For instance, you at one point indicated you 'detected' through your 'vibrational algebra' that calcium carbonate might be effective in treating Heliobacter. You claim to have some medical interest and background; given that H. pylori is commonly associated with stomach ulcer and ulcer symptoms are commonly eased by taking an antacid, it would not require any special ability to associate those two.

However, the use of antacids is to diminish the presence of stomach acid, which causes the burning and pain sensations--NOT to reduce the H. pylori population. In fact, H. pylori prefers a lower-acid environment, and can excrete a substance that helps lower the acidity of the surrounding area of the stomach. There is even some evidence to suggest that the lower frequency of benign H. Pylori populations in modern Americans may be related to the upsurge in gastric reflux issues. (My source here is a fascinating article in the medical news section of the Economist earlier this year.)

Our brains can store and retrieve information well below the level of your conscious knowledge. Be open to the possibility that a lot of your 'successes' are nothing more than fooling yourself. One doesn't have to be committing fraud or gross self-deception to in fact be deceived as to what is going on.

Best wishes, I look forward to following your progress, MK

JoeTheJuggler

6th November 2008, 08:39 PM

Yeah. . . it's amazing that someone has what would truly be an extraordinary ability, but just can't find the time to do a 5 minute test.

If I honestly thought I had such an ability, I don't think I could possibly eat or sleep until I have tested and verified the ability.

If your claim is true, it would revolutionize at least a couple of fields of science. It would raise a great many new questions and challenges to the status quo of fairly universally accepted knowledge.

What else is taking up your time? What else could be more important?

VFF admits that such a test would only be for the benefit of other people, which means his belief is dogmatic. That is, he believes in his ability either regardless of or perhaps in spite of evidence to support such a belief.

JWideman

6th November 2008, 08:42 PM

Have you written down your hits and misses? How many confirmed hits have you had compared to how many times you were unable to confirm? While I can't suggest asking strangers what illnesses they have, I do suggest keeping a notebook on you and recording your hits and misses.
And I wasn't saying you were observing actual medical conditions. Rather, you are observing certain things and attributing them to medical conditions. If you're sometimes right, that's coincidence.

roger

6th November 2008, 08:47 PM

Another super simple test.

She claims to be able to see through tissues. We can conclude that she can see though dead tissue, since she claims to be able to see brain activity, which is largely shielded with dead hair.

So, leather purse. She tells you what is in it.

So simple.

Zep

7th November 2008, 02:09 AM

Even simpler test.

Since she claims to be able to detect something "wrong" in a person, have her select some people out of a fair sized sample who she believes meet that criteria.

For the control process, have then behind a screen, and see if she can still detect the "wrong" thing through the screen.

For the test, same process, but she will not know if the person is there or not, by toss of a coin.

That is, a simple detection of presence test using her own detection criteria.

Jackalgirl

7th November 2008, 02:15 AM

Very good ideas. All very simple to test. Zep, yours reminds me of the Emily Rosa's Therapeutic Touch test (http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/01/therapeutic.touch/).

Moochie

7th November 2008, 05:59 AM

Ocelot

7th November 2008, 06:56 AM

I'm reminded of that young Russian woman who claimed an ability similar to VFF's. When tested her guesses were no better than chance. There was a documentary about her on one of the cable channels.

M.

If you're talking about this one

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html

She did in fact perform better than chance. Just not enough better to confirm a paranormal ability.

Moochie

7th November 2008, 07:52 AM

If you're talking about this one

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html

She did in fact perform better than chance. Just not enough better to confirm a paranormal ability.

Thanks, that's the one. Fascinating subject, although the results are questionable, to say the least. It would be interesting to further test her "ability," since, as you say, there was nothing there to confirm a paranormal ability in the testing that was done.

M.

VisionFromFeeling

7th November 2008, 03:14 PM

Hokulele:
I don't see the red flag. Whether a test shows that I appear to have ESP, or shows that it is something else like synesthesia, doesn't really change anything in my world. I will continue to perceive the very same information. And wanting to test my ability on behalf of others should definitely not be a red flag, rather I would encourage it.

I think the issue arises from the fact that the way I feel about my ability is not consistent with how most people would expect to react if they suddenly discovered the same ability in them. To me this is everyday and normal. I don't quite appreciate being told that my behavior and actions regarding how I feel about my ability, or what I do about the ability are not valid. It is as if a bunch of blind people approached you and criticized you for not being all excited about being able to see and for not testing it immediately and constantly. The things I perceive are as normal as your vision probably is to you.

I am having the tests now, calm down everybody. Don't jump on me for not having done them sooner. They are on the way and we will all be happy with the results, what ever they may be.

What would convince me that I am misinterpreting what I observe is if when checked against facts I would find out that my observation are consistently incorrect. I am quite open to finding out that this is not ESP at all, and I think that a test might be able to let us find out.

Jackalgirl:
To falsify the hypothesis that this would be ESP I would have to make observations that I am fully convinced of but that turn out to be not consistent with facts. I am not worried about either outcome of the test, like I've said, I will continue to experience the same ability whether it is ESP or synesthesia. I have not been using my observations in any ways that could have consequences if my observations were incorrect. I only make comments on the health of people I know very well, and I treat the information I obtain with the ability responsibly. I am glad to be open to either outcome of the test so that I won't be disappointed if I fail the test, and that is a relief.

I am glad to have science-minded people here, thank you. I can't wait to post the preliminary test protocol and discuss it with you all.

Miss Kitt:
I am going to test simpler tests on chemical identification this weekend. Chemical identification is only an aspect of the ability as a whole, and the ability makes observations most frequently in human subjects which is why I still insist on having the official test on that.

Actually, I don't have a final opinion on what the source of my observations might be. Nowhere have I claimed to have ESP, I am saying that I want to test to find out. I am under the impression that I detect vibrational information from a deeper level which then translates into the corresponding structure and other information, but I have not allowed myself to decide if this is what it is. I am open-minded. That way I can't end up disappointed.

I am very happy to have professional scientists and magicians on this forum, and please do detect any technical inaccuracies or issues regarding this. That is what I am here for.

I reached the conclusions of Calcium Carbonate and Helicobacter all on my own without prior knowledge of the science behind it. It was only afterwards that I checked my assumption and found it to be fairly consistent and worthy of testing. Obviously this is not proof of anything, I could be lying even though I am not, I was simply wanting to explain what leads me to being personally compelled to test the ability. Thank you for the background information, I would still want to test this in a lab if this specific procedure has not been tested.

Yet why aren't we discussing how I knew about the cysts and the Lactobacillus and the many other good observations that I've made? I don't see how to explain away those.

JoeTheJuggler:
It is only recently that I decided to test my ability. Well, to me this ability is something normal and it doesn't excite me as much as it would probably excite someone who suddenly discovered it.

The thing taking up my time and that is more important than this is college. I am doing a B.S. Chemistry and B.S. Physics both in a total of five years, plus research.

VFF is a she.

I believe that I make these observations regardless of whether I have a test or whether I pass a test. The observations will continue to come in. I make no assumptions about having an ability or having synesthesia, though. I do not need evidence that I am observing these things, just like you don't look for a scientific test to find evidence that you can see with your eyes or that you can hear. This is a normal aspect of my perception.

JWideman:
I haven't been recording my hits and misses, yet I seriously can not recall a single time when I would have been incorrect. I almost expect mistakes sometimes, especially when what I observe contradicts with my expectations otherwise or surprises me, yet there have been no mistakes yet.

I have had many confirmed hits. I would estimate it as at least a hundred, but I couldn't possibly recall to tell you how many. I can not recall a single miss. I wouldn't take it personally if I made mistakes in my observations, it's just that there haven't been any.

It is a good idea to start keeping notes on my observations. In fact, I will begin recording these on my webpage, along with whether they were shown to be accurate or inaccurate in the cases where I was able to check them.

How am I observing certain things and attributing them to medical conditions, that aren't medical conditions? I have made many observations that are clearly defined as medical information.

I'm not just sometimes right. I am always right. And it can't be based on coincidence. I am picking up the information from somewhere, but the question is how, and from where, and is this a paranormal thing or perfectly ordinary?

roger:
Be careful with the assumptions and conclusions you make. You don't know whether living versus dead tissue would be perfectly equivalent to my ability. I can see through layers of tissue, and even through hair and clothing, yet the information I read that is behind those layers is living tissue. I have never experienced being able to read into a leather purse.

Zep:
My ability grows from everyday use and experience of it. Most always when I read people there is never a screen between us. I might be able to develop the ability to include screens, but I already have heaps of experience and capability without screens and feel like I would have to start all over. It seems that I need to see the person at least partially in order to reach and download their vibrational information.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

7th November 2008, 04:02 PM

VFF, be careful that you don't rationalize away the intent to perform tests by convincing yourself that no test can possibly be like the "real thing."

~~ Paul

Senex

7th November 2008, 04:34 PM

Hokulele:
I don't see the red flag. Whether a test shows that I appear to have ESP, or shows that it is something else like synesthesia, doesn't really change anything in my world.

That does matter to us. This is a skeptic organization. You are willing to state you can pass a test that will shake the scientific communtity up but won't make a differenc in your own world? Personally, I would love you to be able to do that. I would forever be able to state I was one of the first people to recognize you when you posted on the James Randi site. Unfortunately, I believe you will just be one of the many dozens of people who believed they have the powers you believe to have but can't do more than write about them. I'm rooting for you yet I really, really, doubt you can tell the difference between vials of different chemistry that look alike. There is no scientific reason you can. Please prove me wrong with a vengeance.

Zep

7th November 2008, 04:45 PM

Very good ideas. All very simple to test. Zep, yours reminds me of the Emily Rosa's Therapeutic Touch test (http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/01/therapeutic.touch/).Precisely! :)

Jackalgirl

7th November 2008, 04:54 PM

[B]Jackalgirl:
To falsify the hypothesis that this would be ESP I would have to make observations that I am fully convinced of but that turn out to be not consistent with facts. I am not worried about either outcome of the test, like I've said, I will continue to experience the same ability whether it is ESP or synesthesia. I have not been using my observations in any ways that could have consequences if my observations were incorrect. I only make comments on the health of people I know very well, and I treat the information I obtain with the ability responsibly. I am glad to be open to either outcome of the test so that I won't be disappointed if I fail the test, and that is a relief.

I am glad to have science-minded people here, thank you. I can't wait to post the preliminary test protocol and discuss it with you all.

Understand that my main concern is that it is very common for people to come here and say, "well, I don't care what the outcome of the test is, it won't change my beliefs about my ability."

The important thing is this: 1) something is happening. 2) It could be ESP. 3) It could be something totally mundane (though it may still be uncommon). 4) you are okay with both options 2 and 3.

And, most importantly, that you are not dispensing medical advice when you are not qualified to do so, especially if you have have not tested your abilities. There are a lot of possibilities that need to be ruled out here, such as confirmation bias and cold/hot reading. If it turns out that your abilities work along those lines, it is especially important that you stop telling people stuff, because you're planting information in their minds that might not be accurate, and even if they go to a doctor and the doctor says "nope, nothing there", they may doubt the doctor's assessment if they have an especial trust in you.

Now, mind you, if you run some controlled tests -- controlling for pre-knowledge and confirmation bias and all of the other mundane things that could be doing on -- and you discover that yes, you actually do demonstrably have this ability, that's another matter. But for Ed's sake, please do not diagnose people's medical conditions until you have demonstrated your ability in a properly-controlled fashion. Please.

Zep

7th November 2008, 04:58 PM

Zep:
My ability grows from everyday use and experience of it. Most always when I read people there is never a screen between us. I might be able to develop the ability to include screens, but I already have heaps of experience and capability without screens and feel like I would have to start all over. It seems that I need to see the person at least partially in order to reach and download their vibrational information.This confirms quite clearly that your ability relies heavily on you being able to see the patients. That alone will need to be ruled out - it is a serious "confounding factor" in any test protocol you are developing. (You do know what a "confounding factor" is in scientific testing? If not, please study it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding_factor)

To explain, you do say above in many different ways that you can "sense" these things, you can "download them", etc. But nowhere do you say that you actually have to look with your eyes. So if your ability was indeed there, you should be able to do it without using your eyes to see. That is, you could do it quite literally blindfolded. Or, as I mentioned in my protocol above, with the patient behind a screen. This screen could be as thin as a simple sheet of newspaper, e.g. a long sheet of butchers paper, as long as it was lightproof. Thus you could still be close to the patient so distance would be no impediment, you just could not see them.

Of course, if it is necessary to see the patient, you want to seriously consider if all your input is really coming via your "senses". You need to read up on the "Clever Hans" effect in that case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

Now you need to go back and see why Emily Rosa's tests were so significant. Incidentally, Emily was only 11 when she designed and ran these tests, so even a child could understand the phenomena. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa

Hokulele

7th November 2008, 05:00 PM

Understand that my main concern is that it is very common for people to come here and say, "well, I don't care what the outcome of the test is, it won't change my beliefs about my ability."

The important thing is this: 1) something is happening. 2) It could be ESP. 3) It could be something totally mundane (though it may still be uncommon). 4) you are okay with both options 2 and 3.

And, most importantly, that you are not dispensing medical advice when you are not qualified to do so, especially if you have have not tested your abilities. There are a lot of possibilities that need to be ruled out here, such as confirmation bias and cold/hot reading. If it turns out that your abilities work along those lines, it is especially important that you stop telling people stuff, because you're planting information in their minds that might not be accurate, and even if they go to a doctor and the doctor says "nope, nothing there", they may doubt the doctor's assessment if they have an especial trust in you.

Now, mind you, if you run some controlled tests -- controlling for pre-knowledge and confirmation bias and all of the other mundane things that could be doing on -- and you discover that yes, you actually do demonstrably have this ability, that's another matter. But for Ed's sake, please do not diagnose people's medical conditions until you have demonstrated your ability in a properly-controlled fashion. Please.

Enthusiastically seconded. That was my concern as well.

JWideman

7th November 2008, 05:53 PM

I haven't been recording my hits and misses, yet I seriously can not recall a single time when I would have been incorrect. I almost expect mistakes sometimes, especially when what I observe contradicts with my expectations otherwise or surprises me, yet there have been no mistakes yet.

I have had many confirmed hits. I would estimate it as at least a hundred, but I couldn't possibly recall to tell you how many. I can not recall a single miss. I wouldn't take it personally if I made mistakes in my observations, it's just that there haven't been any.

It is a good idea to start keeping notes on my observations. In fact, I will begin recording these on my webpage, along with whether they were shown to be accurate or inaccurate in the cases where I was able to check them.

How am I observing certain things and attributing them to medical conditions, that aren't medical conditions? I have made many observations that are clearly defined as medical information.

I'm not just sometimes right. I am always right. And it can't be based on coincidence. I am picking up the information from somewhere, but the question is how, and from where, and is this a paranormal thing or perfectly ordinary?

See, there's the thing - without recording your hits and misses, it is very easy to only remember the hits. But that's not even all of it. There's also, like with that Russian girl that was mentioned in this thread, subjective judgement of what a hit is. The lactobacillus thing is a very good example of this. You say you saw something in your friend, and he said he was taking it. Then you saw it in cereal and saw the label. This was confirmation for you. Here's the thing: why didn't you also see it in, well, EVERYTHING ELSE too? It's in yogurt, beer, pickles, etc. Pretty much everyone has it in their stomach naturally. And for that matter, should you not see all the other intestinal flora everyone has?
Maybe you observe things, but you've managed to convince yourself that what you're observing is something it is very unlikely to be. And the red flag, as mentioned, is that you can't be convinced otherwise.

SezMe

7th November 2008, 07:34 PM

I used to be Investigations Chair for the IIG. I have written to the head honcho there asking for verification of the claims made here regarding the IIG. I have also asked that some current member of the IIG post in this thread to give us a status report.

VisionFromFeeling

8th November 2008, 11:33 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos:
I want to test my ability under testing conditions that are similar if not identical to the conditions under which I have experienced the ability, and to do anything that deviates too much from that would not be testing what my claim actually is. On the contrary I have made plenty of observations with the ability and under conditions that can be applicable to a test of scientific standard, and I believe that it will be possible to design a test that closely resembles how the ability works in real life situations. And according to what the preliminary test protocol is between me and the IIG, it seems that this will be the case.

Senex:
I am sorry if the way I feel about my ability is not considered valid. I have had this ability for many years now and it will remain and be what it is no matter what label it gets. Not only do I write about my ability, I will have it tested, and once I do then we can talk about what the results were. Please have some patience, the test is on its way.

Vials with diluted chemicals is not among my most common everyday experiences with the ability. The main part of my claim is finding health information, and that is what I want to test it on. No matter what results I would have on chemical identification, the main part of my ability will still be medical information and that test is what mostly matters. I receive the other types of information less frequently and I would rather not have the main test on those.

Let's have the test results before we speculate too passionately about any of this.

Jackalgirl:
What I do know is that I perceive accurate information that others can't. In accordance with how I perceive the information I suspect to be sensing vibrational information which then translates into vision, feeling, sound, scent, taste. I can not claim to know what the ability is and can not believe that it is ESP or believe that it is not. No matter what the results of a test will be my beliefs about the ability will remain the same: I will still continue receiving the information, and being under the impression that I am reading vibrational information, but I would hopefully know what the true nature of the ability is.

The only health information I dispense to people is to my closest friends and family. It is along the lines of, "You ate something very sweet for breakfast today: pancakes.", "You've taken a bacterial supplement.", "You have damage to the esophageal valve of the stomach.", "You didn't sleep very well last night since I see dark areas in the electricity of your brain.", "Your arm feels numb.", "You really need to go to the bathroom.", "Your right shoulder hurts because you've pulled the muscle when the arm was thrown back.", "You feel confused or dizzy.", "Your knuckles feel tingly.", "Your right internal ear has lowered hearing and a constant noise."; typically pains and discomforts. Information that a person can check with themselves right away and does not need a doctor or hospital to confirm.

Very often I do sense serious health problems in strangers but I am unable to tell them about it. I am not licensed to diagnose health problems, so it is something I can not do to people. If I were a physician I would use my psychic observations as clues and be able to apply my medical knowledge to determine whether the information is useful or not at which it can be verified with the appropriate tests. I could never allow myself to base a decision purely on what I observed with my ability, just in case I'd be wrong, and also because of the principles that prohibit it. I will continue to use the information responsibly whether I pass the test or not.

Zep:
Even though my ability requires me to see the person we can not rule out a possible ESP. I obtain plenty of information that does not seem to be detectable visually or by other ordinary senses or even by ordinary synesthesia and I believe that a test can be designed that eliminates any thinkable clues that may enable a non-ESP ability to perform in this way.

When I see a person I see their head and face and most of them is covered with clothing. I sense the vibrational feeling of things from inside their body and can then turn to look away and the image is constructed in my mind. In the image I see the inside of their body, on many levels of magnification simultaneously, and with health problems highlighted. It may be that I need to see the person in order to locate the source of the information, and remember that I perceive things that are not visually detectable, plus I feel what a person is feeling and that can not be acchieved by vision. There are many observations that I can not imagine having clues that'd be detectable by ordinary senses, although I could be wrong and that is why I value our discussion and involving other persons in this test.

I do have to look at the person with my eyes. I could not do this with a blindfold nor have I ever claimed to.

Please speculate as to how I was able to detect Lactobacillus in a person's stomach. What were its possible external cues? How did I know about female cysts at their early stage before the person was diagnosed? How do I see a damaged esophageal valve of the stomach without prior knowledge about this condition? What are the external signs?

JWideman:
I will keep a record of my observations from now on and post them on my webpage. I will record what the observation was, when I made it, what the circumstances were, and whether it was accurate or inaccurate if checked against facts.

I saw the cereal first. I was walking by the cereal aisle and there was something highly unusual in a cereal box, brightly white and with a very strong vibrational aspect. I just had to stop, go back, and find out what on earth it was. So at that point I was already absolutely certain that there was something very unusual in that cereal box. I then read and found out that it was Lactobacillus and that made sense based on my observation.

When I saw my friend I described to him that there is a strange bacteria in his stomach. I said that it was very clear, I was absolutely certain that it was there and that it was very significant, I described it as being bright white and roundish with a very strong outer casing, that it was artificial and not normally occuring in humans in this way and that it was unusual for a bacteria since it was causing no harm. He then told me that he was taking Lactobacillus.

If there is Lactobacillus in yoghurt then this is normal for yoghurt and is not something I would react to and it would never catch my attention. The above two cases are cases that were highly unusual - to find such a thing in a cereal that otherwise feels nothing like that, and to see it so brightly in a person's stomach like that. I mainly react when something is out of the ordinary.

I do see the normal bacteria in the digestive system, yet again they are what I consider normal so I don't react to it. Their vibrational aspect blends in with the vibrational aspect of the intestines themselves and there is no dissonance. Dissonance comes when something is out of the ordinary and that is what I detect. Without dissonance I can still look and describe things, but need to work harder to find specific things that do not involve anything being wrong.

How did I observe things and convinced myself that they were something other than what I saw?

There is no red flag then. I am fully open to being convinced that I have ESP or that I do not have ESP. I am receiving this information, and the information is accurate. I just don't know what it is.

SezMe:
Nice to have you here. You can read about the progress on my application on the IIG webpage under their monthly updates. I can give you a current update on the progress: I contacted the IIG West in Hollywood over a year ago asking whether they could arrange a test of my paranormal ability. I sent them my suggested test protocol that I authored and it was discussed between me and the IIG and amongst themselves. They recently sent me a version of the test protocol that was mostly based on the one I sent them, and I've had to delay the process a bit further by sending the protocol back to them with some of my additional comments and questions. I expect that we will agree on a final test protocol soon and that I can have the test hopefully by the end of this year or early next year. Thank you for being here.

Hokulele

8th November 2008, 11:39 PM

There is no red flag then. I am fully open to being convinced that I have ESP or that I do not have ESP. I am receiving this information, and the information is accurate. I just don't know what it is.

But are you open to being convinced that the information is not accurate?

JWideman's suggestion of the journal is an excellent one, but I would also recommend writing down your observations before you find out whether or not they are accurate. In other words, write down your observation, ask if it is correct or not, then write down the result. Do this for all of your observations, not just the ones you think are the "best".

Jackalgirl

8th November 2008, 11:55 PM

Jackalgirl:
What I do know is that I perceive accurate information that others can't. In accordance with how I perceive the information I suspect to be sensing vibrational information which then translates into vision, feeling, sound, scent, taste. I can not claim to know what the ability is and can not believe that it is ESP or believe that it is not. No matter what the results of a test will be my beliefs about the ability will remain the same: I will still continue receiving the information, and being under the impression that I am reading vibrational information, but I would hopefully know what the true nature of the ability is.

The only health information I dispense to people is to my closest friends and family. It is along the lines of, "You ate something very sweet for breakfast today: pancakes.", "You've taken a bacterial supplement.", "You have damage to the esophageal valve of the stomach.", "You didn't sleep very well last night since I see dark areas in the electricity of your brain.", "Your arm feels numb.", "You really need to go to the bathroom.", "Your right shoulder hurts because you've pulled the muscle when the arm was thrown back.", "You feel confused or dizzy.", "Your knuckles feel tingly.", "Your right internal ear has lowered hearing and a constant noise."; typically pains and discomforts. Information that a person can check with themselves right away and does not need a doctor or hospital to confirm.

Very often I do sense serious health problems in strangers but I am unable to tell them about it. I am not licensed to diagnose health problems, so it is something I can not do to people. If I were a physician I would use my psychic observations as clues and be able to apply my medical knowledge to determine whether the information is useful or not at which it can be verified with the appropriate tests. I could never allow myself to base a decision purely on what I observed with my ability, just in case I'd be wrong, and also because of the principles that prohibit it. I will continue to use the information responsibly whether I pass the test or not.

Emphasis mine.

Right. Easily checked without a doctor. "You've got a problem, but you don't need to see a doctor."

And let me see if I understand this: no matter what the outcome of the test, you will believe that you have this ability. Right?

Why bother testing?

You are unethical and unscientific. I predict that eventually you will be dispensing medical advice because you will never really test yourself, afraid to discover that you are actually not all that special.

I will no longer participate in this thread. Good luck to your patients.

SezMe

9th November 2008, 12:36 AM

SezMe:
Nice to have you here. You can read about the progress on my application on the IIG webpage under their monthly updates.
Here (http://www.iigwest.com/whatsnew/updates/200810_update.html).

Depending on the schedule, I may go down to IIG (~100 miles) for the test. Depends on what else is on my plate.

VisionFromFeeling

9th November 2008, 12:38 AM

Hokulele:
When ever I make an observation with this ability I am always curious to finding out whether it was true or not, especially when it concerns health information. I would have nothing to lose by finding out that the ability is simply some extraordinary way of processing information that was obtained by ordinary means. I do not use the ability to charge people money, I do not consider myself better than anyone else or special because of the ability, and I have not put myself in a situation where I would have anything to lose by not having a special ability at all.

I want to understand the ability for what it is, yet I will continue to experience it no matter what it turns out to be. Whether it is ESP or something quite normal I would not favor one over the other. The ability itself remains exactly the same. And even if I pass the test I will not take that as permission to use my ability in new, unethical or illegal ways such as in dispensing serious health information. I really have nothing to lose by not having an ESP ability. But since I might have ESP, I'd like to find out.

When possible, which is not often, I check my observation with the person. I try to do this in the proper way. Asking "How does your shoulder feel?" is better than "Is it true that your shoulder is hurting?", or simply asking "How are you feeling?" would let a person complain about a pain they are feeling. In most cases I expect that checking the observations against the facts is fairly simple. People are quite aware of how they are feeling and are good at describing their ailments.

I am very open to experiencing my first incorrect observation. Sometimes when an observation is highly unusual, very specific, and one that when I look at the person with my ordinary senses I say to myself that I just don't see it and it couldn't possible be there. At those times I can become a little nervous and expect to embarrass myself for mentioning something like that to the person, but even more compelled to find out. Yet, so far, always correct. Even in these very specific unusual cases.

Yes I will definitely write down all observations whether they turn out to be correct or incorrect.

Jackalgirl:
Don't assume things that I've never said. In the specific case of the esophageal valve, I told the person that I saw that his esophageal valve is damaged and doesn't close properly and that food keeps re-entering his esophagus, which he has to keep swallowing back down, and that this bothers him sometimes when he eats. This is highly specific information and involves symptoms that a person is aware of. He said that it was absolutely correct, that he was aware of it and that it had also been confirmed by a doctor. This, too, involves a condition that a person is aware of having.

I have never told a person not to see a doctor. In extreme cases I might tell a person to see a doctor, but I would never tell them not to see a doctor.

I will continue having the ability no matter what the outcome of the test is. The ability is not something I do, it is something that happens. It will not be switched off no matter what label it gets or what we find out is causing me to receive the information. I have no belief as to what the ability is, and that is why I am having the test is to try to find out whether it is ESP or not.

If I fail the test I will still receive information and will still believe that I receive information. What I refer to as "ability" is the receiving of information. The "ability" does not refer to ESP since I do not even know if it is ESP. If it were synesthesia, I would still call this the "ability" since I receive information.

I absolutely will bother testing in order to find out what the ability is. Having this test with the IIG is one of the things I look forward to the most right now.

I am absolutely not unethical. I have always used the information responsibly. And I am absolutely and definitely extremely scientific.

Your prediction that I will be dispensing medical information is nonsense. I will never do such a thing since medical diagnose is professionally done by a doctor who can verify all of their conclusions with objective tests. My ability leads to information that is in the same category as opinions, hunches, and intuition.

I have said many times over that I am absolutely not afraid to discover that I do not have an ESP ability. I think synesthesia is just as awesome as any ESP and no matter what the label for why I receive information is nothing changes in my world of things.

Sorry to lose you though, I've enjoyed talking to you. You've been a contribution to this discussion and I hope to see you back soon. The things that you seem upset about are things that I have never said or intended and I really don't mind if you stay.

VisionFromFeeling

9th November 2008, 12:50 AM

Depending on the schedule, I may go down to IIG (~100 miles) for the test. Depends on what else is on my plate.
Yay I get to meet you.

Hokulele

9th November 2008, 12:54 AM

Pixel42

9th November 2008, 12:55 AM

Please speculate as to how I was able to detect Lactobacillus in a person's stomach.
I'm sorry, but your claim to have done that does not stand up. You detected something in your friend's stomach, he told you he'd taken Lactobacillus, and you assumed (with very little justification) that that was what you'd detected. You then got a similar feeling from a box of cereal, noticed it had Lactobacillus in the list of ingredients, and (with even less justification) took that as confirmation of your assumption. When it was pointed out to you that lots of other products, and most human stomachs, contain Lactobacillus you did some post hoc rationalising about only noticing when it's unusual.

You haven't yet proved that you can detect Lactobacillus in a person's stomach, indeed you are currently a long way from proving it. You can prove it easily by doing a blind test where you get a bunch of people to take Lactobacillus or not at random and, just by looking at them, detect which is which. Only if and when you have successfully passed such a test will it be time to speculate about how you do it.

Professor Yaffle

9th November 2008, 01:26 AM

Systematic blinded tests on my ability will be done over this upcoming weekend. The test protocol used, the information to be found, as well as the results obtained will be posted here as soon as they become available.

I am a little confused now. You seemed to indicate in this post that the tests would be this weekend, but later posts have been much more vague about when a test may be happening. What did I miss?

VisionFromFeeling

9th November 2008, 02:06 AM

Hokulele:
Yes I am open to becoming convinced that my information is inaccurate! In fact, in many cases I expect it to be, when the observations from my ability just don't seem right when I look at the person (with ordinary vision) or are ones that seem unusual and far-fetched! Yet so far always correct.

Let's just see what ailments will be present at the official test and what observations I make. The test should not allow me to make any vague statements or to fill in facts afterwards. Unless changes are made before the final approval of the protocol, the test with the IIG involves me looking at a person, one at a time, and having a diagnose form at hand. On the diagnose form is a list of twenty ailments and I select one out of those twenty which matches what my observations are with the ability. The person has stated as having one out of the ailments and as not having the other 19 of the ailments. There is no room for vagueness or for filling in on descriptions afterwards.

The observations that I have made and mentioned as examples were all done during everyday experiences, and I realize that none of them are evidence but they are all that I have at this point. I mentioned them not as official evidence of my ability but as examples of what compels me personally to have the test. I have not been able to arrange for a real test of this on my own since I wouldn't know how to find persons with health problems or how to arrange for a test on my own.

It is true that I would have taken anything that was highly unusual on the cereal box as being that which caught my attention since I was looking for the explanation. I did not specificly identify the cereal as having Lactobacillus since I had no prior reference to make that match. The interesting thing is that I detected that something was very odd with it, and I believe that is my point with the story. I am glad that we've cleared that out, I don't want to seem to be saying things that I'm not. Thanks.

Well, I still find it interesting that I did detect a highly unusual high amount of a bacteria that once he told me he was taking Lactobacillus I could match my observation with what I had seen and felt in the cereal. Of course none of this is proof of anything, since I could be lying even though I am not, but I am simply trying to describe what some of my most compelling observations have been.

I've just added a new page on my webpage http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html where I will record the specific observations and keep track of the score.

Pixel42:
What you say is absolutely true, thank you for pointing this out. I did not match what I detected with Lactobacillus at that time because I could not at first remember what I had felt in the cereal to use it as reference. I did detect a bright white, roundish bacteria, that I identified as being artificial (something that would not have been there naturally had the person not ingested it) and that it was unusual in that it was harmless to the body. He confirmed that he had ingested a bacteria that is bright white, roundish, artificially taken, and one that is unusual in that it is harmless to the body.

Hearing its name I then remembered that a bacteria by that name was in the cereal and confirmed with myself that they feel the same in both places, although that the stomach is a much warmer environment than is the cereal box. If it is wrong of me to remember that match afterwards I apologize, and I do realize that I should have explained this differently and clearer. You guys are really good at establishing the details of things. Thanks.

It is definitely not a post hoc thing. I have consistently stated that my ability works the best on health problems and other things where there is something wrong or unusual. If I see yoghurt all the time, and it contains Lactobacillus, that is how I learn that normal yoghurt feels. When I see cereal all my life and learn what it feels like, and then all of a sudden somebody comes up with the idea of putting Lactobacillus into cereal, that one is going to feel different and I detected it. Lactobacillus itself is not strange at all, but when it is in the strange places its vibrational information stands out.

I'd be very interested in taking a test on detecting this bacteria in the stomach, I will look into that. I'd just need to convince a bunch of people to perhaps have to take the pills.

Professor Yaffle:
I am planning on having tests this weekend that are easier to arrange. I have not forgotten. As for later posts, they are probably referring to the formal test with the IIG, the date of which has not yet been established. The formal test with the IIG will be on detecting health information, whereas for the sake of this forum I am compelled to arrange simpler tests on the other aspects of my ability that occur less frequently but that everybody insists I should test right away.

Pup

9th November 2008, 09:12 AM

Pixel42:
What you say is absolutely true, thank you for pointing this out. I did not match what I detected with Lactobacillus at that time because I could not at first remember what I had felt in the cereal to use it as reference. I did detect a bright white, roundish bacteria, that I identified as being artificial (something that would not have been there naturally had the person not ingested it) and that it was unusual in that it was harmless to the body. He confirmed that he had ingested a bacteria that is bright white, roundish, artificially taken, and one that is unusual in that it is harmless to the body.

But lactobacillus is normal and natural (http://www.medicinenet.com/lactobacillus_acidophilus-oral/article.htm)in the stomach.

It seems that the idea of recognizing abnormal things is the weak point. If you see something, it's abnormal. If you don't see something, it's because it's normal. Yet there are situations where normal and abnormal can be blurred, such as the lactobacillus. If he'd taken the supplement and you hadn't noticed anything unusual, you could have said it was because that bacteria was normal for the human stomach.

JWideman

9th November 2008, 09:49 AM

The observation you have on your website is very good. You made the observation first, then confirmed it after, and don't rule out the possibility that there could have been subconscious cues.
However, it is not enough to only record when you make an observation. You should also record when you fail to make an observation. Someone goes to the bathroom, and you didn't expect it, record it. Someone tells you they are sick, and you didn't know it, record it. If you can observe something in one case, it stands to reason you should be able to observe it in all cases.

Ashles

9th November 2008, 10:18 AM

I am still curious why the health tests are considered the way to go when the other abilities would seem to lend themselves far more easily to clear cut results.

VfF it appears you are doing some testing this weekend. What are the details of these tests?

Ashles

9th November 2008, 10:30 AM

Alright. I've had this ability, what ever it may be, for several years now and it is continuously growing stronger with experience little by little. I've always taken it for granted and for my personal use and experience with it I do not need any kind of confirmation of its authenticity.
The problem is that we have seen exactly this kind of claim before, with exactly the same reasons for not feeling the need to do testing and in every single instance the whole claim has disappeared without any further research (or perhaps further research that did not yield the desired results).
It is a source of wonder to us that people who had such an ability appear so casual about it, when it would potentially change many things we know about the world.
How could somebody really consider such an ability as no big deal or not possibly a mistake of perception or memory.

But in fact it always comes across as not really wanting to do testing in a cotrolled fashion that removes the chance of interpretation or delusion.

You appear to want to actually test your abilities so credit is due for that. We await the results with interest.

Expecting me to want to test it after each observation over the years is like expecting you to go have your eyes checked every time you see something.
Seeing things is not an ability which is currently believed to be impossible.
If it were people would ask for evidence in exactly the same way.

And it would be very easy to demonstrate. As it appears your abilities should be.

VisionFromFeeling

9th November 2008, 11:05 AM

I expect that there must have been unusually high levels of the bacteria in the stomach since he was taking a supplement. Unusually high levels of something fall into the category of unusual. I still find it remarkable that I was able to detect the fact that he had taken a bacterial supplement which fit the description of it that I gave.

There are actually plenty of cases where I do not detect things that are considered as being present, and this is the disclaimer for my ability that I have always outlined. I have never claimed to be able to detect all cases in which an ailment occurs, since I do not detect in all cases in which an ailment occurs. For instance I have on many occasions detected that a person is diabetic (some of these cases were checked for accuracy and found to be correct, none of these cases were checked for accuracy and found to be incorrect, and in some of these cases it was not possible to check for accuracy). Yet there have been many cases where I find out that a person is diabetic and I realize that I wouldn't have known, and even when I consciously apply my ability I do not detect it.

This is true for many and probably most of the ailments that I have experienced detecting. I do not detect them in each case in which they are considered to occur. I sense each case as occurring to a different extent, the feeling of the ailment is strong to different degrees in different people. And it is also true that ailments do come in many extents, we all know that pain for instance can exist in a wide range of extents from mild to severe. Cases that are most severe in terms of the feeling of them catch my attention on their own and I detect them. Cases that are milder I might detect only if I make the effort of finding them. And, cases that are the mildest I may not detect at all, even if they are considered to be there. And do remember that I've detected ailments that are not considered to be detectable by ordinary senses, which is why I look forward to testing the ability.

This limitation of my ability should not discredit the possibility of having an ability. There might still be an ability even if it might not be as strong as it could be or as it should be.

This limitation of my ability is something I have always highlighted in my correspondence with the IIG in designing the test protocol. "I do not detect each case in which an ailment occurs." They have not objected to this since it is part of my claim and there might still be an ability and it is still possible to design a test that accommodates this limitation without reducing the quality of the test.

I suggested in my protocol draft that I be given a larger number of persons to view than what the number of observations are that I need to make. I will then select the ten people with the ten observations that I am most confident in, and the remainder of the people are not part of the test at that point or part of the scoring. I refer to this as "gathering the test material". It accounts for the fact that I do not detect each case in which an ailment occurs. I will still be making ten very specific claims of observations that can be checked for accuracy.

I have however had to ask for an additional condition to the test. That is if I do not detect something in a total of ten persons, then I do not want that to constitute a failed test. Rather that should be the case of an inconclusive test since the material that was available for the test (ie. the persons with health conditions) was not adequate for my ability. That would not mean to say that there is no ability at all.

I will not be forced to guess on the test. I will only make claims of observations when I saw something. Those observations that I claim to make are then fully available for being checked for accuracy. I still think that a good test will be designed and I can't wait to have it.

My accuracy is good, even if my observations are not as frequent as some might demand them to be. And all ailments that are there for detection will be ones that have been determined as being undetectable by ordinary senses.

JWideman:
It would be an absolutely exhausting task for me to have to record every single case of any ailment or thing that happens to a person's body. Luckily as I've just stated I do not detect each case in which an ailment occurs, nor have I ever claimed to. I will not lose points for not detecting an ailment. I will only lose points for detecting something inaccurately. I will record my observations, but will not record when I did not observe something that you'd consider to be there.

Ashles:
Hi nice to have you here. I make observations far more frequently on health information than on the other aspects of the ability. The official test will involve health information since that is the main part of my ability. I am less interested in the other types of observations that I make since they are less frequent and less interesting.

For the sake of this forum more so than for my own purposes I'll arrange tests on chemical identification this weekend and also continuously from then on so that we can see if I can make the same observations under controlled settings. I want to design tests that as closely as possible resemble what the actual real-life observations were. I am considering having the cereal test, which should be very simple to set up. If I was able to detect the Lactobacillus cereal from rows of otherwise plain brands of cereal then surely by placing different samples of cereal with and without the bacterial supplement, in identical boxes of the same material, then according to the observation I should be able to detect it. Most likely this test will be done today with a friend.

The procedure should be simple. Have for instance four samples of cereal in identical sealed boxes, one of which contains the bacterial supplement. A friend will prepare and place the samples and for test purposes not be present as I make the identification so not to give away where it is in any way. I will not tamper with the samples, and I record my answer. If I sense where it is, I say so. I will however not start guessing and if I do not sense where it is, I record that as my answer. I will post the results here, no matter what the results will be.

I am definitely not going to disappear. I greatly look forward to having these tests. I was just saying that no matter what the results of the tests are, the ability that I have will stay the same and not go away, and for my own purposes of having the ability I do not need a test to confirm that I am making observations since I already know I am making observations. I am having the tests to find out what the source of the observations are.

I am just as casual about my ability as everyone is about having eyesight. Sorry about that.

I'm not sure I fit the description you make of these typical persons who claim to have an ability. I worked hard to suggest a test protocol to the IIG that would eliminate any sources of error and I've stated over and over again that I welcome finding out that it is not the case of ESP. I have no reason to favor having ESP over having just an unusual but wordly ability. No matter what the test results are or what label the ability gets, the ability stays the same and not much changes in my life. I have not put myself into a situation where I would depend on it being ESP. I have not claimed it as being ESP, I do not charge people money for observations, etc.

I can't tell you how I look forward to having the test with the IIG and being given the chance to detect health information in a controlled setting. I am very curious to finding out what I can do.

I apologize if I am not entitled to feel the way I feel about my ability. It is just a normal part of me. Thank you for writing.

Locknar

9th November 2008, 11:20 AM

I have however had to ask for an additional condition to the test. That is if I do not detect something in a total of ten persons, then I do not want that to constitute a failed test. Rather that should be the case of an inconclusive test since the material that was available for the test (ie. the persons with health conditions) was not adequate for my ability. That would not mean to say that there is no ability at all.
So to be clear, you are unwilling to admit failure with respect to testing? Then what exactly is the point?

Pixel42

9th November 2008, 11:36 AM

So to be clear, you are unwilling to admit failure with respect to testing? Then what exactly is the point?
AIUI VFF is saying if nothing is sensed even when there is a health problem, that should not be considered a failure as VFF's ability does not always 'work'. However if something is sensed, and what is sensed turns out to be incorrect, that would be regarded as a failure.

So if there are ten volunteers with health problems and VFF is unable to sense anything about any of them, that test is inconclusive. But if VFF is able to sense something about, say, five of them, and is right about all 5, that's a success; if wrong about all 5, that's a failure.

Tapio

9th November 2008, 11:36 AM

So to be clear, you are unwilling to admit failure with respect to testing? Then what exactly is the point?

I didn't understand her that way. I understood she told she couldn't see every possible ailment, but when she could see one, it would be correct. So naturally the test can be made only when there are a sufficent amount of cases that she can evaluate and then be checked.

VFF, do you have any idea on how many people you'd need in the first place to be able to find ten cases? 30? 100? You do realize that the higher that number gets, the more difficult the test will be to perform, right?

BTW, did you answer Kuko in the beginning of the thread? Are you Finnish?

ETA: Pixel beat me to it! Sorry for the repetition...

VisionFromFeeling

9th November 2008, 11:41 AM

Pixel42

9th November 2008, 11:46 AM

II was just saying that no matter what the results of the tests are, the ability that I have will stay the same and not go away, and for my own purposes of having the ability I do not need a test to confirm that I am making observations since I already know I am making observations. I am having the tests to find out what the source of the observations are.
... and whether they are more accurate than would be expected by chance, once all factors other than your supposed ability have been eliminated as an explanation of your self-perceived accuracy.

Until you have done a controlled test of the kind we have been discussing, you cannot be sure that your perception of your ability and what you can do with it is correct.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

9th November 2008, 11:55 AM

I am just as casual about my ability as everyone is about having eyesight. Sorry about that.
And we, in turn, apologize for thinking that this seems patently absurd. Open a clinic. Diagnose sick people. Take only a small fee for your services. Change the world.

~~ Paul

Locknar

9th November 2008, 11:58 AM

In the case that I can not make ten observations, it is because the material for the test (ie. the persons with health conditions) is not adequate to fit what my ability can do and I can not let that constitute a failed test.
"Adequate" should be clearly defined in the protocol, otherwise it is ambiguous and provides a "out" if you fail.

I will absolutely admit to a failure if I make incorrect observations.
What constitutes a correct or incorrect observation? Given the use of ambiguous terms, I'd suggest this is not clearly defined.

Science it exact...your protocol needs to be as well.

chillzero

9th November 2008, 11:58 AM

Open a clinic. Diagnose sick people. Take only a small fee for your services. Change the world.

~~ Paul

I really don't think this is something to be encouraged.

VisionFromFeeling

9th November 2008, 11:58 AM

Pixel42:
Right. Except with a different statistical significance. I'm afraid I wouldn't have to do quite as badly as five wrong out of five to fail the test. So far the IIG is proposing that I must make a total of at least ten observations, and that 90% of them must be correct.

Tapio:
I have no idea how many persons I would have to see. It really depends on each individual case. I am actually worried about this. The IIG has promised to provide at least 15 persons, and I have asked them to try to provide as many as possible within reasonable restrictions of time and effort involved. The list of ailments I have suggested as most suitable for the test should involve ones that are not considered detectable by ordinary means, as well as being ones that I have been the most successful with (successful referring to the frequency of observations).

I really can't be responsible for not detecting an ailment. All I can do is be hopeful that I will make the required amount of observations so that the test will have results as being either passed or failed.

Yes I am Finnish!

Tapio

9th November 2008, 12:09 PM

Yes I am Finnish!

Hieno homma! Erittäin lämpimästi tervetuloa tänne puupäiden pariin. Odotamme innolla muiden suomalaisten JREFiläisten kanssa testejesi tuloksia.

Kaikkea hyvää!

Sorry guys, I just had to do that! Not to worry, no conspiracies were made...good night, y'all!

VisionFromFeeling

9th November 2008, 12:12 PM

Pixel42:
... and whether they are more accurate than would be expected by chance, once all factors other than your supposed ability have been eliminated as an explanation of your self-perceived accuracy.

Until you have done a controlled test of the kind we have been discussing, you cannot be sure that your perception of your ability and what you can do with it is correct.

Right.

Paul:
That is just unfounded. I am fully entitled to feel the way I do about the way I perceive the world which is normal to me. I am more amazed that all of you can't perceive vibrational information and see inside human tissue. Why should I have to feel all excited about something that's been part of my everyday life for many years now? I'd be exhausted by now.

Please people stop saying that I would make medical diagnose publicly when nowhere I have stated that I would. This is nonsense. People stop making false accusations about me and then getting all upset about them, I've had no part in this.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

9th November 2008, 12:24 PM

That is just unfounded. I am fully entitled to feel the way I do about the way I perceive the world which is normal to me. I am more amazed that all of you can't perceive vibrational information and see inside human tissue. Why should I have to feel all excited about something that's been part of my everyday life for many years now? I'd be exhausted by now.
People are usually amazed by the thing that is in the extreme minority, not the other thing that is common. People are usually amazed by the thing that defies physics as we understand it, not the other thing that is mundane.

Please people stop saying that I would make medical diagnose publicly when nowhere I have stated that I would. This is nonsense.
I didn't say that you said you would. I said that you should.

I really don't think this is something to be encouraged.
It is if she can do what she thinks she can do.

~~ Paul

calebprime

9th November 2008, 12:26 PM

I think this has been discussed thoroughly, now the ball's in VFF's court.

No need to respond, VFF, you're spending much time writing already.

The weekend is almost gone!

(it is Sunday, right?)

Locknar

9th November 2008, 12:38 PM

I think this has been discussed thoroughly, now the ball's in VFF's court.

No need to respond, VFF, you're spending much time writing already.

The weekend is almost gone!

(it is Sunday, right?)While I have no paranormal abilities...I predict there are/will be unforeseen complications that will keep VFF from completing this testing.

alfaniner

9th November 2008, 12:40 PM

Why do I have the feeling "This weekend is a no-go?"

chillzero

9th November 2008, 12:44 PM

It is if she can do what she thinks she can do.

And that's why there's encouragement to test it. Why, on a site that promotes www.stopsylvia.com and the 'what's the harm' site, and the MDC, would you tell someone to indulge in such a thing?

Of course s/he should set up practice if s/he can prove that this is anything other than fantasy. But to tell someone to just go and open a clinic and charge people for 'medical' advice, and dismiss their efforts here to at least consider testing what they claim, is not what this forum is here for.

JWideman

9th November 2008, 01:42 PM

A broken clock is right twice a day. If you only look at it at the right time, it will appear to be 100% accurate.
As you've admitted, most of the time you don't observe anything. When you do observe something, it's not always possible to confirm. When you do confirm it, it's most likely there was some clue you picked up subconsciously. Doubtless, all the above happens WAY more often than the few times you've observed, confirmed, and had no possible alternative explanation other than coincidence. The thing is, you immediately rule out coincidence and say you perceive "vibrational information".

roger

9th November 2008, 03:05 PM

roger:
Be careful with the assumptions and conclusions you make. You don't know whether living versus dead tissue would be perfectly equivalent to my ability. I can see through layers of tissue, and even through hair and clothing, yet the information I read that is behind those layers is living tissue. I have never experienced being able to read into a leather purse.

And there you go. Your abilities don't work. Yet, instead of conclude that they don't work, you conclude the opposite, that they do work. Instead of counting this as a "miss", you don't count it at all. I assumed nothing - what I posted follows exactly from what you claim you can do. Since you can't do it, it shows your abilities do not, in fact, exist.

Ashles

9th November 2008, 03:18 PM

I am just as casual about my ability as everyone is about having eyesight. Sorry about that.
Ah but that is a little disingenuous isn't it? Who sets up a website or visits forums to claim that they have eyesight? Nobody.
The initial claims are anything but casual - there is then a subsequent attempt to make the claims sound trivial.
They are not and the claims that you consider them so doesn't seem entirely consistent.

I'm not sure I fit the description you make of these typical persons who claim to have an ability.
So far you do. Only if you demonstrate actual ability under acceptable protocols will the difference be evident.

I worked hard to suggest a test protocol to the IIG that would eliminate any sources of error and I've stated over and over again that I welcome finding out that it is not the case of ESP. I have no reason to favor having ESP over having just an unusual but wordly ability. No matter what the test results are or what label the ability gets, the ability stays the same and not much changes in my life. I have not put myself into a situation where I would depend on it being ESP. I have not claimed it as being ESP, I do not charge people money for observations, etc.
I have not said you are lying - it is not uncommon for people to believe they genuinely have these abilities.
And that is exactly my concern - they often do set up tests (some have ven be happy to do them on TV, they believe in their abilities that strongly). Strength of belief has no correlation with actual ability (as with so many aspects of life).
No-one has ever shown any paranormal ability.

And what is often seen when there are a variety of abilities being claimed is a reluctance to demonstrate the most clear cut ones, because they (intentionally or unintentionally) want to leave some room for interpretation.
They have already emotionally invested in having this 'ability' and are uncomfortable with confronting the possibility that it may not be real.

In these ways you are entirely consistent with previous claimants of such abilties.

I can't tell you how I look forward to having the test with the IIG and being given the chance to detect health information in a controlled setting. I am very curious to finding out what I can do.
And I wish you success with that. You are to be commended for agreeing to tests.
I hope you are 100% successful for reasons I indicate below.

I apologize if I am not entitled to feel the way I feel about my ability. It is just a normal part of me. Thank you for writing.
A little passive agressive there, but again not uncommon. On this website we do not treat people as special or gifted just because they claim to be. Until demonstrated otherwise you are a normal human being with the same abilities or lack of them as anyone else.

Nobody is telling you how to feel, but cautioning against investing too heavily in an untested belief in your own claimed but unverified abilities.

The casual attitude is again inappropriate - it's hard to imagine you could not think that the world's first positive scientific indication of such abilities would affect almost every branch of science and begin research in a fantastic number of exciting areas. This would be amazing and everyone here would be massively excited.

But to quote your earlier post
I am less interested in the other types of observations that I make since they are less frequent and less interesting.

Less interesting - hmmm. Obviously interesting enough for you to claim thm on the internet.
Overturning the accepted laws of physics not being "interesting" enough is a very strange way of putting it.

Still I'm sure it will all come out in the testing.

One question - if the testing showed inconclusive or no results above chance, would this lead you to begin questioning whether you may be mistaken in some way?
Or to put it another way, what level of results would lead you to assume you were mistaken about your ability?

You liken the ability to the mundanity of eyesight - we can easily test for that. Below a certain point we consider people to be blind. If a person is completely blind we don't let them fly a plane, drive a car etc. They cannot simply claim they can see, but their ability let them down that day.
What is your similar level of success/failure to indicate you don't have the claimed ability?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

9th November 2008, 03:27 PM

And that's why there's encouragement to test it. Why, on a site that promotes www.stopsylvia.com and the 'what's the harm' site, and the MDC, would you tell someone to indulge in such a thing?

Of course s/he should set up practice if s/he can prove that this is anything other than fantasy. But to tell someone to just go and open a clinic and charge people for 'medical' advice, and dismiss their efforts here to at least consider testing what they claim, is not what this forum is here for.
I think you may have misinterpreted my remark:

And we, in turn, apologize for thinking that this seems patently absurd. Open a clinic. Diagnose sick people. Take only a small fee for your services. Change the world.
as a sincere apology and a serious suggestion. I was just wondering out loud how someone can take so nonchalantly what appears to be a miraculous gift.

~~ Paul

Gord_in_Toronto

9th November 2008, 05:33 PM

I have not seen a new thread about the results of the test of VFF's testing -- neither astounding success or abject failure so I though I would drop by and read the posts in this thread since I last posted.

Why am I reminded of the scene from the Wizard of Oz that starts with, "I am the Great and Powerful Wizard of OZ" and ends with "Ignore the little man behind the curtain"? :confused:

SezMe

9th November 2008, 06:03 PM

According to the IIG web site, they are still negotiating protocol.

Gord_in_Toronto

9th November 2008, 07:31 PM

Ah. OK. I'll put my green goggles on and go back to lurking.

Bonus points for the "green goggles" reference.

SezMe

9th November 2008, 08:15 PM

Demerit points as the green goggles whoosh over my head.

Ashles

10th November 2008, 02:27 AM

According to the IIG web site, they are still negotiating protocol.
From the IIG homepage
Most people who inquire about our challenge do not end up being tested, usually because they will not agree to the protocols designed for the test.
*sigh* this is why the non-medical abilties would be much easier to test. They are much more clear-cut so there would be many simple protocols, so many ways of testing.
Health related claims are usually problematic and open to interpretation.

Do we know what the current proposed details are of the IIG test?

(And it's probably worth reminding VfF or any visitors at this moment that all the comments on this thread are of course in no way indicative of the opinion or stance of the JREF - they are all entirely the opinion of the individual posters)

SezMe

10th November 2008, 03:03 AM

Do we know what the current proposed details are of the IIG test?
I don't but as noted upthread I've asked someone from IIG to join this thread. I'll email them asking for the current protocol and ask permission to post it here. Stand by ......

ETA: BTW, this is the group that Edge was going to test his dowsing capabilities with but they apparently gave up trying to establish a protocol. Now there's a news flash, eh?

Moochie

10th November 2008, 05:04 AM

People are usually amazed by the thing that is in the extreme minority, not the other thing that is common. People are usually amazed by the thing that defies physics as we understand it, not the other thing that is mundane.

I didn't say that you said you would. I said that you should.

It is if she can do what she thinks she can do.

~~ Paul

Whether or not the "ability" proves to be real, VFF should continue with her studies and perhaps become a medical doctor. Even if the "ability" isn't real, whatever it is might help her empathize with patients more, and that can't be bad. If it is real, all the better.

M.

Locknar

10th November 2008, 05:05 AM

Seems to me a "health test" is to open ended and overly complicated...especially given:

I had never seen such a bright, bright white vibrational aspect of something little and roundish, with such a clearly defined outer casing, such an intensely bright vibrational aspect, and sitting inside a cereal box! I picked up the box and read carefully - turns out it contained Lactobacillus. Who would have known.

So why not line up 50 boxes, some containing Lactobacillus and others not, and test from there...similar to how JREF (and others) have tested dowsers before?

VisionFromFeeling

10th November 2008, 02:45 PM

Locknar:
Not exactly. It is difficult for me to describe the cases of observations I've had so that suitable subjects (ie. persons with health problems) could be selected by others for the test. What is a strong ailment that I sense clearly isn't always obvious as strong to others, therefore I have suggested that I be the one who selects the subjects. What this means is that the IIG will have at least 15 persons with a health problem, available for the test, and I select the ones in which I claim to observe a health problem. Now, as soon as I have claimed to observe a health problem, that observation is checked and considered an answer and there is no room for making excuses afterwards such as that the person was not adequate for the test after all if I lost a point. And I am prepared for this. If I fail a test there is no "out".

In addition most of the ailments that may be part of the test are not ambiguous or open for interpretation.

According to the preliminary testing protocol, each subject fills in an ailment form where they answer as to which of the listed ailments they have. Each person is associated with a diagnosis form, in which I check for one ailment which I claim to observe in the person. A correct observation is when my observation matches with how the person answered to their form. An incorrect observation is when my answer does not match with theirs. I think this is quite clearly defined in the protocol so far.

I will post the preliminary test protocol here later this evening.

calebprime:
I have bought the materials for the cereal test and will have it this afternoon. I was unable to yesterday since the person I am doing this with had other plans before I could ask and arrange it with him.

Locknar:
I would not let anything get between my test with the IIG, which is what I refer to as the formal, or sometimes as the official, test, which involves health information. As for the other tests on chemical identification, I do not take those as seriously since I make such observations less frequently and since it does not involve my official test. I will have some of these other tests anyway, and on the side, mostly to satisfy these Forum members. But I arrange them without a skeptical- or testing organization and that involves some work for me and my resources in terms of people and materials are limited.

chillzero:
I am working towards a career in medical science and will be applying my ability heavily as a source of inspiration and ideas for new treatment technologies, to which I of course apply full and professional scientific judgement.

JWideman:
In the test, my observations will be possible to confirm as being either accurate or inaccurate. The reason I can't always confirm my observations in real life situations is because I can not approach a person and ask them if they have cancer, or diabetes. I don't understand what the subconscious clues were for bacterial supplement, having eaten pancakes for breakfast, cysts in the reproductive system, a permanent dark area in the field of vision which I described exactly in size, appearance and placement, and many other observations I've made that do not seem to carry externally detectable signs that I could think of. This makes me interested in having the test.

I do perceive vibrational information, that is my experience of it. What then is the true cause and origin of that perceived vibrational information is the question. Let's just see what the test results indicate and then we can better speculate on this, you and I.

roger:
Let's just see if the ability works or not. The fact that I can not see into a leather purse is not a miss. It is simply among the many things that I do not experience detecting, and there is no reason why that multitude of things should discredit the reasons to test for the things that I do see. When I make accurate observations that can not be found to have explainable origins, it should constitute a successful observation. When I make an incorrect observation, that should constitute a miss.

When I say "ability" I refer to being able to detect and make observations on health information when others, applying ordinary senses, can't. The ability works and exists. The question is simply what the origin of it is. I have never claimed to see into a leather purse at inanimate, non-living things, nor has it ever been part of my claim. The majority of my claim is to detect health information, and a leather purse is not equivalent to a living human body.

Ashles:
I am curious about my ability and I thoroughly enjoy the way I perceive things with it and how I have access to real and useful information, but I am not overly excited about it as some here might think I should be. Sorry if there is inconsistency. I don't see why how I feel about my ability should be of such concern. I don't come after any of you expecting you to be excited or not excited about it. Each is entitled to feel exactly the way they feel about it.

I know that I perceive information that others don't and can't. That is my ability. Whether the ability is truly ESP or something wordly I can not claim to know, it is something that needs to be answered by an impartial other person. Let's just see what the test results reveal before speculating too passionately on whether I have the ability or not.

I want to demonstrate my strongest skill, which is detecting health information. I agree that for test purposes it is more complicated to test, yet a suitable test protocol that fits both my claim and the requirements of a scientific test is on its way.

I have no emotions invested in my ability. My ability remains and persists exactly in the way that it does today no matter what a test says. If the tests say that I have no ESP what so ever I still have a fascinating way of perceiving that I enjoy and benefit from, if not for anything else than for inspiration and ideas. I would lose nothing by failing the test and would honestly not even be embarrassed. There is nothing embarrassing about undertaking a test of scientific standard to want to understand something. I've failed many chemistry experiments and I was never embarrassed.

Being criticized here for not being excited about the ability, as well as being accused of having invested emotionally in the ability, is a contradiction. I am not overly excited about the ability, and I have not invested emotionally in it. Let's let me feel the way I do and let's see what the test results say.

I am thus not consistent with most other typical claimants.

If I make claims on observations during the test that show to be inaccurate and I statistically fail the test, I will doubt my ability of course. It would then probably be the case of a creative mind and not ESP. What level of results would lead me to assume my ability is not real? Well since I have so far not made a single incorrect observation I don't know. It is not like I am already allowing myself to have a certain percentage of incorrect answers. I think someone else who understands the statistical significance of this should answer this question and I believe I could rely on their judgement.

And we can test my ability as well as we can test eyesight.

I do not know what percentage of incorrect answers should lead to the conclusion that there is no ability. The IIG suggests that 10% incorrect observations constitutes a failed test, so since I have limited statistical background I suppose I would trust in that number as being it? Thanks for comments.

Paul:
I am also not wanting to be too excited about having a possible ability since we might find out that there is no ability but just a bunch of impressions. I am also humble and there is nothing wrong with that.

SezMe:
Yes the IIG and me are still in the process of designing the test protocol.

Ashles:
Unfortunately as much as you skeptics are doing a very good job at analyzing my claim sometimes what you comment on just does not apply to me. Not to criticize the IIG since they are doing a wonderful job on my claim, but I am not responsible for the lengthy time of the test arrangement. They were quite pleased with my suggested test protocol, and the protocol version that they sent me was almost identical to the one I made, so very few and minor changes were made. The only thing I had a problem with was that they wanted to have music on the test and I do not feel that it is necessary and it might distract me.

I am definitely not the type of applicant that has problems during the protocol formation. Our protocol negotiations have been going very nicely.

SezMe:
I am not responsible for the lengthy time of the protocol negotiations. I am not making up this ability so I make no difficult conditions or requirements for the test. The test protocol I wrote was for most part approved by the IIG, and also I have approved of all of their suggestions with the exception of having music on the test, which I feel is both unnecessary and would distract me. The protocol negotiations are going nicely.

Locknar:
The health test involves a diagnosis form which lists 20 ailments. If I sense one of them in the person I mark it as my answer and have thus made a very specific claimed observation which is not open for discussion or interpretation after that. The ailment either is or isn't.

Yes I am doing the cereal test today as soon as I finish typing answers to you people. But I think you understand that I couldn't buy 50 boxes of cereal.

Soapy Sam

10th November 2008, 04:25 PM

... I am fully entitled to feel the way I do about the way I perceive the world which is normal to me...

Indeed.

Me too.

I feel you are either deluded or lying.
Now either prove me wrong or stop wasting everybody's time.
You have already had many perfectly viable test suggestions.
Get on with it.

Locknar

10th November 2008, 04:51 PM

If I fail a test there is no "out".

In addition most of the ailments that may be part of the test are not ambiguous or open for interpretation.

According to the preliminary testing protocol, each subject fills in an ailment form where they answer as to which of the listed ailments they have. Each person is associated with a diagnosis form, in which I check for one ailment which I claim to observe in the person. A correct observation is when my observation matches with how the person answered to their form. An incorrect observation is when my answer does not match with theirs. I think this is quite clearly defined in the protocol so far.

I will post the preliminary test protocol here later this evening.

Of course this is ambiguous, and there is a "out".

You guess someone has something, and they don't...you can claim "that's wrong...they do, science has simply missed it". You don't guess someone has something, its "they didn't have enough for me to sense".

That aside, you've already stated a "failure" on your part won't change your mind as to your Superman like power...so what is the point?

The health test involves a diagnosis form which lists 20 ailments. If I sense one of them in the person I mark it as my answer and have thus made a very specific claimed observation which is not open for discussion or interpretation after that. The ailment either is or isn't.

Yes I am doing the cereal test today as soon as I finish typing answers to you people. But I think you understand that I couldn't buy 50 boxes of cereal.20 ailments...and who decided any of the people you will "test" with have any aliments at all, or they have enough of a aliment that you can detect?

JWideman

10th November 2008, 05:43 PM

What happens if you are unable to make enough observations for the test? Let me make a prediction here: you'll call that "inconclusive", right?
I'm not holding it against you that you often can't confirm your observations. It's quite reasonable that you can't simply walk up to a stranger and say "Hi, you have to go to the bathroom." But it does present a whole lot of very likely misses. By only looking at the clock at the right time, you've convinced yourself that you're never wrong, ignoring all the times you simply don't know for sure.
As for those times you've made impossible diagnoses, well, that's YOUR claim. You're not entitled to the benefit of a doubt when making impossible claims here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There are three very simple explanations:
1) Pure coincidence. History is full of staggeringly remarkable coincidences that make your observations look commonplace. If, out of the thousands of observations you must have made over the years, a handful of them were impossible, then that's an easy coincidence.
2) Self-deception. Take it from me, it's very easy to fool oneself, to remember things the way you'd like them to have occurred, and it is very hard to accept reality once you've got yourself fooled. You may have forgotten the times you've been wrong, forgotten about being told someone had an ailment you later observed, and so on. And you won't be aware of it, or able to control it.
3) Dishonesty. I don't believe you're lying, or I wouldn't waste my time.

You can't "perceive vibrational information" because there's no such thing. You might as well claim to have angels sitting on your shoulders. You do seem to have synesthesia though. You really should see a neurologist.
Finally, I find it interesting that you can't see through a leather purse, but can see through a cardboard box. Very interesting.

Ashles

10th November 2008, 05:57 PM

Ashles:
I am curious about my ability and I thoroughly enjoy the way I perceive things with it
That is an interesting turn of phrase. You are getting enjoyment from this 'ability'.

and how I have access to real and useful information,
That is yet to be confirmed.
At the moment you are merely the latest claimant in a long line with similar claims. If your ability is genuine it will be confirmed.

but I am not overly excited about it as some here might think I should be. Sorry if there is inconsistency. I don't see why how I feel about my ability should be of such concern. I don't come after any of you expecting you to be excited or not excited about it. Each is entitled to feel exactly the way they feel about it.
But as explained by myself and several other posters such ambivalence about a potentially incredible ability appears unconvincing.

We didn't go searching and stumble across you, you obviously felt your ability was unique and noteworthy enough to set up a website, solicit independent testing and post on this website.
All of this is your effort to display your abilities. So you clearly do not think it is uninteresting or not exciting.

Of course if it is genuine then you are absolutely correct to feel this way, and so would we.
But the attempt to then play this down casually is unconvincing, and also (and I know you don' like this but it is true) entirely consistent with previous claims.

To make the claims, set up the website, seek scientific testing and post on the world's foremost skeptic website and then make out "I don't know why you think it's such a big deal, it's normal to me" is entirely disingenuous.

I know that I perceive information that others don't and can't.
No, that is what you claim. The reality is yet to be demonstrated.

That is my ability. Whether the ability is truly ESP or something wordly I can not claim to know, it is something that needs to be answered by an impartial other person. Let's just see what the test results reveal before speculating too passionately on whether I have the ability or not.
Again this is a little slippery. I have not said you do not have this ability - the passion of the claims comes from you.
I only want objective testing - the strength of your personal belief on your claimed ability is entirely irrelevant.
You have repeatedly likened this ability to eyesight - I could happily demonstrate such an ability tomorrow in many ways. There would be no protocol issues.

I want to demonstrate my strongest skill, which is detecting health information. I agree that for test purposes it is more complicated to test, yet a suitable test protocol that fits both my claim and the requirements of a scientific test is on its way.
I sincerely hope so.
I do not understand why the testing of a possibly weaker skill that would yield more convincing results would not be desirable to you.
You do not have to get 100%, merely significantly greater than chance. What is the point of demonstrating a near perfect score in a test that is ultimately inconclusive and open to interpretation, as opposed to 60% in a test where a score of 20% or higher would be so statistically unlikely as to be incredibly significant?

I have no emotions invested in my ability.
That clearly is not true.
Aside from the attitude you have taken in this thread you yourself wrote above: "I am curious about my ability and I thoroughly enjoy the way I perceive things with it"
Could you honestly say that if it were demonstrated that you did not have such an ability it would not bother you?

My ability remains and persists exactly in the way that it does today no matter what a test says.
We immediately see the answer. It is inconceivable to you that you are mistaken. There is no doubt you are emotionally attached to the concept of having such an 'ability'.

If the tests say that I have no ESP what so ever I still have a fascinating way of perceiving that I enjoy and benefit from,
Again you agree there is an emotional element to this.

if not for anything else than for inspiration and ideas. I would lose nothing by failing the test and would honestly not even be embarrassed. There is nothing embarrassing about undertaking a test of scientific standard to want to understand something.
In my opinion there should be if you claim to undertake a test to dicover a fact, then wilfully choose to ignore that fact.
If you test for something and it is absent, what about that imaginary concept are you 'understanding'?
When Einstein demonstrated that Newtonian physics was incorrect, what 'understanding' did he gain of it, other than it was wrong?

I've failed many chemistry experiments and I was never embarrassed.
I'm confused - is that supposed to convince us of your scientific background?

Being criticized here for not being excited about the ability, as well as being accused of having invested emotionally in the ability, is a contradiction.
No it isn't. The term "having emotionally invested in" means that your emotions are tied up in something to the extent that anything affecting that thing will affect your emotions.

I am not overly excited about the ability, and I have not invested emotionally in it. Let's let me feel the way I do and let's see what the test results say.
I agree - let's see what the results say.

I am thus not consistent with most other typical claimants.
Again you wish to distance yourself from other claimants when you have displayed very similar traits.
In fact, ironically, the desire to feel special is one of the most common traits. It's interesting in itself how many times you have appealed that you are different from other claimants.
As I said earlier, only the test results will show a difference.

If I make claims on observations during the test that show to be inaccurate and I statistically fail the test, I will doubt my ability of course. It would then probably be the case of a creative mind and not ESP.
That's fair enough and again I commend you for that.

What level of results would lead me to assume my ability is not real? Well since I have so far not made a single incorrect observation
It is important to distinguish that, at the moment, it is only in your perception that you 'have so far not made a single incorrect observation'.
Objective testing has been very lacking in your results.

I don't know. It is not like I am already allowing myself to have a certain percentage of incorrect answers. I think someone else who understands the statistical significance of this should answer this question and I believe I could rely on their judgement.
Fair enough.

And we can test my ability as well as we can test eyesight.
It should in theory be perfectly possible.

I do not know what percentage of incorrect answers should lead to the conclusion that there is no ability. The IIG suggests that 10% incorrect observations constitutes a failed test, so since I have limited statistical background I suppose I would trust in that number as being it?
Well you must agree with them in order for the protocal to be acceptable. But surely you don't need to be an expert in statistics to have an understanding of what would be significantly above chance.
I thought you had a scientific background?

Ashles:
Unfortunately as much as you skeptics are doing a very good job at analyzing my claim sometimes what you comment on just does not apply to me. Not to criticize the IIG since they are doing a wonderful job on my claim, but I am not responsible for the lengthy time of the test arrangement. They were quite pleased with my suggested test protocol, and the protocol version that they sent me was almost identical to the one I made, so very few and minor changes were made. The only thing I had a problem with was that they wanted to have music on the test and I do not feel that it is necessary and it might distract me.

I am definitely not the type of applicant that has problems during the protocol formation. Our protocol negotiations have been going very nicely.
Great. We look forward to the test.

Good luck, and I genuinely mean that. If you have the abilities you claim I will be on the internet day and night to see how it affects scientific knowledge. It would be extremely exciting.

Zep

10th November 2008, 06:43 PM

I have a simple question for VfH, and I hope to receive some honest reply:

If you do prove your ability, do you intend to make a living (and income, or charge fees, etc) from that ability?

Personally I think you are fooling yourself about your abilities, and I suspect you are coming to realise this too, but can't admit it here. :rolleyes: But time and results may prove me wrong...

catbasket

11th November 2008, 12:27 AM

I know that I perceive information that others don't and can't. That is my ability. <snip> Let's just see what the test results reveal before speculating too passionately on whether I have the ability or not.

So we are not allowed to speculate that your claimed ability is imaginary or has a mundane explanation but you are allowed to proclaim with certainty that you do have the ability?

I have no emotions invested in my ability. My ability remains and persists exactly in the way that it does today no matter what a test says. <snip> I would lose nothing by failing the test and would honestly not even be embarrassed.

Your claimed ability allows you to feel "special". What if the test shows you have no ability at all? Will you be content to no longer be "special" or will you make excuses for failing the test and continue to believe?

I am thus not consistent with most other typical claimants.

Thus far you sound very much like a typical claimant.

If you have the claimed ability you will be atypical. If you fail the test and accept that you do not have the claimed ability you will be atypical.

If you fail the test and continue to believe in your ability you will continue to be just another typical claimant.

Good luck with the test.

calebprime

11th November 2008, 03:27 AM

I know that I perceive information that others don't and can't. That is my ability. --VisionFromFeeling

an absurdist list, but I'm serious.

Soapy Sam looks at a rock and perceives things that others can't.
R.Mackey looks at some equations and perceives....
Gumboot sees a plane and....
Hok looks at a bug....
Blobru reads a book...
Saizai thinks about logic...
Moby thinks about logic...
Shemp makes a joke...
Unrepentant Sinner disses Libertarians...
Dr. Adequate....barely capable of putting two coherent words together...
AppleCore raises his bong...
JihadeJane contemplates suffering...
Someone says: welcome to the asylum
Slingblade cuts to the chase
Pomeroo calls an idiot an idiot
IchVoneunumonwaspTheUnchunkable discusses bible, brain...
ChickenPotPie invites me to be a friend....!
Jeri, I think, looks at some temples, and imagines....
ExtremeSkeptic plugs a cable into his Johnson....
Dr.K makes a distinction finer than a human hair...

how about the offensive lumping together of cranks and geniuses?

anyone I haven't insulted, yet?

Oh,

CP makes a list....

EHocking

11th November 2008, 05:53 AM

Why are you going to IIG with a test of the one "skill" that is difficult to control in a test when you claim you can spot chemicals, cereals and bacilli.

The following claim is easier to test than your claimed health diagnosing "skills" and also by your claim below, easier for you to do than finding chemicals or coins....
I once looked at an unknown pill. ...it might be a diuretic. And surely it was.

...Medicines have very strong vibrational aspects compared to most naturally occurring substances ... I can make additional observations that provide strong clues as to what they are. This is something that is more difficult to do with other chemicals or materials such as coins. Why not propose to determine, from a range of prescription pills and placebos, what pill is what.

A straightforward test would be to get a selection of different prescription pills (sleeping, diuretic, blood pressure, valium, codiene etc) and throw in one or two placebos.

You are then given list of pill types.
All you have to do is match the description to the pill.

1 trial of 10 or 12 pills would be sufficient for you to pass the preliminary stage of the MDC and would take little to set up.
The result is self evident and the test itself is very easily controlled for clues, like that which you may get from a human subject.

Locknar

11th November 2008, 06:06 AM

Why are you going to IIG with a test of the one "skill" that is difficult to control in a test when you claim you can spot chemicals, cereals and bacilli.

<snip>

The result is self evident and the test itself is very easily controlled for clues, like that which you may get from a human subject.
I have suggested the same thing, but VVF won't do it; after all who wants a test that is self evident, controlled, and indisputable?

A ambiguous test with people, poorly defined controls, and convenient outs is the "woo woo" way after all.

Pixel42

11th November 2008, 06:27 AM

I have suggested the same thing, but VVF won't do it; after all who wants a test that is self evident, controlled, and indisputable?

A ambiguous test with people, poorly defined controls, and convenient outs is the "woo woo" way after all.
I think you're being somewhat unfair to VFF. With so much riding on the test it's reasonable to want to give it your best shot, which means testing what you're best at. It does sound like real effort is being made by VFF as well as IIG to produce a reasonable test protocol.

After watching the squirmings of the likes of The Professor and Homeoproofer I'm finding VFF a refreshingly straightforward and amenable potential MDC candidate who deserves to be encouraged.

Pup

11th November 2008, 07:13 AM

Yes I am doing the cereal test today as soon as I finish typing answers to you people. But I think you understand that I couldn't buy 50 boxes of cereal.

How did the test go?

Locknar

11th November 2008, 07:37 AM

I think you're being somewhat unfair to VFF. With so much riding on the test it's reasonable to want to give it your best shot, which means testing what you're best at. It does sound like real effort is being made by VFF as well as IIG to produce a reasonable test protocol.

After watching the squirmings of the likes of The Professor and Homeoproofer I'm finding VFF a refreshingly straightforward and amenable potential MDC candidate who deserves to be encouraged.Unfair how, by pointing out flaws in the current proposed test and suggesting a far more controllable alternative?

"Squirming" is all relative. I'd suggest that trying to in effect diagnose people's aliments in a ambiguous test with no hope of proving/disproving anything a fair amount of squirming...especially given s/he has already stated it won't change their opinion of their Superman like x-ray vision power.

Pixel42

11th November 2008, 08:47 AM

I'd suggest that trying to in effect diagnose people's aliments in a ambiguous test with no hope of proving/disproving anything a fair amount of squirming
I agree, but that doesn't seem an accurate description of the proposed test protocol to me. The subjects each have one of a specified list of ailments, VFF attempts to identify which one each has; if (s)he picks the right one it's a hit, the wrong one it's a miss (if unable to tell (s)he simply moves on to the next subject). When (s)he has identified the ailments of at least 10 subjects the success rate is determined and, if it's greater than 90%, is deemed to have passed the test. I can't see much squirming room there myself.

Gord_in_Toronto

11th November 2008, 08:48 AM

Demerit points as the green goggles whoosh over my head.

Well. I will give you a point anyway as no one else even responded. :sniff:

When Dorothy and co are invited into the Emerald City the are told to put on some green goggles because otherwise the shining brightness will hurt their eyes. They put them on, enter, and are amazed how emerald green every thing in the city is.

:D

Locknar

11th November 2008, 09:49 AM

I agree, but that doesn't seem an accurate description of the proposed test protocol to me. The subjects each have one of a specified list of ailments <snip>Who says any of the test subjects have these ailments, and to what extent do they have them?

VFF misses a aliment, s/he can claim "it's not serious enough for me to sense"....VFF mis-identifies someone with a ailment, s/he can claim "it's just not diagnosed yet".

Seems like lots-o-wiggle room to me.

JWideman

11th November 2008, 10:16 AM

I agree, but that doesn't seem an accurate description of the proposed test protocol to me. The subjects each have one of a specified list of ailments, VFF attempts to identify which one each has; if (s)he picks the right one it's a hit, the wrong one it's a miss (if unable to tell (s)he simply moves on to the next subject). When (s)he has identified the ailments of at least 10 subjects the success rate is determined and, if it's greater than 90%, is deemed to have passed the test. I can't see much squirming room there myself.

And if she only finds 1 subject with an ailment? Even if correct, it's cherry picking the data.

Hokulele

11th November 2008, 10:17 AM

I agree, but that doesn't seem an accurate description of the proposed test protocol to me. The subjects each have one of a specified list of ailments, VFF attempts to identify which one each has; if (s)he picks the right one it's a hit, the wrong one it's a miss (if unable to tell (s)he simply moves on to the next subject). When (s)he has identified the ailments of at least 10 subjects the success rate is determined and, if it's greater than 90%, is deemed to have passed the test. I can't see much squirming room there myself.

What bothers me about this protocol is that it skews the odds heavily in his/her favor. By not counting the unknowns as misses, the percentage of correct to not-correct rises dramatically.

roger

11th November 2008, 10:26 AM

What bothers me about this protocol is that it skews the odds heavily in his/her favor. By not counting the unknowns as misses, the percentage of correct to not-correct rises dramatically.In what way? I claim, for example, that I can identify a pit bull. So, you parade a bunch of dogs by me. Some of them I say "that's a pit bull". Of those, we score me right or wrong. My claim is not that I can say whether any dog is a pit bull or not, just that when I'm sure a dog is a pit bull, it actually is a pit bull. So, it is likely that I'll miss some of the pitbulls, and I'll be confused by a few mixed breeds, but overall my success rate should be high if I am correct.

For example, my current avatar (the black/white dog) has been called a pit bull from the rescue we got him from, but we really don't know what he is. I lean towards a bulldog mix, but don't really know. People have been breeding very nonconforming PB. So I pass on a positive identification. However, for any high conforming pit bull I can get it right about 100%. I see a lot of dogs where I have to scratch my head - they are mixes, nonconforming, or who knows what? My skill is not paranormal, it is limited, and it would have to be tested much like Vision is asking to be tested.

Am I missing something?

JWideman

11th November 2008, 11:19 AM

Am I missing something?

Well, yes. Let's say that nobody has a sense of smell, except me. It would be very easy to test my claim - just blindfold me and present me with different items to identify. I'll even select the items to be tested with, since some things have no smell or smell similar. Now, we've got a pool of 10 items (to make it easier), and I have to identify 9 of them. This is a valid test, and I'm sure I can pass it. I'll even get all 10 right.
But let's say instead there are 15 or more items. Some of them have no smell or are too faint for me to detect. The protocol states that I pick the items that I think have a smell and identify them. Only the ones I identify incorrectly will count as misses, and I need to identify 9 out of 10 correctly. This isn't a valid test. I could claim that none of them had a smell or that the smell was all gone or that the box they came in masked the smell.

Professor Yaffle

11th November 2008, 11:22 AM

Well, yes. Let's say that nobody has a sense of smell, except me. It would be very easy to test my claim - just blindfold me and present me with different items to identify. I'll even select the items to be tested with, since some things have no smell or smell similar. Now, we've got a pool of 10 items (to make it easier), and I have to identify 9 of them. This is a valid test, and I'm sure I can pass it. I'll even get all 10 right.
But let's say instead there are 15 or more items. Some of them have no smell or are too faint for me to detect. The protocol states that I pick the items that I think have a smell and identify them. Only the ones I identify incorrectly will count as misses, and I need to identify 9 out of 10 correctly. This isn't a valid test. I could claim that none of them had a smell or that the smell was all gone or that the box they came in masked the smell.

Except that you won't have proved your ability unless there are 10 items you can pick. In which case I would call it an abandoned test due to unsuitable materials.

Tapio

11th November 2008, 11:31 AM

Except that you won't have proved your ability unless there are 10 items you can pick. In which case I would call it an abandoned test due to unsuitable materials.

My thoughts exactly. It might be that it's just something in my understanding of Englihsh, but I can't see the problem. VfF can't squirm out of it by claiming an ailment she says to be present, but is not, being just "not diagnosed yet". If she accepts the protocol, and accepts a person to be 1 of 10 with an ailment she claims to identify, and is wrong, then it's a miss. This far I haven't read her denying this...

Hokulele

11th November 2008, 11:33 AM

In what way? I claim, for example, that I can identify a pit bull. So, you parade a bunch of dogs by me. Some of them I say "that's a pit bull". Of those, we score me right or wrong. My claim is not that I can say whether any dog is a pit bull or not, just that when I'm sure a dog is a pit bull, it actually is a pit bull. So, it is likely that I'll miss some of the pitbulls, and I'll be confused by a few mixed breeds, but overall my success rate should be high if I am correct.

For example, my current avatar (the black/white dog) has been called a pit bull from the rescue we got him from, but we really don't know what he is. I lean towards a bulldog mix, but don't really know. People have been breeding very nonconforming PB. So I pass on a positive identification. However, for any high conforming pit bull I can get it right about 100%. I see a lot of dogs where I have to scratch my head - they are mixes, nonconforming, or who knows what? My skill is not paranormal, it is limited, and it would have to be tested much like Vision is asking to be tested.

Am I missing something?

The way I understood the protocol (and I may be misreading it), is that the claim is more along the lines of "I can identify different breeds of dogs, particularly X, Y, and Z)." The tester will then gather 20 or so dogs that have been certified as one of 10 breeds, and the list of breeds. All of the dogs match one breed on the list, and one breed may have several representatives. No mongrels or non-listed breeds allowed.

The testee will then be presented with the dogs one at a time and check off which breed he/she thinks it is. At the end, hits and misses will be tallied to determine a final score.

The problem is, the testee can wave off as many dogs as he/she wishes by simply saying "I can't tell." In the end, the testee may choose 4 out of the 20, and get three out of the 4 correct. Does the testee really have a 75% success rate for their ability?

This is partly why I do not think most of what VfF is describing is synesthesia, as in all cases I have heard of (mostly the number/color association), there is never any doubt, and never any situation where the associations are too faint or are not made at all. VfF may certainly have synesthesia, it isn't mind-bogglingly rare, but I don't think it has anything to do with what she is describing here.

Tapio

11th November 2008, 11:40 AM

(snip)The problem is, the testee can wave off as many dogs as he/she wishes by simply saying "I can't tell." In the end, the testee may choose 4 out of the 20, and get three out of the 4 correct. Does the testee really have a 75% success rate for their ability?(snip)

I understood that if she can't find 10 people out of (15 was it?) with ailments she can identify, then the whole test won't be done.

Hokulele

11th November 2008, 11:51 AM

I understood that if she can't find 10 people out of (15 was it?) with ailments she can identify, then the whole test won't be done.

This is what puzzles me. She has stated what types of ailments she can identify, 15 people are found with those ailments, and yet there is a chance that she won't be able to identify them.

To take JWideman's analogy about scent a bit further, it is as if we know how to use gas chromatography to determine what things should smell like (even if we cannot smell them directly ourselves). We then line up 15 things that have been tested, and then the "nose" comes by and says, "Well, I can't smell anything from these samples, but I still know I have a sense of smell."

I agree the test is non-conclusive, but the testee is still drawing a conclusion.

Tapio

11th November 2008, 12:01 PM

This is what puzzles me. She has stated what types of ailments she can identify, 15 people are found with those ailments, and yet there is a chance that she won't be able to identify them.

To take JWideman's analogy about scent a bit further, it is as if we know how to use gas chromatography to determine what things should smell like (even if we cannot smell them directly ourselves). We then line up 15 things that have been tested, and then the "nose" comes by and says, "Well, I can't smell anything from these samples, but I still know I have a sense of smell."

I agree the test is non-conclusive, but the testee is still drawing a conclusion.

I get your point. But she's told that her ability doesn't work always, but when it does it's accurate. That's why I asked her about how many people she thinks are needed to get 10 "hits" to do the test on. The whole thing seems rather difficult to me.

And hey, if she proves her claim, even if it's after loads of time and effort, won't it be truly worth it all?

ETA: I'm definetely not saying VfF IS going to score (no offense, Anita). But I'm willing to give her a chance.

Hokulele

11th November 2008, 12:05 PM

<snip>

And hey, if she proves her claim, even if it's after loads of time and effort, won't it be truly worth it all?

<snip>

Oh, absolutely! Which is why I find the idea of a string of non-conclusive tests to be extremely frustrating, and would prefer to have a protocol written for a test that would be fundamentally conclusive.

I am having strong doubts that it would ever happen. :(

SezMe

11th November 2008, 12:11 PM

I have the proposed protocol from the IIG. It's too big to make an attachment but I'll see what I can do to make it available here. IMHO, it has a number of problems but I have not read it in detail.

Ashles

11th November 2008, 01:59 PM

I have the proposed protocol from the IIG. It's too big to make an attachment but I'll see what I can do to make it available here. IMHO, it has a number of problems but I have not read it in detail.
Why is it too big? Is it a PDF? If you want some reduction done I probably can help.
PM me and I'll try and assist in stripping out the text.

Uncayimmy

11th November 2008, 02:29 PM

Anita, help us out here...

Your website lists over 25 areas of the body where you can identify one or more ailments. You claim 100% accuracy detecting things like breast tumors, anemia, pregnancy, hearing loss (including extent), color blindness, kidney stones, etc.

All of this tells me (and probably others) that you've done plenty of testing on your own already. How else could you have knowingly identified nearly 100 ailments? I think about my own life. As I went through the list, for most of the ailments I couldn't name anybody I knew (past or present) whom I knew to actually have had the condition. The number people with whom I had been in physical contact during the ailment was even smaller.

Surely, then, you must have spent some time exploring your gift and asking some highly personal questions. Therefore, you should be able to provide more information about a protocol.

Sometimes I sense things in photos, but not to the great detail as I do in real life and I would prefer not to have a test based on photographies.

This tells me that without a doubt that your observations are not happening due to vibrations or electromagnetic radiation as you believe. What led you to believe that it was electromagnetic in nature to begin with?

I do however obtain information through materials. The air of course is a material, as are see-through glass or plastic containers. The information I reach in the human body is perceived through a layer of clothes, skin, and other tissues. Perhaps this is possible since the covering materials are connected, associated to, the object in question.

Do you understand that the skin may be connected to a shirt which is connected to the air? Your explanation doesn't seem well thought out since there is a physical connection between you and the subject (that's how we hear).

How do you know about other materials being a problem? Again, it leads me to believe that you've done more testing than you're letting on.

It seems that I need to see where the object is in order to locate the source of the information. Most of the time I only take a quick glance to "download the information" and then look away to concentrate on the information and analyze it further in my thoughts. I would be less successful if the object was behind a screen or a door such that I could not see its outline or exact placement.

Anita, the above quote about a "quick glance" and looking away seems to contradict your website where it reads, "It is not just a picture, the vision is in real-time motion. I can watch the contractions and movement in organs and tissue, the flow of body fluids, and the movement and transportation of cells and chemicals." Only here did you mention the need to download and concentrate.

Again, this leads me to believe you have done a lot more testing than you're letting on. I mean, if you can see the chemicals flowing inside a body and determine that it's a "diabetes precursor" that takes some serious training and verification. I mean, if you showed me somebody's blood work from a hospital I *still* couldn't tell you what was wrong with them.

I have tested myself on identifying materials that are concealed in non-opaque containers, but it can take me longer and it is harder to obtain the information.

Anita, did you mean opaque rather than non-opaque?

Tell us more about these tests. And tell us more about exploring your gift by looking at insects. Perhaps that will lead to a simplified protocol, which is really what we all want.

If I said I could identify cracks and faults in buildings, I would devise a simple test to identify a single brick out of 20 that had a crack in it that was not visible to the naked eye. I wouldn't ask them to build a house first.

SezMe

11th November 2008, 02:56 PM

Why is it too big? Is it a PDF? If you want some reduction done I probably can help.
PM me and I'll try and assist in stripping out the text.
There's a limit on the size of post attachments. It is a doc file. I've zipped it up and will try to attach it to this post.

ETA: TaDa, it appears to have worked.

BTW: Black is the original IIG proposed protocol and the blue comments are by VFF.

volatile

11th November 2008, 03:10 PM

Ah. OK. I'll put my green goggles on and go back to lurking.

Bonus points for the "green goggles" reference.

The ones that show up sperm, from the beginning of Basic Instinct?

Gord_in_Toronto

11th November 2008, 03:41 PM

The ones that show up sperm, from the beginning of Basic Instinct?

I only get four hits for a Google on "green (http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.answers.com/green&r=67&sa=X&oi=dict&ct=D&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNHfhnplKejXqhrVQD-FwMMUZm5O3A) goggles (http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.answers.com/goggles&r=67&sa=X&oi=dict&ct=D&cd=2&usg=AFQjCNFe3tEb9UiopeBvdhPj3a0ETIqdBA)" "Basic (http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.answers.com/basic&r=67&sa=X&oi=dict&ct=D&cd=3&usg=AFQjCNHjxC4_cZ35nrBpnnAneWt0Jy8SPA) Instinct (http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.answers.com/instinct&r=67&sa=X&oi=dict&ct=D&cd=4&usg=AFQjCNEgu_s_XrQDNlnzLgPrQDwT8nuU1Q)" so I think the answer is "No".

:confused:

JWideman

11th November 2008, 03:47 PM

Thanks, SezMe. VERY enlightening. So, as suspected, she wants to be able to cherry pick the data.
No, VFF, it's not a two-way mirror. It's a "pane of glass". Why would it be a two-way mirror?

I predict either she won't ultimately agree to the protocol, or she'll fail spectacularly and still claim she has some special ability.

godofpie

11th November 2008, 04:31 PM

I am curious about this part VFF. I was hospitalized in '05 for stomach ulcers. There was never any pain involved. They were weeping ulcers. I went to the doctor because I started passing out from from loss of blood. Would you have been able to see or sense the ulcers since there was no pain? Also, I am a migraine suffer. Would I have to be experiencing a headache for you to diagnose my condition? Thanks.
VFF Quote from protocol negotiations-
" I can not detect pain that is not current. Can the IIG check with the subjects just before the test whether they are currently experiencing the pain? Pain may of course still be listed on their diagnosis form whether the pain is current or not. But for purposes of checking my answers, please ensure that your information on their ailments is current for the time of the test rather than being just current for the time when subjects answered their ailment form. "

Locknar

11th November 2008, 05:55 PM

I predict either she won't ultimately agree to the protocol, or she'll fail spectacularly and still claim she has some special ability.Agreed.

nathan

12th November 2008, 12:36 AM

But she's told that her ability doesn't work always, but when it does it's accurate.

Didn't the same kind of claim come up with 'Edge' (the dowser)? I suspect it comes up in a lot of claims :)

The problem is how does she know when here ability is working? Is it a postdiction? Is it special pleading (oh, that's the wrong type of pregnancy)? Is she cluing from something else? (I am reminded of a classic Neural Net experiment to detect tanks hiding under trees, it worked perfectly on the test data, but failed spectacularly in real life. It had learned how to spot sunny and cloudy days, which just happened to correlate with the test data.)

My understanding is that's why the forced choice from a fixed pool is the way to go. It forces you to test the claim you make -- a non-forced choice is testing something else.

Ocelot

12th November 2008, 07:28 AM

OK I've read the protocol and it looks like a good start.

I must say that some of the objections being raised are simply invalid. It is the role of the testing organisation to test the claims being made rather than to harrngue the claimant into making a more easily tested claim.

It is not Anita's claim that she will always see a health problem when it is present. It is her claim that when she does perceive information, it is uncannily accuarate.

Many paranormal claims are capricious in nature. That the claimant is unable to determine what factors influence whether they will recieve the benefit of their powers or not is not sufficent reason to dismiss the existance of the effect.

This is accommodated by the protocol by allowing Anita to pass on a subject. Such selection has been dismissed as cherry picking. It isn't. Cherry picking requires that the picker has access to the unblinded information and chooses only cases where their predictions conform to reality. Anita doesn't have access to that information when she makes the decission to pass. I would challenge those who suggest this is cherry picking to devise a way to game the test to produce an unwarrented pass by exploiting the ability to pass. I don't believe that it can be done.

Science is littered with test which can be positive or inconclusive but not negative. We are, nontheless still able to evaluate the reliability of these tests.

For this reason I question the presence of a healthy volunteer. I Anita claiming that she can see someone who is perfectly healthy and (occassionaly) declare them to be so. Or would her ability suffer from the same limitations of modern medicine in that it can only assume someoen is perfectly healthy so long as it can find nothing wrong?

Such selection can be problematic in another way. A claimant who wants to go along with the idea of testing but knows that they can't pass will often try to engineer an exit strategy. They can't pass but at the saem time they can ensure that they can't "fail" The responsibility for not passing is then palmed off onto the testers for being unable to accomodate the claimant's needs.

We know then that Anita is aware that her abilities are capricious, we have no need to prove that to her. We have no specific reason to doubt her sincerity in wanting to be tested. However past experinece of a great number of insincere claimants has understandably jaded some of the responses here.

Accomodating her request for more participants is a hurdle. Recruiting people with ailment that have no outwardly visible indications is not easy. I see that the IIG has made some effort to be more inclusive in thier selections by aiming to diguise some ailments. Sunglasses glove etc. No doubt they are aware that if one volunteer is to wear sunglasses to diguise an eye infection then all must do so or it is easy to discount those that are not wearing sunglasses as not suffering from that ailment. The more subjects, the more ailments involved, the greater the measures must be taken to disguise those ailments. The situation that must be avoided is that Anita is left with no uncovered skin to view, a stipulation she has every right to make if she believes it affects her abilities.

I might suggest an alternative form of viewing - if Anita is agreeable. The subject is sat in front a long viewing tube which restricts the field of vision from the other side. Their exposed back faces the tube. Anita on the other side will only be able to see and area of skin - say about a foot square.

Obviously the same precautions with regard to viewing the subject entering and exiting the viewing area should still be made.

It is the difficulties with procuring suitable subjects for this sort of test that will cause substantial delays in this testing. WHilst I do understand that Anita want to be tested using the application of her ability with whihc she has most experience she must recognise that replicating these experiences is a time consuming matter. Whereas replicating the detection of lactobaccillus in breakfast cereal is relatively straightforward. As such it would be easy for her to aquire a great deal of such straightforward experience prior to testing. I encourage her to report back with her findings in her own test that she's performing on this as it seems to me to be a very promissing avenue of investigation.

The difficulties in recruitment may be especially true if ailments such as intermittant pain cannot be detected. Once agian we must aim to test the claim. If there is a known cause to the pain that can be detected by Anita, then all well and good but we cannot fail her for not detecting intermittant pain that is not present at the time of testing if she does not claim to be able to do so.

I understand the potential need for excluding auditory prompts. If Anita envisages that this might cause difficulties it may be possible to for subjects to be sleceted with conditions that should not be through sound. After all - "I can hear skin gingivitis" would be a paranormal claim in it's own right. However if the worry remains in the minds of the investigators that sound is a problem then perhaps Anita would find noise cancelling headphones or her own choice of music less of a distraction.

There is provission for Anita to continue with the testing after having made a diagnosis on the minim of ten patients. I can see no circumstance when this would be of benifit to Anita's chances of scuess if the subject pool is limited to 15. With a pass mark of 90% if she has diagnosed 10 patients then additonal attempts can only preserve a pass or trun it into a fail. If she has only got 8/10 at that stage (the highest possible without passing) getting the remaining 5 right will still leave her with 13/15 or 87% - a fail.

I'm having difficulties working out the statistics for a chance pass.

Will Anita be presented with 15 possible diagnoses for 15 patients or is there a list of symptoms where each subject may have any number of said symptoms, might this include multiple patients with the same combinaiton of symptoms. With the necessary complication of Anita being able to pass the whole matter becomes somewhat tricky to analyse, with a statistical concurrence of certain symptoms meaning that an educated guess would perform significantly better than random ticking of boxes without any need for paranormal abilities.

How then was the passmark of 9/10 arrived at?

JWideman

12th November 2008, 08:19 AM

My objections are regarding Anita's objections, not the protocol itself. Particularly her desire to have it not be counted as a failure if she is unable to diagnose any of the subjects. That's why I don't think she'll agree to any protocol.
How many subjects would she need in order to make 10 observations? 100? 1000? In 4 days she's documented only 2 observations on her website.
What I find very odd is that, after insisting so strongly upon this point, she states at the end that her only objection is to the music. Which suggests to me that if she does get to the point of being tested, she will claim the protocol wasn't what she agreed to.
To address your concern, each subject has one ailment.

Locknar

12th November 2008, 12:00 PM

It is not Anita's claim that she will always see a health problem when it is present. It is her claim that when she does perceive information, it is uncannily accuarate.

Many paranormal claims are capricious in nature. That the claimant is unable to determine what factors influence whether they will recieve the benefit of their powers or not is not sufficent reason to dismiss the existance of the effect.

This is accommodated by the protocol by allowing Anita to pass on a subject. Such selection has been dismissed as cherry picking. It isn't. Cherry picking requires that the picker has access to the unblinded information and chooses only cases where their predictions conform to reality. Anita doesn't have access to that information when she makes the decission to pass. I would challenge those who suggest this is cherry picking to devise a way to game the test to produce an unwarrented pass by exploiting the ability to pass. I don't believe that it can be done.

<snip>

I diagree; you have too many outside influences to deal with to allow passing on subjects.

Being able to look at the "subject"...perhaps she passes on those she thinks (consciously or sub-consciously) look healthy/fit, look happy, look clean/well groomed, smell nice, etc.

By default, this would yield a selection pool of only those looking unhappy, unhealthy, etc. and thus increase the odds of a correct guess.

Coveredinbeeees

12th November 2008, 12:24 PM

I put my hands up and admit that I haven't read the protocol yet but, from the comments of those who have I get the feeling that having a control group of guessers might help.

If a number of people with a similar level of biology / anatomy training to Anita were to take the same test they would be likely to pick out subjects with visual clues as to their ailments and the test could be run such that Anita has to out-perform the control group.

Just a thought,

'beeees

nathan

13th November 2008, 12:34 AM

Being able to look at the "subject"...perhaps she passes on those she thinks (consciously or sub-consciously) look healthy/fit, look happy, look clean/well groomed, smell nice, etc.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say in an abandoned posting. One ailment she claims to be able to diagnose is 'missing arm', (but note, not 'missing finger' -- a substantially smaller body part). Being able to sometimes tell when someone is missing an arm when you can observe them, and know when you are sure about it, is not really a paranormal skill is it?

I know the subject is supposed to be covered to some extent, but the lack of an arm may well be clear in some circumstances -- all you need is to pass when those circumstances don't arise.

There's a lack of definition of what constitutes 'missing arm' - below elbow amputee, above elbow amputee, shoulder amputee? Are they allowed to wear a prosthetic?

ETA: Here's the algorithm for passing the current protocol:

*) for all observations where it is impossible to determine that the subject is an amputee, pass -- your power is weak on that one.
*) for all other cases claim 'amputee'
*) repeat until 9 amputees spotted
*) success!

[replace 'amputee' with more specific amputee, if the protocol demands it, I can't recall if it specifies]

Ocelot

13th November 2008, 02:53 AM

ETA: Here's the algorithm for passing the current protocol:

*) for all observations where it is impossible to determine that the subject is an amputee, pass -- your power is weak on that one.
*) for all other cases claim 'amputee'
*) repeat until 9 amputees spotted
*) success!

[replace 'amputee' with more specific amputee, if the protocol demands it, I can't recall if it specifies]

OK that wouldn't work for one particular reason. Not enough amputees in the pool. If 9 of the 15 subjects had the same diagnosis that in itself would be a major flaw in the protocol.

However you've stated that under certain conditions it would be possible to detect a stationary amputee despite their amputation being disguised. That would clearly be a spearate flaw in the protocol if those conditions were allowed. Can you be more specific?

Pup

13th November 2008, 04:09 AM

How did the test go?

Anyone noticed we suddenly seem to be talking among ourselves? Where's VFF the last few days? I'm curious how the cereal self-test went.

nathan

13th November 2008, 05:11 AM

OK that wouldn't work for one particular reason. Not enough amputees in the pool. If 9 of the 15 subjects had the same diagnosis that in itself would be a major flaw in the protocol.

If we run out of test subjects before reaching 9 claimed amputees, then we're possibly into swedish diary territory. Let me explain: If there was at least claimed one amputee (and I'm making the assumption that it is not a false positive, because we've carefully observed the subject before claiming the amputation), we'll have one hit. That would fail the protocol, because of the bounded number of test subjects, but would allow the claimant to say 'well, when I was able to make a judgement, I was 100% correct, it was only the lack of test subjects that stopped me succeeding the challenge'.

However you've stated that under certain conditions it would be possible to detect a stationary amputee despite their amputation being disguised. That would clearly be a spearate flaw in the protocol if those conditions were allowed. Can you be more specific?

I am claiming that the disguise will not be 100% perfect. Combined with the ability to reject particular subjects, that's all that's required to defeat the protocol by mundane means. IIRC the disguise mentioned is a shawl/cloak/gown -- have you tried to sit *perfectly* still for 10 minutes?

If the disguise is more like showing the face through a hole in a rigid body -- like the seaside amusing photo things -- then I think it is much better blinding for mundaneness.

Ocelot

13th November 2008, 05:29 AM

My objections are regarding Anita's objections, not the protocol itself. Particularly her desire to have it not be counted as a failure if she is unable to diagnose any of the subjects. That's why I don't think she'll agree to any protocol.

To be fair any protocol for a capricious ability can only uphold the ability. If the claimant doesn't manage to prove their claim then no conclusive determination can be made. The results are presented and whoever reads them can draw their own subjective interpretation - they may lean towards the claimant having an off day or the claim being incorrect it's up to them.

Even if she does make the required ten diagnoses and all ten are incorrect it doesn't prove that the times she's claimed she was correct she wasn't obtaining information by paranormal means.

It would prove that her abilities weren't as consistent and reliable as she thought.

If you were testing the accuracy of facial recognition software in a simulated crowd scene you could take two measures. Lets say that there were X people in the crowd scene, Y people had visible faces all of which the software attempted to match and the software correctly matched Z faces. The ratios Z:Y would be a fair representation of the software's accuracy. The lower ratio Z:X would be a measure of the usefulness of the software in that scenario, however it would be unfair to count that lower ratio as a measure of the software's accuracy. One might as well include all the people in the world who didn't even appear in the scene as failures.

Diagnostic tests vary in their accuracy, different measures are taken: Predictive Value, Specificity, Sensitivity. Anita is not claiming that her ability kicks in each and every time there's something to see. Just like the purveyors of facial recognition software freely admit to being useless when presented with a picture of the back of someone's head. Instead she's claiming a low false positive rate that is all. So that's what must be tested.

If her ability doesn't kick in at all during the testing then her ability won't have been proven, the result will be inconclusive but we will have learned a little about how applicable her abilities are under such conditions.

My guess is that her ability works as a form a synaesthesia, but instead of these visual clues being linked to a sense of sound smell, or and idea of number, it's linked to a sense akin to a little Dr Gregory House inside her subconscious. I don't think it's a paranormal sense I think she's unaware that she's picking up many many clues and assimilating them into a diagnosis.

I have no reason to doubt that Anita is genuine in her desire to find out how her ability works or any reason to believe that she's dogmatically bonded to finding out that it must be paranormal.

How many subjects would she need in order to make 10 observations? 100? 1000? In 4 days she's documented only 2 observations on her website.

I think that's a very interesting question. It would appear that from Anita's own observations she's as yet unable to answer that question. She's aware that the people with whom she shares her observations tend to confirm them. As we both know there are many non-paranormal reasons why this may be the case. There are sources of information other than the paranormal that her synaesthesia may access, there are biases that may give the impression of greater accuracy that is actually being obtained. What she doesn't know is how many of the people that her peculiar senses ignore, are suffering from complaints that she's previously been able to identify in other circumstances.

If nothing else this test should give us some sort of indication of the answer to this question.

If she manages 8 diagnoses from 15 we know that the protocol would only need a little tweaking if it were attempted again.

If she only manages two diagnoses from 15 we would have some indication that a much larger pool would be required - quite possibly making the test impractical.

Incidentally would the test be called off early if she passed on 6 out of 15 meaning she could no longer reach 10 out of 15 diagnoses or maybe if she passed on 7 out of 15 meaning that she could no longer reach 9 correct diagnoses. What would happen if she could only diagnose 9 people but they turned out to be all correct - would that be a pass? It would appear to be more statistically more improbable than getting 9/10?

A game theorist with 9 diagnoses under her belt would take a guess on the 15th subject anyway even if they couldn't see anything.

The 2 recent observations on her site are not very indicative of the paranormal. In both instances there is the potential for other sources of information about the complaint. The reporting that there were no visual indications is entirely subjective with Anita clearly unable to objectively document what information was available to her subconscious.

They're not exactly ideal examples for the test material but we must persevere and do our best to give her the best chance of passing the test or else the test means nothing.

What I find very odd is that, after insisting so strongly upon this point, she states at the end that her only objection is to the music. Which suggests to me that if she does get to the point of being tested, she will claim the protocol wasn't what she agreed to.

She did request a larger pool if possible. I think it would be a shame if the test were inconclusive - and I have not problem using that term instead of failed - because Anita was just short of the required number of diagnoses.

I do see that from a preconception that the claimant is trying to engineer and exist strategy then her asking for a larger pool, requesting the test be considered inconclusive rather than a failure if the pool were not large enough but then agreeing to the original suggestion for the size of the pool all confirms such a strategy.

However these observations are not proof of that scenario. They are equally consistent with a person who believes that they have the powers that Anita claims and doesn't want the difficulties with raised by recruiting additional test subjects to delay the tests.

To address your concern, each subject has one ailment.

And I should assume their ailment is unique within the pool?

nathan

13th November 2008, 05:35 AM

Ocelot

13th November 2008, 06:01 AM

If we run out of test subjects before reaching 9 claimed amputees, then we're possibly into swedish diary territory. Let me explain: If there was at least claimed one amputee (and I'm making the assumption that it is not a false positive, because we've carefully observed the subject before claiming the amputation), we'll have one hit. That would fail the protocol, because of the bounded number of test subjects, but would allow the claimant to say 'well, when I was able to make a judgement, I was 100% correct, it was only the lack of test subjects that stopped me succeeding the challenge'.

In which case the test wouldn't have been passed and we would ahve obtained information as to the applicability of the claimant's powers. Everybody's a winner. I'd have no objection to that.

I am claiming that the disguise will not be 100% perfect. Combined with the ability to reject particular subjects, that's all that's required to defeat the protocol by mundane means. IIRC the disguise mentioned is a shawl/cloak/gown -- have you tried to sit *perfectly* still for 10 minutes?

If the disguise is more like showing the face through a hole in a rigid body -- like the seaside amusing photo things -- then I think it is much better blinding for mundaneness.

Indeed, I too had concern about the disguises method. That's why I suggested a viewing tube where Anita could only see a portion of the subjects exposed back. Your cut out idea is simpler though now I come to think about it the face if rather more expressive than the back. I'm wondering about the possibility of some sort of Clever Hans scenario if the subject can see Anita's deliberations. As such the back owuld be preferable so that the subject couldn't see Anita and even if the subject did pick up infomration about Anita's deliberations they're less likely to give it away via their back. At the very least Anita shouldn't be castigated for asking if it would be a "two way mirror" anything that stops the subject from picking up where Anita is focusing her attentions is a good idea.

I update my suggestion to incorporate your method. The subject should sit with their back exposed to a rigid screen with a hole that makes a aportion of thier skin visible from the other side.

I have sat posed in art class but that was a long time ago when I was in the peak of physical fitness and able to choose a relaxed and comfortable pose. I guess that's kinda the point.

Ocelot

13th November 2008, 06:30 AM

The claimant is (rightly) concerned that her ability doesn't work all the time. But that's a red herring. No ability works all the time, there's always some failure rate. All it does is change how you calculate what's needed to distinguish the ability from random chance. Having the claimant allowed to reject test subjects as unsuitable *during the test* is manipulating that threshold.

Here's an example:
Claim:I have a magic
screwdriver that can unscrew slot-headed screws.

Protocol: As selection of slot headed screws are provided, screwed into a number of different blocks of wood. Each one is presented in turn and I have 10 minutes to unscrew the screw. However, I am allowed to reject a screw/block combination as unsuitable during the test, if I believe my magic screwdriver fails on that one.

Pass Criteria. Of those that I claim I have unscrewed, I have to have been correct for 9/10 of them. I have to have unscrewed at least 9.

See the problem? It's obvious I can pass this test, if there are sufficient blocks of wood. And if there are insufficient blocks, I can still claim that for the cases where I claimed I had unscrewed the screw, I was right 100% of the time -- presuming I'm not an idiot who cannot tell when a screw's been unscrewed :)

There are several ways of fixing this. One is to allow me to reject at most N screw/block combinations out of the pool of M that I attempt. But that's just a fancy way of changing the pass threshold. We could reduce the threshold to 7/10 or something. Reducing the threshold makes it much clearer how far away one is from random chance. With a forced choice design, the random chance calculation is easy to do.

Frankly that's just incorrect. I've just generated 100 random integers between 1 and 10. I don't care which ten you pick if you can predict 7 out of 10 of them correctly I'll believe you're not just guessing.

If the protocol is sucessfull in ensuring that Anita is not privvy to non-paranormal sources of information it doesn't matter that she can pass on a subject during the test. It's only if she can select which subjects are to be counted after receiving information that this becomes a problem.

The concern that the disguises may not be 100% perfect is indeed valid, as it does mean that she's making the decission when to pass after reciveing information from a non-paranormal source. So the ability to pass on a subject compounds that imperfection.

Since stopping her from being able to pass, completely invalidates the test the only solution is to fix the imperfection in the protocol which gives her access to non-paranormal sources of infomration since this would be a concern even if she didn't have the ability to pass on a subject.

In VFF's case, the concern seems to be that out of 10 subjects VFF won't get the tingly feeling for all 10 of them. But for 15 subjects she thinks she will get the tingly feeling for at least 10 of them. When she gets the tingly feeling, she thinks it is right at least 90% of the time. If that's the case, then use all 15 test subjects and have a threshold of diagnosing at least 9 of them. Then the maths is much easier to figure out given the number of different aflictions and the number of subjects with each afliction.
not very magic

I'm afraid that's just wrong again. Firstly Anita hasn't said how often she'll get the "tingly feeling" as far as I can tell she hasn't done a test that would give her this information. For me, thats a secondary objective of the proposed test. She certainly hasn't said she'll get it 10 out of 15 times in fact she's asked that the number 15 be upped to increase the chances that she'll get at least 10 "tingly feelings"

More importantly your suggestion of changing the pass amrk based upon how often Anita feels she can get a result is open to abuse. As it stands getting 9 right out of 15 guesses is orders of magnitude easier than getting 9 right out of 10 guesses (even if those are the ten out of fifteen in which she feels most confident) By extrapolating the principle ad absudium it becomes more obvious. What if she were to say that she gets the tingly feeling only one time in a hundred thousand, would ten correct precitions out of a million uphold that claim?

EHocking

13th November 2008, 02:59 PM

Anyone noticed we suddenly seem to be talking among ourselves? Where's VFF the last few days? I'm curious how the cereal self-test went.I find it quite intriguing how VFF's claims have changed over a very short time.
From OP on:

So far my accuracy on health information has been excellent.
I would remember if I had been wrong, and I have not been wrong yet.
by using this ability I have obtained information about chemistry, materials, plants, animals, bacteria, foods and medicines ... I do not have a single example of when I would have been incorrect.
I haven't been recording my hits and misses, yet I seriously can not recall a single time when I would have been incorrect. I almost expect mistakes sometimes, ..yet there have been no mistakes yet.
I have had many confirmed hits. I would estimate it as at least a hundred, ...I can not recall a single miss.
I wouldn't take it personally if I made mistakes in my observations, it's just that there haven't been any.
I am very open to experiencing my first incorrect observation.
Yet, so far, always correct.
Yes I am open to becoming convinced that my information is inaccurate! ...Yet so far always correct.

Then suddenly, post IIG protocol interest...
My accuracy is good,
Luckily as I've just stated I do not detect each case in which an ailment occurs, nor have I ever claimed to.
There are actually plenty of cases where I do not detect things that are considered as being present, and this is the disclaimer for my ability that I have always outlined. I have never claimed to be able to detect all cases in which an ailment occurs, since I do not detect in all cases in which an ailment occurs.
I have however had to ask for an additional condition to the test. That is if I do not detect something in a total of ten persons, then I do not want that to constitute a failed test.

... and finally with no sense of irony at all,
I am thus not consistent with most other typical claimants.

VisionFromFeeling

13th November 2008, 03:52 PM

Hi everyone. I'm back to answer your comments. I believe it will take me a while.

Locknar:
There is no "out" in the test. The test is carried out in such a way that when I claim to observe an ailment I will have to accept the results of it. If I claim to see an ailment that is not considered to be there, 1) I choose to take full responsibility for my answers and accept to have given an incorrect answer in those cases, and 2) part of my claim is to be able to feel how the person feels their condition. Most ailments involved are such that can be verified as either being or not being. Other ailments such as pain are based on the person's own perception of their condition, and it is my claim to be able to sense how a person feels. So if I say there is pain and there is not, then I have made an incorrect observation.

If I miss an ailment that is considered to be there, yes I can say that "the ailment was not strong enough for me to sense". That is why I am allowed to pass on a person when I do not detect an ailment. I will only lose points when I make an incorrect observation. There is plenty of opportunity to lose points, don't you worry. The test is not going to be easy if a person doesn't actually see and feel ailments. I don't think it would be possible to guess one's way to successfully passing the test. We should probably have a control person who takes the test with me. I did suggest to have a medical doctor present since they are quite skilled and experienced in detecting externally visible symptoms, and in this way we could rule out that I'd be using knowledge of external signs. The IIG did not agree to have a doctor taking the test with me.

When I say "I have an ability", I mean that I perceive information about health that others don't and can't. With "ability" I do not claim to know the cause of this information. If I fail the test I will continue to receive information in the same way as before however I might find out what the true origin of the information is.

20 ailments per person is a huge list and it would be impossible to guess 9 out of 10 correctly, even if there were external signs that a very perceptive yet not psychic person could subconsciously piece together. I expect that the IIG will find good suitable candidates for the test whose ailments are not what you'd expect just by looking at them. Each person marks what ailments they have on a form, and there will be twenty ailments on another form for me, of which they have one ailment. There is no way for the IIG or for anyone to know whether an ailment "feels strong enough" for me to detect. That is why I will not lose points by passing on a person. The test will not be ambiguous. The 20 ailments are very specific. I will not be describing in words what I detect, and there will be no room for interpretation afterwards.

Soapy Sam:
I came here to this Forum to discuss my challenge application with the IIG. It will be done on detection of health problems, and the date for the test has not been set yet. We are all eager to find out whether I have the ability or not and I agree that there will be a lot of talking and waiting before the actual test and before the results come in. I will try to arrange simpler tests on the other aspects of my ability while we are waiting for the official test. Please understand that I am a busy college student and I will take the time for the other tests as I can.

JWideman:
If I am unable to make enough observations for the test then the test is inconclusive. I have insisted to the IIG that insufficient number of observations constitutes an inconclusive test and await their response on that condition. If the IIG insists that insufficient number of observations constitutes a failed test I will have to consider not having the test, although most likely I would have it anyway. I just wouldn't agree that an insufficient amount of observations concludes that I have no ability at all.

Every single time when I have been able to check my observations against the facts I have been correct. I have never deliberately avoided checking the accuracy of my observations. In most cases I am excrutiatingly curious to find out whether I was accurate but I am unable to approach strangers and ask personal questions about their health. We have no way of knowing if this presents a whole lot of very likely misses. We don't know. I realize that there is no evidence for my past accurate observations, yet I am describing them to explain why I am compelled to have the test.

Coincidence does not explain the very specific, unusual, accurate observations I've made. It can not be self-deception: I make an observation that is impossible to detect by ordinary means, such as the description of a large, permanent darkbrown object in the field of vision as well as its exact location. I check this observation and it is correct. I seriously can not remember a single case in which I'd been wrong. When I check my answers, logic often makes me expect to be wrong and I am fully prepared to be wrong. I am trying to find out the truth about this and I would remember an incorrect observation. I can not prove this but I can assure you that I would remember an incorrect observation and there have been none. You will not find any dishonesty from me. That would be a waste of time and wrong against you.

Oh but honey there absolutely is vibrational information! I know that it is very common for alleged psychics and the like to try to validate their "woo" (as you guys call it here) by borrowing scientific vocabulary and concepts. Science is respectable, verified, and legimate, so by using science terminology they try to make their stuff sound good too. But my ability has not been scientifically studied and it has no scientific explanation to date. Still I come across many pieces of science that resemble what my experiences are. I can not claim to know what my ability is, but at least I have my favorite theories. I will describe vibrational information in a separate post.

It's what's inside the leather purse, or cardboard box, that matters. If you put a living human being inside a leather purse (please don't) I might or might not be able to detect it, I have not had that specific experience. There is living, organic food and bacteria inside the cardboard box.

I need to make a minimum of ten observations in order for the test results to be computed. If I only make one observation there is not enough material for statistical analysis to determine any kind of results one way or the other. All persons who are on the test have been approved by the testing organization as being considered equally "impossible" to detect their illness as well as all being equal in difficulty level. Initially I asked for a two-way mirror to reduce the risk of interaction between me and the persons. I would see them, but they would not see me. I don't know what the pane of glass would do? Ideas?

I have agreed to all conditions of the protocol and am only reluctant to the music. If I fail I continue to make observations, yet I will know that it is probably not the case of ESP. That is why I have the test, to find out why I have the observations. The observations will remain. Once I make a claimed observation I am stuck with the answer and can make no excuses afterwards.

Ashles:
Of course I get enjoyment from my ability. Who wouldn't enjoy seeing bright neon green atoms and knowing that there is Nitrogen there, looking at the beautiful structures of human muscle, organs, and other tissue, and experiencing insight into people and the physical world. So far every observation has been correct. (ETA: ... that has been checked, that is.) Whether it is the case of actual, real-life observations, or an active automatic imagination, or a subconscious use of normal senses, what ever it is it is what I see and it is wonderful.

Well, I am here because I am arranging to have a test with the IIG and these kind of things attract a lot of attention. I thought I would discuss the ability and the protocol with you people and also I wanted to introduce myself before people start talking about me. Whether my ability is ESP or synesthesia I will continue to build my website, I think it is fascinating no matter what it turns out to be. I do think that my ability is interesting, I am just not quite as excited about it as you say I should be.

I do perceive information that others don't and can't.

The strength of my personal belief is what would explain why I have chosen to undergo the test of my ability. I have always understood that my past experiences with this ability are not evidence. Evidence for or against can be obtained from having a test. My test will not be open to interpretation. I will have the test on medical information since that is the main part of my ability. The other aspects of the ability occur less frequently.

I have no emotions invested in my ability. Whether I pass or fail the test the ability remains the same, that is, I continue to have the same observations but would probably know what the origin of those observations are. I have the ability of perceiving information that other people do not and can not perceive. The question is only whether that information comes from ESP or from down-to-earth causes such as synesthesia. In either case which ever it may be, the ability and the information continues to come to me. Nothing changes in my world. If I make a considerable amount of incorrect observations on the test, then I will learn that the accuracy is not perfect after all. I am quite open for the possibility. Let's just see what the test will reveal. It will not bother me if I fail the test, since I get to keep my ability, that is, the observations in exactly the same way as before, but with understanding of what causes those observations. I could not favor ESP over synesthesia, both are fascinating. I would not ignore test results. I am choosing to have the test to find out those test results.

The understanding I obtain from my ability adds creative thinking to chemistry, physics, and medicine. The observations I make are inspiration and ideas that I can test as a scientist if they are interesting enough. Every chemistry student has failed chemistry experiments, it is a fact and part of the learning process. We learn not to take it personally. We learn to analyze our experimental set-up and look for the source of error, and we learn what the problem was and suggest how to do better next time. A student can earn an A even if they fail an experiment. The results of an experiment are not to be taken personally, even if the scientist was the cause of them. I have a 4.0 GPA (ie. all A's) studying a B.S. Chemistry and a B.S. Physics so you don't have to worry about my scientific background. However my professional life is not part of this inquiry into my perceived ability, and my university has no affiliation to this. I do have some scientific background but have not studied statistics yet. I am an undergraduate student.

I have no need of being considered special due to this ability. I find other ways of making my life meaningful. Of course objective testing has been lacking in my results, I have only recently decided to have objective tests.

Zep:
Here is my honest reply: If I do prove that my ability exists, I do not intend to make a living on the ability. I am looking forward to a wonderful career in physics and medical science which will earn me a high income. I am also the kind of person who wouldn't play the lottery because I feel that there are people living in trailor homes whose only dream in life is to win and to get the kind of life they deserve. I also feel greatly grateful for my ability and for being able to feel what a person is feeling. When I meet a person who is suffering from health problems the last thing I could do is to take their money. I am just grateful to help people. I know, sounds like a lie and most people who get to know me have a hard time with this, but I truly and deeply care about people and perhaps that is part of why I am perceptive of others and have this ability in the first place. If I were to receive plenty of requests from people to come and see them and tell them what I sense in them, first of all I would have to tell them that I am not licenced to dispense medical information, and that my information might be incorrect, and I would have to take great care so that a person could not be injured by what I say. I like the fact that in England, psychic readings are now by law to be considered entertainment, and I would be happy to carry this title too because it deals nicely with the issues involved. If I end up traveling to see people, I might reach a point where I would have to charge for my travel and accommodation expenses.

I am not fooling myself about my abilities. I have an ability of perceiving information about health in others, information that others do not and can not perceive. And that information has so far always been accurate. I have not claimed to know whether I have ESP or synesthesia or something else and I have not fooled myself in any way. The things that I perceive are real, they are not fooling me. When I perceive red from Hydrogen and neon green from Nitrogen I am not fooling myself. If it were the case of synesthesia it is not defined as hallucination but as an acceptable part of the perception of some people. I am not starting to realize any such thing! With you guys I am actually starting to seriously critique my observations and realizing that I can not dismiss them as at least a valid cause of having a paranormal test.

Snow:
I do have the ability. The ability is that I perceive information that others don't and can't. The question is is my ability ESP or something down-to-earth. I do perceive interesting information, and no test or conclusion can change that. My claimed ability might allow me to feel special, although it does not make me feel special. You guys criticize me for not feeling excited about my ability, then you pass unfounded criticism that I'd feel special about it. Both are not true and either way I'd be wrong.

What I refer to as my "ability" is the fact that I make observations. If the test results show that my ability does not consistently lead to correct observations, and that it is not the case of ESP or anything interesting like that, then nothing would change in my world. I have not invested emotionally or otherwise in it to rely on having a true ability or an ESP ability. So far though, the ability has lead to correct observations which is why I want to have the test. I do not feel special today and I would not feel less special if I fail the test. I take pride in my acchievements in school and career-wise and do not need an ability to make me feel content with who I am.

I will make excuses for failing the test only if I find compelling excuses. I am not inclined to making excuses when there are none to make. If a test proves that I do not have an ESP ability that leads to correct observations, I will not believe that I do. I am choosing to take the test to find out. I don't think I seem like the typical paranormal claimant. I am not emotionally invested in this like I am accused of being. I do not feel I am special. I am not convinced of having ESP. I am not causing problems in the protocol formation or delaying it or making impossible demands on the test. I do not intend to charge money for my services. I would accept a negative test results.

EHocking:
I am testing the part of my ability that makes the far most frequent observations. I would love to take a test in identifying unknown prescription medicines, but how would I arrange this? How would I obtain the people and materials necessary for this test? I am not opposed to this kind of test, I just don't know how to arrange it.

Pixel42:
Thank you for explaining things nicely.

Pup:
I had a very quick and rushed cereal test on Monday November 10th. Small samples of cereal were placed in a total of three identical paper cups. Two of these contained plain cereal, and a third contained cereal with the Lactobacillus supplement. Even with these identical containers I claimed to feel and see a distinct low, dark and heavy vibration from the plain cereal, and a distinctly tall, bright and white from the one with the bacteria. The three cups were shuffled and placed randomly in a row by a friend who would then leave the room so not to give away which is which. My task was to identify which of the three had the bacterial supplement. Here are the results: C = Correct, F = Failed
1) C
2) C
3) F
4) C
5) C
6) C
7) C
8) C
9) F
10) C
11) C
12) C
13) C
14) F
15) C
16) F
17) C
18) F

As is typical when I have a chemical identification test, in the beginning I have good results, but after a while I begin to feel very drained, tired and get a headache. I begin to rush and guess wanting to get the test over with sooner, I also become unable to identify the desired sample, as is seen by the increase in incorrect answers toward the end. I wanted to make twenty runs but it became impossible due to the way I started to feel. Someone who is skilled in statistics can interpret these results for us. I will have additional tests later on and will repeat the cereal test as well. Medical information is easier for me to work with and does not require the kind of effort as other types of tests do. I would need to rest between series of runs if I had an official chemical identification test. I have never experienced discomfort when reading health information in people, which is another reason why I prefer a health information test.

Hokulele:
I will receive a correct point for making a correct observation. We could say that it is the chance of 1 in 20 to guess the ailment correctly in one person. I receive a losing point for incorrect observations. And we could say it is a 19 in 20 chance to guess incorrect. The unknowns which I passed on are not part of the statistics at all nor should they be. I make ten claims, and those ten claims are checked. I must make a minimum amount of a total of ten observations in order for it to be possible to calculate statistically a pass or a failure. I really need to have the option of saying that I do not detect the health information in a person, because otherwise I'd have to be guessing and that would not be showing what I believe I am observing, now would it? Honey I never have any doubt with my observations. I either see something or I do not see something. I never ever doubt.

UncaYimmy:
No I haven't had the chance to set up any real tests of my detection of health information! That is what I am doing now. The ailments I list on my webpage are things that I have been under the impression that I have observed. Not all of them have been checked, because in most cases it was not possible to. The ones that were checked represent you could say a random sample of my observations and have all been accurate. I have not myself selected which of my observations are checked, and surprising as it may seem, it is the most unlikely observations that I am most eager to check. I did not intend to imply that all of these observations listed on my page had been checked. I need to clarify this on the webpage, thank you for pointing this out.

Interesting what you mention about the photographies. Yes the fact that I do sometimes detect information from photographies might indicate as to what the source of the information is. In my perception I receive vibrational information. I do not know how. Yes, it is very likely that the internal body is connected to the skin, connected to clothing, connected to air, and connected to me. I can't claim to know the origins of the ability, but I am interested in theories. I speculate on what materials would be acceptable as screens and what not due to the frequency of observations I've had with those materials in between. Good question.

Yes! No contradiction here! I can make a quick glance and a live, motion picture builds up in my mind. It is as if I need to see the person to download and locate the source of the information. No I have not done any real testing what so ever yet. My statements on my observations are based on what observations I've experienced making, and the only source of verification has been from finding out by asking or by mention afterwards whether I was right or not (and I've been right).

What I sense automatically translates into my understanding of what it means. For instance the diabetes precursor simply "feels" like diabetes automatically and I did not need any training to know so.

Yes I meant opaque.

The only tests I've made are few and on chemical identification. I've had coins, and various types of nutritional supplements, in identical opaque cups. I see what you mean by a simpler test, yet, from my point of view I am also interested in a test that favors me, ie. with most frequent observations.

godofpie:
Like I've said I do not detect all cases of an ailment. I don't know whether I would detect stomach ulcers when there is no pain associated. Someone I know was also recently hospitalized for loss of blood due to same reasons and I had not detected it, so the answer is probably no to this ailment! I also know for a fact that I can not detect whether a person's tonsils have been removed or not. That is why I do not want to lose points for not seeing something. If I do say that I see/feel ulcers and am incorrect, then I will be happy to lose a point for this. Yes the person has to have a current headache in order for me to feel a headache. Sometimes I sense that a person has a tendency for headaches even though a headache is not current, but for test purposes it is probably better if persons have a current experience of the ailments.

ruckenheim

13th November 2008, 04:42 PM

Here are the results: C = Correct, F = Failed
1) C
2) C
3) F
4) C
5) C
6) C
7) C
8) C
9) F
10) C
11) C
12) C
13) C
14) F
15) C
16) F
17) C
18) F

That's all nice and dandy on a forum. I can do that too.

volatile

13th November 2008, 04:43 PM

Would you mind using the quote and multi-quote (") buttons, VFF? It's make following your responses much easier...

VisionFromFeeling

13th November 2008, 05:25 PM

And here is a second series of replies:

Ocelot:
Thank you for explaining things so clearly. I couldn't have done it better myself. I do not know how the IIG determined that 9 out of 10 is required to pass. All I can do is trust and hope that their statistics are fair for both parties.

My ability will "kick in" during the test. It always works in the same way and to the same extent. It is just a matter of if the subjects' ailments are strong enough for me to detect, but most likely they will be. I am quite good at picking up impressions about a person's health, often even the subtle ones.

If I claim to see an ailment on the test, I am claiming to having been entirely certain that what I see feels real to me. If it then turns out to be incorrect, I have obviously shown that the ability is not as accurate as it has been in the past. With a considerable amount of such incorrect observations, we can conclude that the ability now when given a larger amount of ailments to detect that are going to be checked against, is probably not the case of ESP.

I would like a larger number of people for the test, but if that is not possible I will accept a total of 15 or so since I want to have the test and do not want to delay the test much further. I also do not want to complicate the arrangements of the test for the IIG more than what is necessary, since they are working hard on putting this together.

I do not expect that each ailment that is to be detected is specified as only occurring once for the pool of subjects. That would make the test easier, so I would prefer if there is no prior knowledge such as "each ailment is represented once among the persons".

JWideman:
I have only made two specific observations in more than four days. I receive countless of impressions constantly, though. But almost all people I encounter during the week are college students, who are young people without any serious health problems usually. It is normally during the weekends when I am out driving and in the "real world" when I encounter more serious health problems. The reason why I approve of most of the conditions placed upon the test protocol by the testing organization, is because I am cooperating with them and I understand the need to conform to a testing set-up. I will not claim that the protocol wasn't what I agreed to, if it is what I agreed to. As far as I am aware of, me and the IIG are having no protocol difficulties.

Locknar:
I will definitely not pass on a subject simply because they would "look" healthy. I am quite concerned to list any answers that I can feel, because I would otherwise worry about not reaching the total of ten observations. I am also expecting the IIG to find subjects that "look" healthy but are not, and subjects that "look" ill but are healthy! I will not let any external appearance influence with how I report what I am feeling from the person. The odds of guessing correctly are tremendously difficult. There is a chance of 1 in 20 to guess correctly in a person! I would not even attempt a guessing-test! If you are anywhere near California, perhaps you could take the test with me and we could compare notes?

Coveredinbees:
It is a good idea to have another person taking the test with me, preferrably a medical doctor who is experienced in detecting external symptoms or body language. Although I disagree when you say that these persons should have a similar level of biology/anatomy training as I; I believe their knowledge should far exceed mine, since we do not want any answers to be based on knowledge or the use of ordinary senses even if skillfully. What we want to find out is whether there is extrasensory perception in my case.

nathan:
If the test will involve the detection of a missing arm, it will be ensured that this cannot be detected by looking at the person with eyesight. If it is found that it is possible to conceal this ailment from ordinary detection, then it is an acceptable ailment to include in the test. The algorithm that you mentioned does not make any sense. There is a total of 20 ailments for each person and only one of these 20 ailments is correct. There is no way to know which ailments must be found, or how many of each.

As for the "magic screwdriver". What you state is that you get the chance to try and to find out which cases work and fail before you reject the failed ones. I have no way of knowing whether the subjects I pass on are "good" or not. I only find out after the test what the right answers were.

EHocking:
With regarding to my quotes, I have always been consistent with the things that I've said. My accuracy is good. And I do not detect each case in which an ailment occurs. These are not two contradictory statements. And with regard to not being like other claimants, I am not claiming to have ESP, I am just saying that I am making accurate observations and want to find out their origin, and I am not trying to complicate a test protocol by making impossible demands on it. Etc.

ruckenheim:
If that's how you interpret the results of my first cereal test, then so be it. I wouldn't know myself. Can you produce such results too with a similar detection test? I thought the percentage correct seemed quite good, even though at the end is disappointing. I'd like some more opinions on the data, though.

volatile:
I will try to use the quotation feature more often, thank you.

VisionFromFeeling

13th November 2008, 05:52 PM

There definitely exists plenty of so called "vibrational information".

Light
Light is a combination of a vibrating electrical field and a vibrating magnetic field, and is thus called an electromagnetic wave. There are many details that describe the vibration of light. Wavelength describes how long it takes for a complete cycle of a vibrational movement to return to its original position. In a sense, the wavelength describes the width of the vibrational motion. Frequency describes how quickly it vibrates, and is inversely proportional to the wavelength, which means that when wavelength is high, frequency is low, and when wavelength is low, frequency is high. Amplitude describes the vertical height of the vibration motion. There also exist other factors that can make one vibration look different from the others, such as specific asymmetry in the vibration.

Electromagnetic radiation, or light, exists within a wide range of frequencies (and thus also in a correspondingly wide range of wavelengths). If we follow a gradual decrease in the frequency of light, it transforms from gamma rays, to x-rays, ultraviolet rays, to visible light, infrared, microwave, and then radio waves. Humans can only see the visible light-frequencies even though all light is really the same thing. Infrared light is the same as heat, and is the only light that humans can feel, even though all light should feel like something.

The variability in the properties of light make light have many applications. Radio waves are constructed to carry music and radio programs, light can be used to create hologram pictures. There are many examples in how people have used light in technology so that light carries "vibrational information" which is generated, as well as detected and translated, by electronic instruments.

Soundwaves
Soundwaves are not made of electromagnetic waves, but are the patterns of compressed air. The specific patterns in which air is compressed can be translated into information. Virtually any kind of "pattern" can be interpreted by animals or instruments to translate into a corresponding information. Soundwaves of course transmit vibrational information that is sound.

Sonar
Many animals, as well as instruments, use various forms of scanning technologies that send a vibration beam into objects. The vibration beam is altered when it encounters the objects and is reflected back so that the animal or instrument can read how the beam was altered. This alteration is then translated into an understanding of what the object might be. Dolphins and whales use echolocation, by sending out a soundwave which reflects back vibrational information that corresponds to the objects. Bats use this as well, to locate insects in the air. People can use echolocation through water, and sonar through the ground to study the different densities and layers of materials that make up the ground.

There are many medical instruments that work with vibrational information. These depend on being able to emit a vibrational beam into the sample. The sample then interacts with the beam, and changes the beam. The instrument reads the incoming beam and translates its changes into corresponding shape, structure, density, but not much more.

Vibrational information exists all around, and in many forms.

In my perception, although it is not scientifically established (yet?), the particles that make the atoms (protons, neutrons, electrons) on their deepest level consist of vibrations. Many physicists hold this theory. And even if we consider atoms as consisting of particles, according to quantum physics all of their properties can be derived from their vibrational aspect, which is referred to by wave functions.

Hokulele

13th November 2008, 06:08 PM

Hokulele:
I will receive a correct point for making a correct observation. We could say that it is the chance of 1 in 20 to guess the ailment correctly in one person. I receive a losing point for incorrect observations. And we could say it is a 19 in 20 chance to guess incorrect. The unknowns which I passed on are not part of the statistics at all nor should they be. I make ten claims, and those ten claims are checked. I must make a minimum amount of a total of ten observations in order for it to be possible to calculate statistically a pass or a failure. I really need to have the option of saying that I do not detect the health information in a person, because otherwise I'd have to be guessing and that would not be showing what I believe I am observing, now would it? Honey I never have any doubt with my observations. I either see something or I do not see something. I never ever doubt.

Two things here:

1) Would it make more sense then to do a test on the one ailment you are most likely to be able to observe? For example, if you can always sense a problem with vision such as color-blindness, have 20 people line up, one of whom is color-blind, and have you choose which person that is. This would reduce the burden of finding many people suffering from the ailments you can detect, and reduce the number of repetitions you would need to go through.

2) Please do not refer to me as "Honey". Thank you.

VisionFromFeeling

13th November 2008, 06:26 PM

Would it make more sense then to do a test on the one ailment you are most likely to be able to observe? For example, if you can always sense a problem with vision such as color-blindness, have 20 people line up, one of whom is color-blind, and have you choose which person that is. This would reduce the burden of finding many people suffering from the ailments you can detect, and reduce the number of repetitions you would need to go through.

It sounds like a good idea to narrow down the scope of the test to one or a few ailments. It would make arranging the test much easier for the IIG, which I would appreciate. However, some of the mutual benefits of involving multiple types of ailments, is that it dilutes the risk of me not detecting a specific ailment that was considered to be there. It would also make the test more difficult, in my opinion, to have to guess between 1 out of 20 possible answers for a person, rather than just yes or no for that person. I am not opposed to a test that is statistically difficult to guess one's way through, since I am here to show whether I have an ability that does not require guessing at all.

If the IIG are planning to prepare a test that involves many types of ailments, I would surely prefer that for the reasons outlined above.

ETA: I do not know if I sense any ailment "always". I have no way of knowing that.

JWideman

13th November 2008, 06:32 PM

Hokulele

13th November 2008, 06:34 PM

It sounds like a good idea to narrow down the scope of the test to one or a few ailments. It would make arranging the test much easier for the IIG, which I would appreciate. However, some of the mutual benefits of involving multiple types of ailments, is that it dilutes the risk of me not detecting a specific ailment that was considered to be there. It would also make the test more difficult, in my opinion, to have to guess between 1 out of 20 possible answers for a person, rather than just yes or no for that person. I am not opposed to a test that is statistically difficult to guess one's way through, since I am here to show whether I have an ability that does not require guessing at all.

If the IIG are planning to prepare a test that involves many types of ailments, I would surely prefer that for the reasons outlined above.

The number of participants would change the statistics, not the number of ailments, so it would be just as difficult to pass the "Pick the sufferer" test as the "Name that ailment".

I do not understand your statement, "However, some of the mutual benefits of involving multiple types of ailments, is that it dilutes the risk of me not detecting a specific ailment that was considered to be there." How does having one specific person dilute this risk? You can repeat this test (passing on those you cannot guess) just as easily, but only need to choose correctly once or twice (given enough non-sufferers per round) rather than 9 out of 10.

Try this with your cereal cups, but have 10 cups to choose from rather than 3.

VisionFromFeeling

13th November 2008, 06:45 PM

Someone better with statistics will hopefully jump in, but it would be hard to draw any conclusions from that cereal test. An open cup is not a sealed container. Cereal boxes have sealed plastic bags inside them. Further, if you were keeping score with each test, it was like a game of Rock Paper Scissors. You weren't necessarily using your ability to find the cereal. You could play against your friend, refining your strategy with each test. And of course you've said you are never wrong, and now you've been wrong 5 times.
I agree that there should have been a larger number of cups for the test, rather than just a total of three. I did not have much time to arrange and to have the test. I have never been wrong when I have made an observation that came on its own (ETA: When that observation was checked.). When I am forced to try to make observations and have to make an effort (during chemical identification tests) I do experience incorrect answers. I am still interested in finding out what the statistics indicates. Have I performed better than chance?

Having the test on health information will be one where I do not have to make an effort to detect something. Health information is highlighted in my awareness.

VisionFromFeeling

13th November 2008, 06:50 PM

The number of participants would change the statistics, not the number of ailments, so it would be just as difficult to pass the "Pick the sufferer" test as the "Name that ailment".

I do not understand your statement, "However, some of the mutual benefits of involving multiple types of ailments, is that it dilutes the risk of me not detecting a specific ailment that was considered to be there." How does having one specific person dilute this risk? You can repeat this test (passing on those you cannot guess) just as easily, but only need to choose correctly once or twice (given enough non-sufferers per round) rather than 9 out of 10.

Try this with your cereal cups, but have 10 cups to choose from rather than 3.

Well that one particular ailment might not be strong enough in my perspective, for me to detect.

Mutual benefits refers to benefits of convenience for both me and the IIG who is arranging the test. Having many ailments that are there for detection, each in a larger total amount of persons, means that if I do not detect a particular ailment, I may detect others. Having more ailments makes it less likely that I do not detect any ailments.

Oh, you are suggesting one particular type of ailment, but in many persons who appear for more than just one run of the test? That might work. And I will definitely try 10 cups for the cereal test next time.

JWideman

13th November 2008, 06:59 PM

Have I performed better than chance?

Chance isn't the only possibility, so it would be inaccurate to say yes.

Hokulele

13th November 2008, 07:11 PM

Oh, you are suggesting one particular type of ailment, but in many persons who appear for more than just one run of the test? That might work.

Yes, sort of. You have mentioned both here and on your website that there are several ailments you do better with than others. Possibly IIG can find 10 people with this type of problem, put one of those in with 19 people who do not have this problem, and see if you can choose which it is. If you pass, try the next person. This greatly reduces what you have to look for (which would theoretically make it easier for you, especially if they can target the ailment you feel most comfortable with), and the number of sufferers the IIG would have to come up with.

Pup

13th November 2008, 08:08 PM

I had a very quick and rushed cereal test on Monday November 10th. Small samples of cereal were placed in a total of three identical paper cups. Two of these contained plain cereal, and a third contained cereal with the Lactobacillus supplement.

Thank you for reporting the results. I have a few questions about the test.

Could you see the cereal itself? In other words, were the cups uncovered?

Were you told whether you were right or wrong after each answer, or only at the end?

How many different cereals containing the supplement were used, and how many different ones without it?

Depending on those things, the test could be almost trivially easy (one or two different cereals with the supplement, uncovered, and you're told each time if you're right) or very difficult to do better than chance, or somewhere in between.

JWideman

13th November 2008, 08:08 PM

Yes, sort of. You have mentioned both here and on your website that there are several ailments you do better with than others. Possibly IIG can find 10 people with this type of problem, put one of those in with 19 people who do not have this problem, and see if you can choose which it is. If you pass, try the next person. This greatly reduces what you have to look for (which would theoretically make it easier for you, especially if they can target the ailment you feel most comfortable with), and the number of sufferers the IIG would have to come up with.

That's brilliant. Of course, each group would have to be 20 different people. How many would be needed to produce statistically significant results?

VisionFromFeeling

13th November 2008, 08:22 PM

JWideman:
But for my own purposes, knowing how the cereal test was conducted, would the results be consistent to having performed better than chance? ETA: If these results were obtained from a test that was done under proper testing conditions would they indicate better than chance?
:) :p

Hokulele:
I think this idea you have of limiting the type of ailments is starting to sound very good. Yes there seems to be some ailments that are generally stronger than others in the way that I sense them. It would seem beneficial for me to only have to look for one type of ailment throughout the test. Yet, I worry that what if I do not detect the ailment in those few persons that have it? A larger amount of different types of ailments, and in more people, would distribute the risk of me not detecting certain things. I think I would let the IIG suggest which of these approaches is more appropriate for arranging the test. It is a good idea and thank you.

Pup:
The cups were uncovered. I would like to see if I can buy caps for them just to make sure, and of course no test should be done without a cover. I did not have any suitable covers available at this time but next time I definitely will. However I was very concerned "to not cheat" and I placed myself in a way that there was no way to peek or lean forward to accidentally (or intentionally!) see the contents inside. I stood at a distance where even if I had leaned forward quite some, it would not have revealed even a few centimeters above the contents. I did not see the inside-portion of the cups, nor any shadow of the contents. The cups were thus not fully filled.

At each run of three cups, I wrote down my answer, and then approached the cups to check. So I knew the answer after each run. I can try a different approach where I only get the right answers for the entire test after the test is done with, if that makes the test more reliable. I do however enjoy some feedback during the test because it makes it more interesting.

Two cups contained plain cereal and one cup contained plain cereal mixed with the bacterial supplement, for a total of three cups. The plain cereal in the cup with the bacteria is the cereal that came in its box. The other two plain cereals are made by the same manufacturer and are a similar if not same type of cereal just that they come without the supplement.

I need to repeat the test under more strict and controlled circumstances.

ETA: Please explain why finding out if I was correct after each run would spoil the quality of the test?

Uncayimmy

13th November 2008, 09:25 PM

Anita, if you're going to be scientist, you need to learn a lot more about creating reliable test. Humans are really, really smart animals. They are quite clever and very observant. They are great at detecting patterns and picking up on subtle cues. I know...I'm married to one.

Here's how to properly run the test with two people. I'm sure if I miss something, somebody will point it out.

Get three identical opaque containers that don't enable you to even see how empty or full they are. Have identical lids. Make sure the containers are a solid color rather than having some pattern that can indicate that it was moved or not moved.

Leave the room.

Have your partner make little markers for A, B, and C and place them on the table. One container will go on each marker so that you can still read which is A, B, or C.

Place one container on each marker. Have your partner roll a die to determine which will be the target container. For example, a 1 or 2 means A, 3/4 means B, 5/6 means C. Fill that one with the target cereal and the other two with identical but untreated cereal.

Label all three on the bottom in a way that cannot be seen when the container is on the table.

Now we're ready for the first trial.

Again, have your partner roll the die to determine the position of the target container. Thus a 1 or 2 means put the target on A, 3/4 means B, 5/6 means C.

At this point there is a 1 in 3 chance that the other containers will be in the same position as before. There's a 2 in 3 chance that only one container will be in the same spot. Roll the die again. Rolling 1 to 3 means you swap the positions of the two remaining containers or move the currently placed container to the other spot and move the displaced container it the now empty spot. A 4-6 means the opposite.

That's kind of wordy, but the idea is that the placement should be random.

You partner notes on a piece of paper where the target is, then stands in a corner of the room where you cannot see him/her when you enter. If you have a third person, that's even better. Have that person enter the room while your partner leaves the room. That way you never see the only person who knows where the target is. Regardless, you need an observer.

Nobody speaks.

Without touching or closely approaching the containers, say A, B, or C, then leave the room. Your partner notes your choice. If you have a third person, then that person notes your choice but does not tell the person who knows the target.

The partner verifies the position of the target and *also* verifies the other containers are labeled as controls. If there's a third person, that person should not be in the room when this happens.

Repeat this for 20 trials.

Then, and only then do you tally the results.

Can you see how this method greatly reduces the chances of cheating and picking up on subtle clues? It virtually eliminates bias on the part of the tester.

Uncayimmy

13th November 2008, 09:48 PM

ETA: Please explain why finding out if I was correct after each run would spoil the quality of the test?

After the first trial you know which cup has the target and which do not. The next trial is then also a test of whether you can identify that same cup again.

There could be any number of subtle visual cues on any of the three cups: a mark, a shadow, a chip, a crinkle, a bend, an indication of how full it is, etc. If there is something on the target cup, then it's a matter of identifying it. If it's something on one of the other cups, then your odds have been changed to 1:2 from 1:3.

There's also the issue of the placement of the cups. Unless they are being placed *exactly* the same way each time there may be a subtle (or obvious) clue. For example, if the answer was "C" and the next time around it looks like A and B moved but C was unmoved, there's your answer.

What you did is almost like how one might train an animal. Of course, in that case you'd use an obvious clue like a big black X on the right cup. If I did that with my dog and gave him a treat each time he picked the X, it wouldn't take long for him to learn to choose the right cup.

In your case you're getting a "reward" (correct answer) for picking a cup based on whatever clues you are using. You say it's some vibration unknown to modern science that nobody else on the planet can detect either through the senses or sophisticated testing equipment. I say it's much more likely you picked up on something else, being an intelligent and observant person.

Miss_Kitt

13th November 2008, 11:31 PM

Unless changes are made to my preliminary testing protocol with the IIG, I am required to make ten observations, each in one out of ten persons. In the case that I do make ten observations, the test can be checked for accuracy and the accuracy of those ten answers is statistically found to make a passed or a failed test.

In the case that I can not make ten observations, it is because the material for the test (ie. the persons with health conditions) is not adequate to fit what my ability can do and I can not let that constitute a failed test.

I will absolutely admit to a failure if I make incorrect observations.

My concern here is that VFF is simply picking up on minor visual or olfactory clues which, from a small enough 'screened' group, will give her a lot of "hits". For example, if one of the ailments is high blood pressure or a heart condition, any person in the group who is middleaged or older or overweight is likely to be the example of that disease out of the 10 subjects. Acid reflux can be smelled or detected in mannerisms in some cases; allergies from minor skin variations caused by unusual amounts of nose rubbing or blowing, etc.

The "let me pick which 10 of the 20 to diagnose" is particularly prone to this kind of unconscious prescreening.

VFF, what I am not hearing from you at all is the recognition that you may have already received the information you "detect" from another source, but not remember it.

For example, when I mentioned the H. pylori issue, you said you had never heard of that prior to your insight -- but it has been in the common media for more than a decade now. It has been on TV shows and in magazine and newspaper articles, on the Web and in books. Given that you are educated enough and bright enough to be pursuing a double BS in the sciences, I regard it as extremely unlikely that you had never encountered that information. You could, however, quite easily have heard or read it and not been able to consciously recall it. Almost everyone has more information in their heads than they can remember that they know.

When I was in college, I had a want-to-be-boyfriend who took me to a religious service with him. Partway through the service, I started singing along with one song, though I had (and have) no memory of having heard it before that night. There are several possible explanations: I could have been psychically picking it out of the minds of people around me; I could have been Jewish in a previous life, and having memories from that incarnation; or, I could have at some time heard it enough to learn part of it, and then not remembered the experience. My money is on Option 3, since it's one that fits well into normal human cognition.

This isn't an attack or some form of disparagement, but you seem to be convinced that you do have some kind of unusual data coming in. Are you open to the possibility that what you have is a better recall of the information than of when and how you got the information?

You could be "detecting" ailments in people that you have previously heard about, from them or from other people's conversations about them, that you have stored in your memory without being consciously aware that you have done so. If a cereal is suddenly adding lactobacillus, I suspect there would be some kind of ad campaign promoting that, or perhaps an indication on the box--not necessarily at the time you 'sensed' it, but at some prior time.

The only way to prevent those kinds of self-deception from occurring is to use good experiment design and control. A lot of science is about getting rid of observer effects, unconscious selection bias, etc.

Good luck on your testing, MK

JWideman

14th November 2008, 01:39 AM

JWideman:
But for my own purposes, knowing how the cereal test was conducted, would the results be consistent to having performed better than chance? ETA: If these results were obtained from a test that was done under proper testing conditions would they indicate better than chance?
:) :p

If I say "no", you'll say "what's he know about statistics anyway". If I say "yes", you'll feel that you now have some credibility.
I'm not giving you such an easy out, kiddo.
What I will say is that it's far more meaningful that, even in a test that weighed heavily in your favor, you were still wrong 5 times out of 18. And it wasn't towards the end of the test when you were tired either - your first miss was only the third attempt.
Let's say I thought I could see people through doors. Sometimes people open the door when I didn't expect it, and sometimes I'm too shy to open the door, but those times I've opened the door there's been someone on the other side. And let's say I wanted to test it by having a friend stand on the other side of one of three doors. The FIRST time I opened a door and my friend wasn't there, I'd be seriously doubting my powers. The second time it happened, I'd start to wonder not just why I was "seeing" wrong but how I ever "saw" right. By the third miss, I'd know there was no point in continuing. To be sure, I'd still be wondering why I experienced the phenomenon, but I'd be sure it had nothing to do with being able to see people through doors.

ETA: Please explain why finding out if I was correct after each run would spoil the quality of the test?

Because it's possible for you to refine your strategy of guessing. Imagine playing Rock Paper Scissors. With each throw, you can be better able to predict what the other person is going to throw next. It very quickly becomes a battle of wits. With enough throws, chance ceases to be a factor.
Now imagine playing it blindfolded, with a 3rd person quietly recording the score. (Also assume you've never seen the other person play.) Each throw has a only 1/3 chance of winning. You might have a strategy instead of throwing randomly, but you'd have no idea how well your strategy was working. How many throws you'd need to demonstrate a "greater than chance" ability I'll leave to the experts to come up with.

Ocelot

14th November 2008, 04:07 AM

Whoops clicked submit instead of preview - trying to work with table tags. More later...

Beth

14th November 2008, 04:21 AM

Pup:
I had a very quick and rushed cereal test on Monday November 10th. Small samples of cereal were placed in a total of three identical paper cups. Two of these contained plain cereal, and a third contained cereal with the Lactobacillus supplement. Even with these identical containers I claimed to feel and see a distinct low, dark and heavy vibration from the plain cereal, and a distinctly tall, bright and white from the one with the bacteria. The three cups were shuffled and placed randomly in a row by a friend who would then leave the room so not to give away which is which. My task was to identify which of the three had the bacterial supplement. Here are the results: C = Correct, F = Failed
1) C
2) C
3) F
4) C
5) C
6) C
7) C
8) C
9) F
10) C
11) C
12) C
13) C
14) F
15) C
16) F
17) C
18) F

As is typical when I have a chemical identification test, in the beginning I have good results, but after a while I begin to feel very drained, tired and get a headache. I begin to rush and guess wanting to get the test over with sooner, I also become unable to identify the desired sample, as is seen by the increase in incorrect answers toward the end. I wanted to make twenty runs but it became impossible due to the way I started to feel. Someone who is skilled in statistics can interpret these results for us.

The probability of 13 successes out of 18 independent trials with a probability of success of 1/3 for each trial is 0.0008526.

Ocelot

14th November 2008, 04:21 AM

OK then here's the thing about quitting whilst you're ahead

Trials|Hit?|Running total|Running Percentage|Running probability|Running odds
1|1|1|100%|0.333333333|1 in 3
2|1|2|100%|0.111111111|1 in 9.01
3|0|2|67%|0.259259259|1 in 3.86
4|1|3|75%|0.111111111|1 in 9.01
5|1|4|80%|0.04526749|1 in 22.1
6|1|5|83%|0.017832647|1 in 56.08
7|1|6|86%|0.006858711|1 in 145.81
8|1|7|88%|0.002591068|1 in 385.95
9|0|7|78%|0.008281258|1 in 120.76
10|1|8|80%|0.003403953|1 in 293.78
11|1|9|82%|0.001371742|1 in 729.01
12|1|10|83%|0.000543804|1 in 1838.9
13|1|11|85%|0.000212629|1 in 4703.02
14|0|11|79%|0.000690993|1 in 1447.2
15|1|12|80%|0.000285109|1 in 3507.44
16|0|12|75%|0.000792465|1 in 1261.89
17|1|13|76%|0.000341482|1 in 2928.42
18|0|13|72%|0.000852596|1 in 1172.89

You can see how the probability of getting that score or better at that stage swings up and down. Quitting at the right time can make all the difference.

Here's how it could have gone after that - just by guessing a 1 in 9 chance that you'd have got both remaining tests right

Trials|Hit?|Running total|Running Percentage|Running probability|Running odds
19|1|14|74%|0.000380798|1 in 2626.07
20|1|15|75%|0.000167366|1 in 5974.94

a 2 in 9 chance that you'd have got the first remaining test right then the second one wrong

Trials|Hit?|Running total|Running Percentage|Running probability|Running odds
19|1|14|74%|0.000380798|1 in 2626.07
20|0|14|70%|0.000878807|1 in 1137.91

a 2 in 9 chance that you'd have got the the first remaining test wrong and then the second one right

Trials|Hit?|Running total|Running Percentage|Running probability|Running odds
19|0|13|68%|0.001874823|1 in 533.39
20|1|14|70%|0.000878807|1 in 1137.91

finally a 4 in 9 chance that you'd have got both remaining tests wrong

Trials|Hit?|Running total|Running Percentage|Running probability|Running odds
19|0|13|68%|0.001874823|1 in 533.39
20|0|14|65%|0.003724569|1 in 268.49

Taking a weighted average we find that if you'd just taken a random punt on these last two you'd have ended up with a final score of

((1 x 0.000167366) + (2 x 0.000878807) + (2 x 0.000878807) + (4 x 0.003724569))/9

= 0.002064541
or 1 in 484.37

That'd still be an impressive result but below the JREF pass mark.

EHocking

14th November 2008, 04:35 AM

Someone better with statistics will hopefully jump in, but it would be hard to draw any conclusions from that cereal test. An open cup is not a sealed container. Cereal boxes have sealed plastic bags inside them. Further, if you were keeping score with each test, it was like a game of Rock Paper Scissors. You weren't necessarily using your ability to find the cereal. You could play against your friend, refining your strategy with each test. And of course you've said you are never wrong, and now you've been wrong 5 times.I'm no statistician, nor do I play one on JREF, but using the tables at http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html

The required success ratedfor guessing better than random chance, given a 1/3 choice, over 20 trials is:

100:1 2-12 expected (65%)
10,000 0-15 (80%)
1,000,000 0-17 (90%)

VFF's score was 13/18 = 72%

Just going by back of the cigarette packet guesstimate, I'd say VFF would need a score of 14 or better to get past the MDC preliminary challenge at odds of 1:1,000, and if that were the case, at the moment would fail.

ETA : from Beth's calcs I would seem to be wrong (just). 1:1173 I think was the resultant odds?

Soapy Sam

14th November 2008, 06:36 AM

Hi everyone. I'm back to answer your comments. I believe it will take me a while.

Soapy Sam:
I came here to this Forum to discuss my challenge application with the IIG. It will be done on detection of health problems, and the date for the test has not been set yet. We are all eager to find out whether I have the ability or not and I agree that there will be a lot of talking and waiting before the actual test and before the results come in. I will try to arrange simpler tests on the other aspects of my ability while we are waiting for the official test. Please understand that I am a busy college student and I will take the time for the other tests as I can.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I was a student once. Not so busy as I might have been, and that was without any internet to distract.
I thought I was rather special in those days. Most of my classmates had similar conceits. We were very young. Thinking one's self special turned out to be very normal.
I have to agree with other posters that I see more similarities than differences between your claims and attitudes as I read them here and those of many previous challenge claimants.
There may be someone out there with a true inexplicable ability , but there definitely are many people who unconsciously kid themselves as well as many who consciously kid others. I would expect from what you say, that you fall into one of those two groups.
I am never sure which I prefer. Correcting honest self-delusion is rarely successful and may do harm to a genuine, but misguided individual. Revealing the deliberate falsehoods of a con man usually results in him moving a few streets over and starting again. Therefore, disproving such claims may do more harm than good.
I think you are simply mistaken. If so, you will need strength of character to accept contrary evidence and abandon belief in your own uniqueness- and with that I wish you luck.
As for the test itself, well, luck should not come into it, either way.

Ocelot

14th November 2008, 07:30 AM

Hi Anita,

Firstly I want to say more about the selection bias involved in quitting the test once you were not doing so well.

This sort of thing can produce a notable effect and goes part of the way to explaining your favourable result with the quick and dirty test.

Check out this thread which analyses the possibility of selection bias in the Pear labs data.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125294

Your first quick and dirty trial may have told you something about your abilities. You got the impression that the trials were strenuous and your ability tailed off.

Therefore with future repetitions you need to ensure that you work in shorter sessions. Ten at a time to be on the safe side.

At the same time you'd been exposed to the criticism of an unconscious selection bias. You must in future be rigorous about what is just a warm up and what is a proper test, how many trials you're going to do and therefore when you're going to stop recording data. If you feel tired, take a rest but ensure that you eventually complete the pre-specified number of trials.

Selection bias alone however is not enough to explain this result. I did a little statistical experiment in excel and from that it seems that even if you were to do 100 trials and pick the best sequence of 18 in a row from those 100, you'd expect that the best sequence would represent a 1 in 10 chance. There's only a 4% chance of getting a result such as yours from this extreme form of selection bias.

So something else is most likely going on apart from the selection bias involved in stopping the test early rather than picking up up again once you'd rested.

Firstly it's been commented that you got immediate feedback regarding your successes and failures. This not only raises the suspicion of selection bias but it gives you information upon which you may base subsequent guesses. I'm not suggesting that you did this consciously but if the sequence picked by the person shuffling the cups was not randomly determined then the subconscious mind is very good at picking up such patterns. Take a look into this examination of using a test that used combination of using not quite random sequences and immediate feedback.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html

Worth remembering that one because Sheldrake misreports it as CSICOP replicating and therefore upholding his results.

So that's another reason why removing immediate feedback is a good idea.

It's also a good reason why the sequence should be determined randomly.

Now a complex sequence if die rolls has been suggested for this purpose. To be honest I haven't gone through that sequence to see if it generates notable patterns but I do notice that the positioning of the two dummies is dependent upon their starting positions so there's the potential for there to be a problem. Of course that's only in the position of the dummies which should ideally be indistinguishable from one another but we'll address the possibility that they're not later.

A much simpler method is with a single die roll and a lookup table.

die roll|Position A|Position B|Position C
1|target|dummy1|dummy2
2|target|dummy2|dummy1
3|dummy1|target|dummy2
4|dummy1|dummy2|target
5|dummy2|target|dummy1
6|dummy2|dummy1|target

With a greater number of cups per trial I'm in favour of picking tokens from a bag.

Even without immediate feedback randomisation is important. It's easier to stumble across a pattern than it is to predict a random sequence.

Do you happen to have the sequence of positions noted down. It might be interesting.

So what about actual observable clues that might be in evidence. Firstly there's your fellow experimenter. I'm pleased that you ensured they weren't in the same room as you at any point. It's surprising how often this makes a difference. So often that you might be forgiven for believing that telepathy were common place. In fact we all subconsciously pick up on cues - it so easy even a horse can do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

That's actually a flaw I note with the IIG protocol. Whilst they've taken every effort to ensure that the observer who accompanies you doesn't know the complaints of the subject you're looking at, the subject themselves do know what ailments they're suffering from. I'm not sure that adequate steps have been taken to reduce this observer expectancy effect.

Over here in the UK there's a mentalist by the name of Derren Brown - his book "Tricks of the Mind" is an excellent read. In it he gives a few tips for reading certain "tells" people tend to have. These are purely subconscious and, he says, they're present even if you tell the person not to give anything away. In fact he advises performer to make a big deal out of telling their subjects not indicate anything with their facial or eye movements. It convinces both the audience and the subject that they're really not giving themselves away when in fact they just can't help it.

In an adversarial test (for a prize or to otherwise prove a paranormal ability to other people) you'd have another observer accompanying you and (also ignorant of where the first observer had set the target) to ensure you didn't cheat but if the purpose of the test is merely to prove to yourself that your abilities are paranormal then one co-experimenter is fine. Obviously you'll know for yourself if you're choosing to cheat.

I'm not concerned about the possibility of olfactory clues. If someone says that they can tell the position of a cup of breakfast cereal from the other side of a room through scent alone I'd be inclined to call that a superhuman ability and suggest they apply for the challenge on that claim. How close exactly were you from the cups?

The fact that the cups weren't covered does concern me. You don't have to be able to see the cereal directly for the colour/texture to potentially make a difference to the ambient light within the cup. If you've got three pieces of card to label the cups positions I suggest your co-experimenter places the card on top of the cup.

My second concern is that through mild wear and tear paper cups might become distinguishable from one another. Lets say that the cups are not 100% identical. Without immediate feedback you may not be able to what they contain but you can ensure you pick the same cup every time. That drops your odds of getting 20/20 from one in three and a half billion to one in three. If we could get such a protocol accepted by the JREF then there's a one in three chance of passing the preliminary test and a one in three chance of passing the final test. Works out that you'd expect to win the million bucks after nine attempts.

That's why I'd expect to see such a protocol insist on something like fresh cups every time. In fact you'd probably be looking at sealed cardboard boxes.

The sort of paper cups I'm used to aren't always very opaque. You can often see the levels of the drink inside. Of course, I'm not saying that you could see right through the paper well enough to make out fine detail. Although I guess you actually are saying that - but I'm not saying you can do it by non-paranormal means. What I am saying is that if you might be able to tell the levels, and if the levels aren't exactly identical then that's another way you might subconsciously distinguish one cup from another. After your initial 1 chance in 3 success was confirmed it would be possible to track that cup in subsequent trials.

A conscious cheat might need one or two trial runs before starting the test proper.

So if you could, rather than shuffling cups use fresh cups refilled from the cereal box each time. When you're finished each trial, the cereal should be poured back into the box or the bin and those cups discarded. We wouldn't want bacteria clinging to the cup and confusing your abilities. Of course the cups should be filled in a preparation area to avoid the possibility of residue around the test area giving the game away.

Doing this also allows a simplification of the randmisation process as there really will be no difference between Dummy1 and Dummy2

If you can adopt those measures and still perform just as well then you've taken a giant step towards proving the paranormal. If not then you've taken what I might consider a far more interesting step towards investigating the true nature of your rare talent.

Hope this helps. Look forward to hearing more.

Old man

14th November 2008, 08:31 AM

Here is a protocol that, while being more work, will blind the process a little more thoroughly. Using this protocol, any flight may contain any combination of treated vs. un-treated samples.

People – Preparer(s), Tester/Observer, VFF

36 paper cups; 1 deck of cards, with one red suit removed; 36 identical opaque envelopes, each marked with a unique code/identifier; scale

Test area will be unoccupied initially.

Preparer(s) will enter test area and –

Separate test cereals into individual samples of X grams each (use paper cups as temporary containers) -
12 treated
24 non-treated

Shuffle cards.

Deal cards, one at a time, face up.

If a black card is dealt, place one non-treated sample in an envelope and seal it.

If a red card is dealt, place one treated sample in an envelope and seal it.

For every envelope, record (on a separate data sheet) the code/identifier and the sample type.

Repeat above until all envelopes have been filled and recorded.

Place all sealed envelopes in a container.

Preparer(s) leaves, taking data sheet and all materials/equipment with him (them), leaving only the container of envelopes.

Tester/Observer and VFF enter test area and -

Tester/Observer selects three (3) envelopes at random from container, and presents them to VFF.

VFF will have Y time to identify which (if any) envelope(s) contain the treated cereal.

For each flight, Tester/Observer records envelope codes and VFF’s choices.

Repeat, until all envelopes have been examined by VFF.

Preparer(s) will re-enter test area and compare Tester/Observer records with original data sheet.

Beth

14th November 2008, 08:36 AM

Hi Anita,

Firstly it's been commented that you got immediate feedback regarding your successes and failures. This not only raises the suspicion of selection bias but it gives you information upon which you may base subsequent guesses.

The problem with this criticism is that her success rate declined over the course of the test, which is in line with her explanation of fatigue and not supportive of the hypothesis that the immediate feedback was producing better guesses. While that type of learning is possible, if it were happening in this particular case the error rate would have gone down rather than up over the course of the trials.

eta: In regards to the possibility of selection bias due to stopping at 18 rather than running 20 tests: if you assume that she failed both test 19 and 20, the probability of getting 13 correct guesses out of 20 independent trials with a probability of 1 out of 3 for success on each trial is 0.003725.

Hokulele

14th November 2008, 09:17 AM

Actually, my concern with the cereal test as it was performed is simply how personal choice randomization and instant feedback operate. Most people suck at setting random patterns. If the person shuffling the cups knew which place had the cereal last, they would be likely to not place the cereal in the same spot twice, and VFF, just knowing human nature, would be likely to not choose the same spot twice as her guess. This drops the odds of correct guesses down considerably, if you only have to choose one correct cup out of two rather than three.

As the shuffler gets bored or tired, it is more likely that they will allow repeats, dropping the odds of VFF guessing correctly. This pretty much falls in line with the pattern of the test data.

I agree with Ocelot (and others), the cup setting must be randomized mechanically, not by some person's choice, and VFF should not see her results until the end.

Ocelot

14th November 2008, 09:27 AM

The problem with this criticism is that her success rate declined over the course of the test, which is in line with her explanation of fatigue and not supportive of the hypothesis that the immediate feedback was producing better guesses. While that type of learning is possible, if it were happening in this particular case the error rate would have gone down rather than up over the course of the trials.

From the second trial onwards (assuming no "warm ups") there was feedback which might potentially have helped Anita in her picking. I'm not convinced that more than one or two prior results would produce a proportional advantage in predicing how the co-experimenter would next shuffle the cups. I just don't know and whilst it seems instinctive to suggest it might be the case that a marked improvement should be seen, I can't say that it would allways be apparent over the random element.

Lets consider the anti hypothesis that having the two previous shuffles as reference she can predict the next shuffle with 69% accuracy. Breaking the last 16 trials into quartets we see she got 3/4 3/4 3/4 then 2/4. That doesn't seem to be a significant departure from what'd be expected.

Lets say she can pick the next shuffle 71% of the time if she knows at least one prior result. Then the next four attempts she's 3/4 the next 4 3/4 then a purple patch of 4/4 and a slump to 2/4

Again not a huge departure from what we'd expect. Not enough to refute the antihypothesis that the probability is constant over time.

You can data mine to slice and dice the sequence any way you like. Whilst there's a visible downward trend towards the end that's not incompatible with a contstant level of ability to predict overlaid by random noise.

Remember also that the sequence doens't appear to have been predetermined so the tailing off might equally represent the shuffler getting feedback on how to defeat Anita's strategy.

Think of it as a game of Rock Paper Scissors between the two. To begin with Anitia appears to be able to predict the shufflers strategy very well indeed - if later in the sequence Anita isn't doing quite so well, does that mean that Anita is getting tried or that the shuffler has developed a more effective counter strategy.

eta: In regards to the possibility of selection bias due to stopping at 18 rather than running 20 tests: if you assume that she failed both test 19 and 20, the probability of getting 13 correct guesses out of 20 independent trials with a probability of 1 out of 3 for success on each trial is 0.003725.

You mean 13 or more of course... Yes I know (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4200801&postcount=183) and if the final two went according to chance, she'd be expected to end up with feat of probability 0.002064541.

Beth

14th November 2008, 10:16 AM

I agree with Ocelot (and others), the cup setting must be randomized mechanically, not by some person's choice, and VFF should not see her results until the end. Quite true. Your point about the randomization is well taken.

My point was that the data better support the hypothesis of fatigue rather than the hypothesis of a learning effect due to the feedback provided after each trial.

You mean 13 or more of course Yes, I did. Thanks for the correction. You're quite right about the results being consistent with a much higher level of probability than 1 out of 3.

One thing I'd like to point out is that if the sequence had been reversed, with the trend toward fewer failures at the beginning rather than the end, would you still be arguing that the shuffler was growing tired and or was learning to anticipate her strategy in order to better defeat her?

Also, consider that if the results had come back that she performed no better than chance and she was coming up with similar explanations to explain why the results had differed from her expectations, how would you be reacting then?

Beth

14th November 2008, 10:22 AM

Good protocol! I only have one comment.

Tester/Observer selects three (3) envelopes at random from container, and presents them to VFF.

In this situation, the envelopes can be presented one at a time, two at time, all together, whatever works best for VFF. It doesn't matter because they are randomly filled and selected. Therefore each envelope constitutes a separate independent trial and there is no need to stick with the three at a time scenario if something else is preferred.

Uncayimmy

14th November 2008, 10:28 AM

Moochie

14th November 2008, 10:38 AM

Having taken a more comprehensive look at VFF's site, and having read every post in this thread up to now, I'm beginning to feel that I'm being had.

M.

Old man

14th November 2008, 11:15 AM

Good protocol! I only have one comment.
In this situation, the envelopes can be presented one at a time, two at time, all together, whatever works best for VFF. It doesn't matter because they are randomly filled and selected. Therefore each envelope constitutes a separate independent trial and there is no need to stick with the three at a time scenario if something else is preferred. Yes, I'm aware of that. The choices have to be presented in some fashion, though, so I picked the 'triangle' format that was already used.

Uncayimmy

14th November 2008, 12:15 PM

Having taken a more comprehensive look at VFF's site, and having read every post in this thread up to now, I'm beginning to feel that I'm being had.

"Had" as in intentionally deceived? I don't think so. She started with the IIG like 8 months ago. It would be a very elaborate deception that doesn't seem to have any real payoff. It has none of the other earmarks of somebody getting their kicks.

I think she genuinely believes she has some sort of gift. I don't believe for a moment she can do what she says she can do in the manner she describes.

I must say I have my own gift. I used to have fun at happy hours guessing what people did for a living just by watching them. Most of the time I didn't verify my guesses, but when I did I was uncannily accurate. I'm sure if I were the visually imaginative type I could have shut my eyes and envisioned them at work doing their jobs. I should also note that while I did not keep records, I recall being pretty damned good at the TV show "To Tell The Truth" - I would make my guess before any questions were asked.

Of course, I was probably a lot less accurate than I remember. In reality I probably had a lot fewer "trials" than I recall. And I know I was picking up on all sorts of visual clues. But then again, maybe I was sensing vibrations...

Moochie

14th November 2008, 12:37 PM

"Had" as in intentionally deceived? I don't think so. She started with the IIG like 8 months ago. It would be a very elaborate deception that doesn't seem to have any real payoff. It has none of the other earmarks of somebody getting their kicks.

I think she genuinely believes she has some sort of gift. I don't believe for a moment she can do what she says she can do in the manner she describes.

I must say I have my own gift. I used to have fun at happy hours guessing what people did for a living just by watching them. Most of the time I didn't verify my guesses, but when I did I was uncannily accurate. I'm sure if I were the visually imaginative type I could have shut my eyes and envisioned them at work doing their jobs. I should also note that while I did not keep records, I recall being pretty damned good at the TV show "To Tell The Truth" - I would make my guess before any questions were asked.

Of course, I was probably a lot less accurate than I remember. In reality I probably had a lot fewer "trials" than I recall. And I know I was picking up on all sorts of visual clues. But then again, maybe I was sensing vibrations...

I can't put my finger on it, but it's something in her writing here that sets off the alarm.

I don't have any "special gifts" that I am aware of. If I did have one, I'd be sure to exploit it for monetary gain. At my age, I'm beginning to think life's too short to try to disabuse everyone of their belief in what is essentially horse manure.

M.

Old man

14th November 2008, 01:02 PM

I can't put my finger on it, but it's something in her writing here that sets off the alarm.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Uncayimmy

14th November 2008, 01:06 PM

I can't put my finger on it, but it's something in her writing here that sets off the alarm.

I think what we're seeing is someone who is truly examining her abilities for the first time and being questioned by people who don't believe her. She's being shown her inconsistencies and the unreliability of what little testing she has done. And since the ability isn't real (sorry, Anita), there's no doubt that the more she talks about it, the more troublesome it becomes for her.

You could be right. It could be a ruse. But if there's any deception, I believe it's self-deception.

Ocelot

14th November 2008, 02:28 PM

My point was that the data better support the hypothesis of fatigue rather than the hypothesis of a learning effect due to the feedback provided after each trial.

The learning effect is supported not by the trend but by the high proportion of correct guesses. Either Anita has a genuine paranormal ability or one or more of the effects I mentioned are in play.

I haven't seen the sequence or run tests on people's ability to apply learning to such a sequence but I do note that the csicop data showed a only a very gradual increase in predictive ability with Sheldrake's non random sequences after four blocks of 60 trials. That's a lot more than 18 trials. It did however show a great advantage from the feedback right from the get go. For the most part. The advantage kicks in quickly then increases gradually over time.

I have great doubts that such an increase due to learning would be significantly apparent over a mere 18 trials. Its is my contention that over just 18 trials, random chance predominates over any trend that may otherwise be having an influence. There could be a trend towards increased accuracy (through learning or some other factor) but over 18 trials random chance may cause the appearance of a downward trend almost as often as the upward trend that might be favoured by whatever factor is in play. Likewise there could be a trend towards decreased accuracy (through tiredness of some other factor) and yet random chance may cause the appearance of an upward trend almost as often as the downward trend favoured by this alternative factor.

I don't believe that the slight downward trend is significant enough in magnitude to actually require explanation.

I've performed a little excel experiment to prove this. Plotting x = trial number against y= 1 for a hit, 0 for a miss, we can fit a line to those points using the least squares method. The gradient of that line gives us a magnitude for the downward trend. For Anita's data this gradient is -0.0258

I then generated a random list of hits and misses. Based on Anita's success rate, each point in the sequence has a 72% chance of being a hit. No underlying trend was programmed in. The first trial had the same chance of being a hit as the last trial. I then did the same line fitting and noted the gradient. Through the power of macros I repeated this 1000 times. The average gradient, as you'd expect was pretty close to zero - horizontal. (0.0002312) the gradients varied between -0.068111455 and 0.080495356 a standard deviation of 0.020336. We got downward trends steeper than those from Anita's data 107 times (10.7% of the time) and upward trends of greater magnitude 88 times (8.8% of the time)

What this means is that if we expected no discernable change in accuracy over time then getting a result showing a downward trend more extreme than Anita's would not be a great suprise.

I tried programming it to have a falling accuracy rate as suggested by Anita's data with the accuracy rate for trial 1 starting at 94% and dropping linearly to 50% by trial 18

Over 1000 repetitions of this experiment the average gradient as you'd expect was close to that programmed in (-0.0257977) we got 89 results with an upward gradient, allthough only 2 of them steeper than the downward trend we'd attempted to introduce.

So a downward trend like that indicated by Anita's data can be reversed in direction to show a slight upward trend just by by random chance and even completely inverted in rarer circumstances to show an upward trend just as large as the downward one we'd expect.

I then primed it with a swift learning hypothesis. The first trial had only a one in three chance of success. Thereafter with the advantage of knowing where the shuffler had previously placed the target the guesser had a 70% chance of guess where they'd move the target to (based upon Anita's success rate in the last 17 of her trials) in 1000 repetions of this experiment a downward trend steeper that that shown by Anita's data was found 67 times or 6.7% of the time.

As such there is no anomolous result to explain away here.

With a slightly slower learning hypothesis where the the accuracy rate for the first trial remained one in three, second attempt now had a 50% chance of success and subsequent attempts had a 70% chance of success we suddenly dropped to only 5 out of a thousand showing such a downward gradient steeper than Anita's.

This suggests to me that if non-random sequences and immediate feedback were the overriding factors factors in Anita's high sucess rate then only the position of the target immediately prior to the one being predicted was relavent to the prediction being made.

These deductions of course are irrelevant if Anita had a "warm up" or for some other reason she knew where the target was prior to the first shuffling.

Either way although the results are indeed indeed slightly more consistent with a fatigue hypothesis than a learning hypothesis, it is not by a statistically significant amount. The results, even if we arbitarily dissmiss the possibility of fatigue being a factor in Anita's accuracy are still not inconsistent with the hypothesis that Anita was learning from immediate feedback. When we consider there is no need for a dichotomy here and that both these and the other factors previously mentioned may have had simultaneous effects there is even less reason to dissmiss the possibility of learning.

JWideman

14th November 2008, 06:23 PM

Ocelot, I only understood every fifth word. :D Could we have a summarized version of that?

AliasN

14th November 2008, 07:13 PM

JWideman, I agree. I refer you to my sig line. :)

Ocelot

15th November 2008, 12:09 AM

Summary - you can't infer a trend from just 18 binary data points. Thus tiredness which would be indicated by a downward trend cannot be inferred from the data. We can take Anita's word that she was fatigued, however the effect on her acuracy was not statistically significant.

Likewise CSICOP's similar experiment recreating the conditions of Sheldrakes apparently sucessful staring test, with feedback, showed a gradual increase in accuracy over the course of ten times as many trials. The lack of a slight upward tend in our data is again not statistically significant over just 18 datapoints.

No reliable conclusion can be drawn from the trends. Thus the possibility of knowing how the shuffler was deciding to move the target, cannot be dissmissed.

However if the first time Anita became aware of the position of the target were after trails 1, such a strategy wouldn't assist her for that first prediction. If no other factors were assisting her first prediction and only thereafter she had an advantage, this would introduce a slight upward bias as the first point would tend to be lower than all the rest. In this case, despite the bias toward a slight upward trend, a downward trend of the sort seen in Anita's data wouldn't be totally improbable.

If the advantage from knowing previous moves were only in full effect once there were two previous moves to work from then the downward trend seen in Anita's data would be far more suprising. We can infer that only the target position immediately prior to the shufflers choice was relevant in their decission as to where to place the cup.

Such an infference is dependent on there being no other factors assisting Anita and Anita not already knowing where the target was before the first shuffle.

alfaniner

15th November 2008, 08:05 AM

When I was in college, I had a want-to-be-boyfriend who took me to a religious service with him. Partway through the service, I started singing along with one song, though I had (and have) no memory of having heard it before that night. There are several possible explanations: I could have been psychically picking it out of the minds of people around me; I could have been Jewish in a previous life, and having memories from that incarnation; or, I could have at some time heard it enough to learn part of it, and then not remembered the experience. My money is on Option 3, since it's one that fits well into normal human cognition.

I had a similar experience when playing my first rounds of Karaoke Revolution (a sing-along video game). I know that I had never heard some of the songs on there (country music, ugh) but within a few short lines I was able to pick up on the chord progressions which followed through the rest of the song. I thought it was pretty cool at the time, but there are many standard chord changes in music which makes much of it pleasurable to listen to, as you can anticipate what's coming next.

Little 10 Toes

15th November 2008, 09:05 AM

From her website (http://visionfromfeeling.com/page2.html)

In my vision, nitrogen is neon green, phosphorus deep blue, potassium light blue, hydrogen red. Carbon is black, argon is a kind of purple-red, calcium is a light blue (different shade of light blue than that of potassium).

Must be very hard to see things since air is about 78% nitrogen.

Gord_in_Toronto

15th November 2008, 09:24 AM

From her website (http://visionfromfeeling.com/page2.html)

Must be very hard to see things since air is about 78% nitrogen.

Nitrogen? 78%? Green?

Just like I predicted in my earlier Wizard of Oz references. Do I win anything?

Oh. And any test and/or results yet?

(Just checking in.)

Hokulele

15th November 2008, 09:27 AM

Oh. And any test and/or results yet?

(Just checking in.)

Yep. The previous page has a decent summary and the start of several analyses. If VFF can get similar results with a test that has much better controls, it would definitely be worth a second (and third) look.

JWideman

15th November 2008, 10:08 AM

From her website (http://visionfromfeeling.com/page2.html)

Must be very hard to see things since air is about 78% nitrogen.

Ah, but she only sees things that aren't normal. Having nitrogen in it is normal for air, just as having lactobacillus is normal in it for yogurt. I'm still looking for the animal that produces yogurt. For some reason I thought yogurt was milk that had lactobacillus added to it, but apparently yogurt is naturally occurring.

Beth

15th November 2008, 10:26 AM

The learning effect is supported not by the trend but by the high proportion of correct guesses. I'll have to disagree with this. A learning effect is essentially a trend of improvement over time. The high proportion of correct guesses at the onset is indicative of ability, not learning. Either Anita has a genuine paranormal ability or one or more of the effects I mentioned are in play. Again, I have to disagree. There are other possiblities, some of which have already been discussed in this thread.

You've written a lengthy response and I'm going to have to cut a bit of it. My apologies if I fail to address a point you consider important. Feel free to bring it up again it that happens.

I have great doubts that such an increase due to learning would be significantly apparent over a mere 18 trials. Here we agree.

I don't believe that the slight downward trend is significant enough in magnitude to actually require explanation. Again, we are in agreement here. It doesn't require an explanation. I am merely noting that the data is consistent with her claim of fatigue and therefore supports it, albeit weakly. At something like a p-value of approximately 0.1 according to your simulation. What do you think would be the p-value of the data with a learning effect hypothesis such as you've outlined? I afraid that I'd want to know the p-value for that starting at a reasonable probability of success (say 50% assuming the previous one was not used or picked)? Started at 72% to test for a fatigue effect makes sense only if we presume she has some ability and that is a reasonable approximately of her accuracy. To test for a learning effect, we'd need to check how well the data match that assumption starting with a more realistic expectation of success. I suspect that a goodness of fit test under those assumptions could easily lead to a rejection of the hypothesis. If I blow off some work I need to do this week-end, I could try to pull an analysis of that together, but I really need to work instead so don't count on it.

While conclusions are not forthcomimg, is the comparison of the approximately p-value of the different hypothesis not of use in this situation?

I've performed a little excel experiment to prove this. Plotting x = trial number against y= 1 for a hit, 0 for a miss, we can fit a line to those points using the least squares method. The gradient of that line gives us a magnitude for the downward trend. For Anita's data this gradient is -0.0258

I then generated a random list of hits and misses. Based on Anita's success rate, each point in the sequence has a 72% chance of being a hit. No underlying trend was programmed in. The first trial had the same chance of being a hit as the last trial. I then did the same line fitting and noted the gradient. Through the power of macros I repeated this 1000 times. The average gradient, as you'd expect was pretty close to zero - horizontal. (0.0002312) the gradients varied between -0.068111455 and 0.080495356 a standard deviation of 0.020336. We got downward trends steeper than those from Anita's data 107 times (10.7% of the time) and upward trends of greater magnitude 88 times (8.8% of the time)

What this means is that if we expected no discernable change in accuracy over time then getting a result showing a downward trend more extreme than Anita's would not be a great suprise. Yes, a p-value of approximately .107 is not usually considered statistically significant.

I tried programming it to have a falling accuracy rate as suggested by Anita's data with the accuracy rate for trial 1 starting at 94% and dropping linearly to 50% by trial 18. My, you've put a lot of work into this. I presume you must enjoy it ;) I do too!

Either way although the results are indeed indeed slightly more consistent with a fatigue hypothesis than a learning hypothesis, it is not by a statistically significant amount. That's all I was saying. I didn't claim it was a statistically significant effect. We are not in disagreement here.

The results, even if we arbitarily dissmiss the possibility of fatigue being a factor in Anita's accuracy are still not inconsistent with the hypothesis that Anita was learning from immediate feedback. Okay, I'll agree that feedback can change the odds significantly from random chance. But I also know from personal experience that attempting such feats can be quite debilitating, quite surprisingly so. Thus, I have other data that I am aware of that you would not be. Thus I find her claim and performance record quite consistent with the hypothesis of fatigue. This hypothesis BTW does not support any type of paranormal claim. Such fatigue can occur after any intensely focused mental exercise.

When we consider there is no need for a dichotomy here and that both these and the other factors previously mentioned may have had simultaneous effects there is even less reason to dissmiss the possibility of learning. Okay. It certainly is possible and can't be dismissed. But it isn't better supported by her data just yet that the fatigue hypothesis is.

Summary - you can't infer a trend from just 18 binary data points. Thus tiredness which would be indicated by a downward trend cannot be inferred from the data. We can take Anita's word that she was fatigued, however the effect on her acuracy was not statistically significant.

No reliable conclusion can be drawn from the trends. Thus the possibility of knowing how the shuffler was deciding to move the target, cannot be dissmissed. We agree. The best that this test could hope to provide was a resounding negative that would allow us to reject the possibility that something unusual was occurring. We cannot do that. The data she provided, for a test run at the request of this forum and conducted using suggestions that were provided by this forum. It would be nice if the skeptics on this forum were to, for instance, thank her for making the effort and sharing her results with them and accept that her results are completely consistent that the hypothesis that she is able, in some way, to sense the presence or absence of some living organism in the cereal.

I sincerely hope she will take the time to conduct and post about further experiments on her ability. The protocol suggested a bit early was excellent, though I would suggest an checking the containers unblinded first, to make sure that you are able to distinguish between them when you know which is which. If you choose to do so, I would like very much to hear about them.

If I were her, and I was sincerely interested in exploring what I was apparently perceiving, I would find the reactions she has received on this forum to be discouraging.

VFF, I'd like to say thank you very much for your postings. I know that what you are doing is not easy to do. I've enjoyed reading this thread and learning about you and your unusual perceptiveness. Please PM me if you'd like to start a private conversation.

Beth

Ashles

15th November 2008, 12:10 PM

Ashles:
Of course I get enjoyment from my ability. Who wouldn't enjoy seeing bright neon green atoms and knowing that there is Nitrogen there, looking at the beautiful structures of human muscle, organs, and other tissue, and experiencing insight into people and the physical world.
As previously discussed that is currently your belief. It is not accepted as such at the moment by anyone but you. Testing will discover the reality.

So far every observation has been correct. (ETA: ... that has been checked, that is.) Whether it is the case of actual, real-life observations, or an active automatic imagination, or a subconscious use of normal senses, what ever it is it is what I see and it is wonderful.
It could also be some visual procesing problem you have, or as you mention, imagination.
If it still gives you joy even if it is not in reality showing the information you believe it to be then fair enough.

Well, I am here because I am arranging to have a test with the IIG and these kind of things attract a lot of attention. I thought I would discuss the ability and the protocol with you people and also I wanted to introduce myself before people start talking about me.
Again we look forward to the results of the tests.

Whether my ability is ESP or synesthesia I will continue to build my website, I think it is fascinating no matter what it turns out to be. I do think that my ability is interesting, I am just not quite as excited about it as you say I should be.
I'm afriad that does not come across in your posting.
Also if you were genuinely non-committal about your 'ability' you wouldn't really care much one way or the other whether it turned out to be real or not. But you describe yourself as 'enjoying' it, you find it 'interesting' 'fascinating' and below you simply say 'I do perceive information that others don't and can't.'
There is little to no room in your posts to allow for the possibility for error. This is not the attitude of someone who is not excited about a possible ability.
And as mentioned repeatedly, it would be incredibly bizarre to not b excited about potentially having what is to all intents and purposes a superpower.

So you can continue to claim the (usual) stance of not really caring about such an ability but I'm afraid I for one simply do not believe you. It is clear this ability is important to you ( I do believe you believe you have this ability) and I question whether you will be comfortable with negative results should they be the result.

I do perceive information that others don't and can't.
We are aware that is your claim. We have seen an identical claim made many, many times. It has so far never been demonstrated to be a real claim.
Maybe you will be the first.
Our knowledge and history of these matters indicates this is unlikely.

The strength of my personal belief is what would explain why I have chosen to undergo the test of my ability. I have always understood that my past experiences with this ability are not evidence. Evidence for or against can be obtained from having a test. My test will not be open to interpretation. I will have the test on medical information since that is the main part of my ability.
Okay. I look forward to seeing the test results and hope there are no issues with the protocol. There shouldn't be with an ability that has so far been 100%.

The other aspects of the ability occur less frequently.
Which is a shame as they would be particularly easy to test and, in my opinion, would yield much clearer and definitive results than a test involving medical conditions in humans.

I have no emotions invested in my ability.
I think we are going to have to leave this point as I don't believe you and your repeated assertations are doing nothing to convince me otherwise (nor are the rest of your posts).

Whether I pass or fail the test the ability remains the same, that is, I continue to have the same observations but would probably know what the origin of those observations are.
A fail would not necessarily tell you what is causing the visual experiences - all it would do is inform you that it wsn't indicating paranormal ability.
It could still be imagination, a condition of some sort, an unusual processing error etc.

I have the ability of perceiving information that other people do not and can not perceive. The question is only whether that information comes from ESP or from down-to-earth causes such as synesthesia.
But that would NOT be perceiving information others do not. Synesthesia is a confusing of perceptions - you are not gaining information others could not see, you are simply interpreting it in a different way.

The test is to see if you are somehow gaining information others could not, which would constitute a paranormal ability. A fail would demonstrate you are not gaining any information unseen to others.

Having a vivid imagination is not a paranormal ability (although it is often confused with one).

In either case which ever it may be, the ability and the information continues to come to me.
Again you are sort of interchanging 'the ability' and your 'imagination'. The test is solely to see if there is a real paranormal ability there.
No-one is questioning your ability to imagine things. I can look at people and imagine they have certain ailments - that is not a unique ability. Being correct under testing is the unique ability.

Nothing changes in my world. If I make a considerable amount of incorrect observations on the test, then I will learn that the accuracy is not perfect after all.
If you make no correct observations above chance it will indicate that there is no ability, not that 'the accuracy is not perfect after all'.

I am quite open for the possibility.
You do not at all appear open to the possibility that you do not have a paranormal ability. You simply seem a little open to the possibility that your ability (which you appear to be assuming is already a given) might be a little less accurate than you thought. But still present.

Maybe I am misreading this.

I will ask the question bluntly - if your results from the test were not above chance, would you agree that this might indicate that you have no actual paranormal ability? That you are not gaining real information that is unseen to others?

(And just for clarification I am not asking whether you still might be seeing unusual colours or sensations for some reason, just that these are not in reality giving you any meaningful information, as you currenlty believe)

Let's just see what the test will reveal. It will not bother me if I fail the test, since I get to keep my ability, that is, the observations in exactly the same way as before, but with understanding of what causes those observations. I could not favor ESP over synesthesia, both are fascinating. I would not ignore test results. I am choosing to have the test to find out those test results.
And by 'synesthesia' are you understanding that it does not actually involve extra information being perceived? It is an unusual crossing over of perceptions?

The understanding I obtain from my ability adds creative thinking to chemistry, physics, and medicine.
In what way? What does a synesthesia-type experience add to research? Can you provide an example where this might be of use?

The observations I make are inspiration and ideas that I can test as a scientist if they are interesting enough.
Such as?
Dropping acid before conducting and experiment may add several new exciting layers of perceptual and imaginative experience to the event. But what useful information or thought would this add?

Every chemistry student has failed chemistry experiments, it is a fact and part of the learning process. We learn not to take it personally. We learn to analyze our experimental set-up and look for the source of error, and we learn what the problem was and suggest how to do better next time. A student can earn an A even if they fail an experiment.
Hopefully they would not earn an 'A' if the failure was due to their own experimental error.
What do you mean by 'failure'? Do you mean they had a hypothesis and a well carried out experiment demonstrated their hypothesis was incorrect? That isn't a 'failure'.
How is that analogous to your situation? It would only be similar if the student then refused to accept the result and still believed the hypothesis was correct just in a different way not in any way indicated by the experiment.

The results of an experiment are not to be taken personally, even if the scientist was the cause of them.
I don't understand that sentence.

I have a 4.0 GPA (ie. all A's) studying a B.S. Chemistry and a B.S. Physics so you don't have to worry about my scientific background. However my professional life is not part of this inquiry into my perceived ability, and my university has no affiliation to this. I do have some scientific background but have not studied statistics yet. I am an undergraduate student.
So we don't need to worry about your 'scientific background', but you are an undergraduate with only 'some scientific background' and you haven't even studied statistics yet?
This would indicate (to those of us who have already completed scientific degrees) that you cannot be very far into the course if you have not yet had to even statistically analyse any experiments you or others have carried out.

This does mean you are not as experienced in experimental design or analysis as many people here.
For you to be talking about what your ability (even if it not real) may add to experimental procedure is incredibly premature when you sound like you have not yet actually designed, run and analysed a full experiment of your own.

Still as you say yourself, your own knowledge of scientific analysis isn't relevant to whether you can actually demonstrate your claimed ability.
I'm sure IIG will be able to take you through the levels of results and what they will indicate. These wil have to be agreed before the experiment will happen.

I have no need of being considered special due to this ability. I find other ways of making my life meaningful. Of course objective testing has been lacking in my results, I have only recently decided to have objective tests.
Again the importance of that is not to be understated. Actually being prepared to go through objective testing with an independent organisation is a very big step and you are to be commended for going through with it.

And again I wish you success - you may claim not to be excited by this, but if it turned out to be real it would be very exciting to many people, myself included.

Moochie

15th November 2008, 01:01 PM

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

You've picked up on it too. There are some parts of her "protestations" that definitely jar. But let's see what happens. I'm no Einstein, but I clued on to The Professor well before many others did. Unfortunately, there are still those who regard TP as real.

M.

Moochie

15th November 2008, 01:05 PM

I think what we're seeing is someone who is truly examining her abilities for the first time and being questioned by people who don't believe her. She's being shown her inconsistencies and the unreliability of what little testing she has done. And since the ability isn't real (sorry, Anita), there's no doubt that the more she talks about it, the more troublesome it becomes for her.

You could be right. It could be a ruse. But if there's any deception, I believe it's self-deception.

Yeah, you could be right. I just have the sense of someone, I don't know, someone who's been through this before, maybe here. There are echoes. Hey, maybe I'm clairvoyant! :D

M.

JWideman

15th November 2008, 01:07 PM

Ashles, just a note: the more that Anita's described her observations, the more clear it's become that it's not synesthesia.
Self-induced hallucination is much more likely.

Moochie

15th November 2008, 01:22 PM

Ashles, just a note: the more that Anita's described her observations, the more clear it's become that it's not synesthesia.
Self-induced hallucination is much more likely.

Oh, I doubt it. The impression I get is of yet another "guesser." There've been quite a few. Most don't even get to the preliminary once it dawns on them that the MDC isn't a crap shoot. "Anita's" just more articulate. I have serious reservations about her identity. As ever, I'll believe it when I see the evidence.

M.

Ashles

15th November 2008, 01:38 PM

Ashles, just a note: the more that Anita's described her observations, the more clear it's become that it's not synesthesia.
Self-induced hallucination is much more likely.
I agree, but I was trying to address specificall her posts to me.

It would take too much time to address all the potential subjects o this thread.

For example I don't think the protocol is watertight - it certainly allows for other methods of information transmission (whether deliberate or not). 10 minutes is a long time to be allowed to watch someone (and she is requesting the ability to move time from one to another if required - this is especially a problem if she is going to ditch some quickly as unreadable and then allow herself a long time to watch some subjects. If they have any pain or discomfort this is going to be fairly easy to identify. Watching someone with, for example, back pain for at least ten minutes is going to be so uncomfortable they will probably fidget in a way that would make it easier to pick up on).
Even being conscious of being watched may make them unconsciously indicate their condition.

And VfF's requests appear strange - it must be current pain, the only physical changes have to be at a level they would be visibible to anyone (or at least potentially so)... missing arms allowed but replaced joints not?
It just doesn't fit in with the strength and consistency of ability she is claiming.

VisionFromFeeling

16th November 2008, 08:28 PM

UncaYimmy:
I will keep improving on the cereal test procedure. Rather than moving just one or a few of the cups involved, all cups are going to be moved (but not necessarily to a different position in the row, some maybe just turned the other way around) for each new run. The idea of using a die is perfect, and will be implemented as soon as we get one (possibly for the next weekend). Finding out all the answers only at the very end of the test is something I will have to get used to, but it is definitely a good idea and necessary for the test. Going from what my everyday experiences are and conforming to testing conditions is a little transition in some respects, but I am happy and all for it. Yes we need to keep eliminating any possible ways of detecting the right cup through ordinary skills, thank you for all your good suggestions, I will put them to good use. You see, a MDC is not the place to find out that one does not have an ability after all!

She started with the IIG like 8 months ago.
I started with the IIG like 16 months ago.

And since the ability isn't real (sorry, Anita), there's no doubt that the more she talks about it, the more troublesome it becomes for her.
I've made some interesting observations that compel me to have the test. Let's just see and find out. We don't know whether the ability is real or not yet, just hang in there and let's wait for the official tests with the IIG, and in the meantime I am arranging other tests as I can. I don't think that talking about it becomes troublesome, I'm just curious about discussing this with other people to figure out what it is. No trouble here.

Miss Kitt:
My concern here is that VFF is simply picking up on minor visual or olfactory clues
I will be at a distance from the persons and there will be glass between us and I do not think I'd be picking up olfactory clues. All persons who are available for the test have been approved of by the testing organization as having ailments that are not detectable by ordinary means. If 10 out of a total of 20 persons for the test have ailments that can be detected visually or by other ordinary senses then already the test would be flawed even if I weren't allowed to pick my best 10. Even if I had to make an observation for all the 20, the 10 should be considered flawed. There may not be any subjects for the test whose ailments could be detectable in this way, so me selecting 10 out of 20 should not reduce the reliability of the test.

In the most convincing cases of having detected very specific health problems, I had no way of knowing prior about their condition. It is difficult or impossible for me to convince you of my past experiences, but if I make similar very good observations on the test with the IIG, then it would be an experience that we could share.

When I detected H. pylori in a relative I was very young and to my recollection had not encountered it in the media, yet I could be wrong about that like you said. Let's just see what the test results say. My past experiences are not evidence for you, but they explain why I am personally compelled to have this test.

Yes I am open to the possibility that I'd be using a memory storage of information to piece together the conclusions I make, but still it leaves many observations that I can not dismiss as examples of this.

To mention a few very specific cases, I had no knowledge of the co-workers reproductive cysts since I detected them before they were diagnosed. And I detected the Lactobacillus in a friend's stomach before he had mentioned it to me, and I should know because we had just become good friends and I remembered very well each of the few talks we had had up until then and he had never mentioned anything about taking that supplement. As for describing in perfect detail the brown shape in a person's field of vision, it had also never been mentioned to me, since it is personal information. There are many cases that I can not dismiss, and also I do not present them as evidence to others. But they compel me to have the test.

I agree with what you say, though, and they are very interesting and valuable comments. Good to have you here. I am not interested in self-deception, believe it or not.

JWideman:
I prefer to let statistics tell whether I am performing well on the cereal test or not, yet still allowing myself a few incorrect answers since statistics does. Well, even if you missed seeing a person behind a door three times, if you had maybe 30 correct answers then you might be interested in continuing to see if statistics suggests some kind of ability? Most abilities, whether psychic or otherwise, are not required to have a 100% accuracy at all times in order to be considered valid. I am still more interested in the medical information test since it is my strength among the many aspects of this ability.

I do not "guess" when I make ""psychic observations"". I only claim to know where the cereal is, or claim to feel a person's pain or describe their illness, when I perceive that I am actually observing something. At times when I just don't know, I do not guess. We will be using methods that randomize the placement of the correct answer from now on so that I could not learn a pattern if one exists and so that no strategy could be constructed to increase a chance of success from guessing. Even though I am not guessing.

I'm still looking for the animal that produces yogurt. For some reason I thought yogurt was milk that had lactobacillus added to it, but apparently yogurt is naturally occurring.
"Not normal" as in not usual. It may be added to yoghurt, but that's how it always looks. Nothing unusual or out of the ordinary there.

the more that Anita's described her observations, the more clear it's become that it's not synesthesia.
Self-induced hallucination is much more likely.
Well if that's what it is, what ever it is, I am still interested since it leads to interesting and accurate observations and I look forward to seeing what the test results say. I am not biased to favor one explanation over the other. I want to see if I can produce consistent accurate information to a statistically significant degree during a controlled test environment, and am also curious to find the true origin of the observations.

Beth:
Thank you Beth for the statistical analysis. I was waiting for someone to help us with that. Although a probability of 0.0008526 for 13 out of 18 trials with 1/3 having the right cup sounds good, I believe that 18 trials is very low and a larger total number of trials would be more reliable to draw conclusions on.

I will make no explanations or conclusions on these cereal tests just yet. I'm glad you enjoy the statistics. I wouldn't know where to start, I'm glad to rely on you others to do this part of the work.

Thank you Beth for your encouraging and kind words.

Ocelot:
I had to quit after 18 trials since as always when I do a chemical detection test I gradually start to feel very (very) bad. I get nausea and a headache (and normally I have neither) and focusing on anything becomes unbearable. Had I been able to, I would have continued to at least a total of 20 trials as was my goal since I do not believe that 18 trials is many enough to make any kind of conclusion on. I didn't try to quit at the "right time", I just had to quit when I could do it no longer.

I've actually made no other conclusion from the first cereal test other than to continue with tests. I seriously don't think that 18 trials is good enough, and the test procedure needs to be improved on as much as possible. I just did that first quick and easy test to see what the results would be. Yes, I will definitely allow myself a break once I start to feel bad. I have to. The quality of a test should not be affected if there are breaks in between sections of the test. Ten at a time sounds perfect.

Goodness you are good at statistical analysis, thank you for your work and for sharing the results here.

Yes better randomizing is required, and no immediate feedback is to be allowed (even if it takes the fun during the test from me). No I do not have the sequence of positions available, but at later tests I will be sure to note that.

From where I was standing on the first cereal test my toes were three feet five inches from the row of cups. (Yes, I went back and measured very carefully.) That is 104 centimeters (for you Europeans and Canadians). I am also concerned with that the cups weren't covered. I didn't have much time to arrange the first test since I had to leave soon after. Cups being subtly distinguishable from one another is also a concern that is addressed in the next test that I had today, by changing cups between trials. I don't think nine attempts should be good enough for any official test.

Thank you Ocelot, your comments and ideas are excellent and will be implemented. I am going to rigorously test myself before applying for any official test on chemical identification. I'd want to make very sure I could perform just as well on a "real" test as I do at home.

I did not know where the target was for the first trial. (Until I checked it with my ability!)

EHocking:
Thank you for your statistical analysis of the results of the first cereal test. Sounds like I got rather close to a passing score, however I still don't believe that 18 trials would ever be good enough.

SoapySam:
I resent any kind of discussion on whether I think I am special or not. I am here because I have made some very unusual observations and being science-minded I simply want to test to find out what the true origin of this information is. I am convinced that there is a reason to test this because of the quality of some of the observations, and not because I'd be prone to one explanation over another.

I absolutely do not consciously try to deceive others. That would be an immoral thing to do and a total waste of time. I am compelled to have this test because of the quality of observations and do not see how I would have deceived myself. Please stop making rude assumptions about my character or personality and just consider that I might just be a truly honest type of person.

There has not been any contradictory evidence so far! If there had been I would accept it!! I am here because I've made interesting observations. I do not believe it is ESP or synesthesia either way, and if a test result reveals that I am convinced of the authenticity of observations that turn out to be incorrect I will have no trouble accepting it. Stop making ridiculous assumptions. I am not trying to be unique.

Honestly, some of you people are just ridiculous. Stop making personal attacks against me and making accusations about my character that just aren't true. I am being very objective and open-minded about this and I hope that most of you do the same.

Old man:
Very good idea to place cereal samples into sealed envelopes. I will probably try it later on.

Hokulele:
Personal choice randomization will be eliminated in later tests and so will instant feedback (even if it takes the fun out of the test for me).

Moochie:
Having taken a more comprehensive look at VFF's site, and having read every post in this thread up to now, I'm beginning to feel that I'm being had.
Well I'm sad to hear that since I am trying to be as honest and sincere as I possibly can. I realize that there's a lot of talk and little evidence at this point so please come back at least after the official test results from the IIG become available. Just hang in there, there is no deception going on and let's see what the test results say!

I don't have any "special gifts" that I am aware of. If I did have one, I'd be sure to exploit it for monetary gain. At my age, I'm beginning to think life's too short to try to disabuse everyone of their belief in what is essentially horse manure.

The "special gift" that I have that I will exploit for monetary gain is my success in college and career-wise. I have no belief in whether I have ESP or synesthesia or something else, I just know I've made some interesting observations and I'm open to what ever the test results will suggest is the explanation. There is no belief at this point, just the observations.

The impression I get is of yet another "guesser." There've been quite a few. Most don't even get to the preliminary once it dawns on them that the MDC isn't a crap shoot. "Anita's" just more articulate. I have serious reservations about her identity. As ever, I'll believe it when I see the evidence.
I am not a guesser. When I take the cereal tests (and I've had a total of two so far), I make sure that I am under the impression of actually sensing the vibration, or light, of the bacteria, before I state an answer. At some trials I honestly say that I can not detect it (the reasons of which I will state in a later post where I present the results of the second cereal test) and I ask for a re-shuffle (which may or may not shuffle all the cups or just some or them). I make very very certain that I actually have a perceived claim of sensing something before I give an answer. If it's between two cups and I'm not sure which one it is, I tell my friend who helps me with the test, that "I just don't feel where it is this time, and I am not going to guess." I never ever guess. And some of the medical information I've detected just could not be guessed! Let's just see the test results, alright? I really have had some interesting observations here and I haven't been guessing. I really feel as if I perceive some information. Now whether that information comes from the real world or is just something I perceive in my mind is what the tests will help to find out. None of us can at this point speculate (and rather aggressively as some of you do here :() which of these it is.

Please guys, stop the hostilities or I will feel bad about coming to my thread, and might stop coming here at all. I really wanted to discuss test results and test protocols with you people, rather than having my personality attacked! :( :(:duck:

VisionFromFeeling

16th November 2008, 08:45 PM

Little 10 Toes:
Must be very hard to see things since air is about 78% nitrogen.
With all the information all around, it is the interesting data that usually stands out and catches my attention. For instance, Nitrogen in the unexpected places such as in an unknown molecule where I wouldn't know what to expect, or Lactobacillus in cereal rather than in yoghurt and dairy. It is like being surrounded by a lot of text, but text that has been highlighted with a marker stands out and catches your attention more than the rest. Some things stand out more than others.

Ashles:
I enjoy my ability yes, I enjoy the things that I perceive. However that does not make it have to be true ESP or imagination or anything else, I enjoy the observations what ever they are. Of course I allow for error, I welcome it and would not be upset if it shows up in tests. You can interpret my emotions any way you want, all I can do is tell you how I feel. I still think that my emotions are not the subject of scrutiny here. And seriously, if I have this "superpower" it is one that I am used to and do not get really excited about. It's just a normal day in my life. And I've had it for many years now.

I can not care about having ESP since I could find out that I do not have ESP. I do not want to get accustomed to any explanation one way or the other in case it'd be taken away from me after the test, also I do not want self-deception by believing it to be a "superpower" when it might not be after all. I just have the observations and those will never be taken away. If a test adds incorrect observations to my so far 100% correct observations so be it. Nothing changes in my world.

It's hard to believe until I have presented some form of evidence. I would be very comfortable with negative test results, because I get to keep the ability, that is, the observations, in the exact same way as before, but the label would not be ESP. The label would be perhaps synesthesia, or imagination, or a creative mind, or skillful at reading external signs. Either way I get to keep the ability. Ability = the observations.

Yes chemical identification tests would be much easier for test-arrangement purposes, and I am working on having those while I am waiting to have the official medical information test. If their results are compelling I can have an official chemical identification test as well. I don't know at this point, looks good so far!

Please don't refer to my ability as possibly being an "unusual processing error". It leads to very useful scientific hypotheses that I can use in my career and it has lead to very many interesting accurate observations. I don't think of it as an error in any way. Even if tests would present several incorrect claims of observations, I'd still not think negatively of it. If it is synesthesia, synesthesia is not considered a mental problem in any way, it is an acceptable form of perception that some people have and many more people have it to lesser extent. It is a form of creative thinking.

Vivid imagination is among the explanations I will consider if I fail the test. Of course such is not a paranormal ability, it is among the null hypotheses.

I am fully open to the possibility that I do not have a paranormal ability. But all I have so far to refer to are 100% accurate, very unusual and specific descriptions of things that can not be perceived by ordinary people. I do not take these as any form of conclusion of having or not having ESP or anything else, that is what the tests are for. Of course I will accept an explanation that I do not have a paranormal ability! That is why I am having the tests! I am not biased toward one explanation over the other! For the last time!! Because in either case I get to keep the ability, I get to keep the fascinating observations! Whether they turn out to be always true or not when tested!

Yes, synesthesia translates one type of information into the others. It is how I can see inside the human body, taste sunshine, etc. I am just curious since I make interesting observations that are accurate.

What do my observations add to research? By doing what I described in an earlier post and call "vibrational algebra" I can suggest the new design of molecular structures of medicines for specific purposes. But most importantly I will use this to design light structures that have specific and detailed effects on human tissue structure in medicine. It has not been done yet and without this "creatitivy" or "insight" (which ever it may be) this would be a complicated task to start from only using logic. I can then apply my full scientific professionalism to these ideas and am at no risk of wasting time or resources on any of them. I can also "feel" how chemicals respond to temperature, pressure, etc, by feeling the vibrational aspect of a chemical and applying in my mind the vibrational aspect of heat, or pressure, or anything else to it, and predict the outcome.

When I said that the results of an experiment aren't to be taken personally, I mean that in some cases a scientist shouldn't apply their personal emotions on their scientific work. They shouldn't become emotionally angry, or sad, when experiments fail. It is part of professionalism. And in the same way I do not apply any emotions to this ability that I am now having tested. Because if I fail there is no reason to be upset since what I am most interested in is the actual, true results. To me a successful test is one that succeeds in finding out the truth. The test is not about "passing". The test is about "finding out what the ability is". Please don't argue since this is how I really feel about the situation. Stop being silly and arguing about how I feel about things. Let me be entitled to my emotions.

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.

I am here to get assistance in experimental design. I never intended to do all this on my own.

That's a good point that I shouldn't be given transferrable time with subjects that I decline. Their 10 minutes should not be transferrable toward the others that I do diagnose. I am all for it. I really want a good reliable protocol and this is something that adds to that.

I'm hoping that there is plenty of pain that is not detectable. For instance we could have other practice people look at the persons before my test, for 10 (or more) minutes and try to find their pain to reduce this concern.

I could probably detect slighter ailments such as missing fingers etc but I am suggesting ailments that are easier for me so that there will be fewer passed subjects. Provided that all ailments and people provided for the test are undetectable by ordinary means.

JWideman

16th November 2008, 09:22 PM

As has been brought up before, you're seeing stuff and being told what ailment the person has, and assuming a relationship. And again, the lactobacillus is the perfect example. If you were seeing lactobacillus where it was present, you'd never see it where it wasn't, right? But you did in that cereal test. You were sure enough you saw it that you don't believe you were guessing. And you were wrong. So the logical conclusion is that what you saw was not lactobacillus. That you saw the same phenomenon with your friend as with the cereal is what we call coincidence.

Madalch

16th November 2008, 09:58 PM

Anita- can you see the auras of chemicals through paper?

If I were to send you a letter which contained a piece of cardboard, upon which I had dripped solutions containing simple chemicals such as sodium chloride, potassium bromide, lithium sulphate, etc, would you be able to tell me which drops were which without opening the envelope?

VisionFromFeeling

16th November 2008, 11:07 PM

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 tried had a total of five samples. Each sample was placed in identical paper cups. Paper cups were two in one to make a thicker wall and reduce any visibility through the cup. All cups had the same height of contents and were less than half-full. Four of the samples were plain cereal flakes, one of the samples was the same type of plain cereal flakes but with Lactobacillus supplement and was the one to be detected. The bacterial supplement was placed in the center and surrounded and covered with cereal to better conceal it just in case. Identical white paper post-its were placed on top of each cup as a cover. (Crude, but the best I could find without going shopping.) The assistant would shuffle the paper covers as well at each shuffle of the cups just in case they'd be slightly different from each other (which they were). I sat at a distance of seven feet (213 centimeters) from my toes to the row of cups. Personal randomization by the assistant determined the placement of the cups. Feedback was provided after each individual trial rather than at the end of the entire test. (These last two conditions will be eliminated in later tests.)

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 4
Procedure as earlier, no covers and with a total of 4 cups. I gently wet the bacterial supplement with one drop of warm tap water thinking that it might activate the bacteria. I have not done this before and wanted to try to see if it might have any effect, and yes it did! We carefully made sure that no moisture was detectable on the cup. The drop was absorbed in the center of the contents without contact with walls or bottom of the cup.

Results: It was VERY easy to detect the bacteria! I felt it stronger than ever before. (ETA: And this is a claim I would make regardless of if the results would have confirmed a correct prediction or an incorrect prediction.) I had to giggle a bit because in my perception I saw movement that is similar to how an inchworm crawls and expands to move about, it was absolutely adorable. Initially they were absolutely easy to detect and I was totally certain.
1) C
2) C
3) F
4) F
Comments: In the first two trials I was absolutely certain. In trial 2 I said to my assistant that I am so certain that the bacteria is in that cup that I would bet all I have on it and that if it is not in that cup then I will declare myself crazy. In trial 3 I didn't know. (See comments below.)

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 1 in this procedure I begun a brand new strategy that proved very effective: rather than searching for the darker vibrations of plain cereal and eliminating them one by one I had the brilliant idea to search for the one that has the bright white vibration of the bacteria. (I don't know why I didn't do this before, it should have been the obvious method in the first place.) The test became easier since in this way rather than having three cups to look into there was only one. With this new method I became extremely confident in where it was, but that also made me worried. 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.

Conclusions:
Today's tests involved trying different variations of the test procedure to explore the spans that a test could have. How many cups could I be comfortable with? Could the cups be covered? I learned that a total of five or four cups was more work than a total of three cups. I noticed that my method had been to search for the dark vibrations to identify and eliminate the cereal cups first, and then look into what I thought to be the supplement cup to verify if I felt the supplement in it. This is a lot of work and involves feeling into all cups, which is why five cups is more exhausting than four, and four is more exhausting than three.

I learned a new method which I was very happy and comfortable with, and which should have been the obvious method at the very beginning. To only search for the one cup with the supplement and bright white vibration, and forget about sensing into the others in as great detail. This way I was making answers much (much!) faster and much (much!) more confidently. This test procedure 5 worked very well with this new method as well as having a total of only three cups and I continued with it.

A total of ten trials in a row seems to be the most I can do before becoming too uncomfortable to continue.

The elevation of the row of cups on the stove (the test was done in the kitchen) in combination with me being seated rather than standing did not allow even partial vision into the cups and there was no way to lean or reach forward to try to see inside the cups to detect any variations in darkness, fullness, or any other detail of the contents. All cups appeared identical from the outside.

Since the cups were two-in-one, the assistant was able to switch the outer cups as well as shuffle the cups, so that any external differences in the cups could not be learned. In my perception the cups all looked identical with normal vision anyway, not that this eliminates the potential concern of subconscious cues. The assistant was told to ensure a good randomization procedure and to keep in mind that the target cup might also stay in the same place but just turned around to not make it easy to guess that "it won't be in the same place twice".

Sometimes my thoughts interfered with my ability. If a thought such as "I don't think it is to the left" appeared for any reason it placed prejudice in my feeling. These thoughts are not from the same source as the feelings of vibration. At these times I would tell the assistant that an involuntary thought was interfering with my ability and I would get a re-shuffle. A re-shuffle would not necessarily change the position of a particular cup since placement is done entirely at random, but would take away interfering thoughts about where it should or should not be.

My comments on the confidence levels of specific individual trials have been absolutely honest even though they are strongly in my favor. In the future these tests will be done with witnesses who can verify what confidence level I claim in association with each answer but until then all we have is my honest word, which is not proof of anything.

The extreme confidence I developed in test procedure 5 worried me at first since I was nervous to find out the results. I was confident to the extent that I decided that if I would be incorrect in even one such answer I would have reason to very seriously start to doubt my chemical identification ability. I find it very encouraging that each time I was confident it was correct, and each time I was not confident it was incorrect. When I know I am guessing it is incorrect. I can not prove that this was the case, but it explains why I will continue with these tests.

In tests later on I will use the new method of detecting the supplement rather than searching through all cups and will try a larger total number of cups. Cups of a different material will be tried. A die will be used to determine the randomized placement of shuffled cups to eliminate any possible unintended pattern of randomization. And even though it takes the fun out of the test (and puts all the fun to the end of the test instead), feedback of answers will only be given at the end of a test and not after each trial. A second assistant will eventually take part in the test. The use of covers might not be possible but will be tried again before concluding on it. The distance between me and the row of cups will be increased further.

I was very pleased to find an easier method for identification (to search for the supplement cup rather than first eliminate the wrong ones one by one). I was happy to increase the sensitivity by adding the drop of water to the bacterial supplement (and it was fun to see the individual bacteria moving about like they do). I was surprised by the tremendous confidence level. And am of course pleased with the high frequency of correct results once I found a procedure, and a method, that worked for me.

For a test at home whose purpose was to try different test procedures and to assess the ability on Lactobacillus detection I believe the test was done under acceptable standards for this humble and unofficial purpose. I can not think of any flaw in the testing procedure, although I can think of several ways of improving the testing procedure for later tries. No conclusion can be made on whether I have any ability or not since a total of 10 or 12 trials in a row is too few and since additional improvements must be done to the test procedure before it is fully acceptable to draw conclusions on. I do conclude that at this point I can still not dismiss the possibility of having an ability to detect the presence of Lactobacillus through extrasensory perception.

shuttlt

17th November 2008, 05:21 AM

VFF,

I am extremely doutful about your abilities, but well done for sticking with this. If you aren't fooling yourself the million is yours for sure.

Old man

17th November 2008, 05:59 AM

What do my observations add to research? By doing what I described in an earlier post and call "vibrational algebra" I can suggest the new design of molecular structures of medicines for specific purposes. But most importantly I will use this to design light structures that have specific and detailed effects on human tissue structure in medicine. It has not been done yet and without this "creatitivy" or "insight" (which ever it may be) this would be a complicated task to start from only using logic. I can then apply my full scientific professionalism to these ideas and am at no risk of wasting time or resources on any of them. I can also "feel" how chemicals respond to temperature, pressure, etc, by feeling the vibrational aspect of a chemical and applying in my mind the vibrational aspect of heat, or pressure, or anything else to it, and predict the outcome.
VFF, you’re still operating under the assumption that you have a ‘real’ ability. That remains to be tested properly. Are you prepared to accept that your “100% accuracy” may be due to confirmation bias? Everyone believes that his memory is good. No one’s is.

I was very pleased to find an easier method for identification (to search for the supplement cup rather than first eliminate the wrong ones one by one).This seems strange to me. If I’m looking for grey marbles mixed in with white ones, I have look at them all, anyway. How can you find the supplement cup if you don’t assess all of the cups?

I was happy to increase the sensitivity by adding the drop of water to the bacterial supplement (and it was fun to see the individual bacteria moving about like they do). I was surprised by the tremendous confidence level. And am of course pleased with the high frequency of correct results once I found a procedure, and a method, that worked for me. But was it a fair method (i.e. not biased)?

For a test at home whose purpose was to try different test procedures and to assess the ability on Lactobacillus detection I believe the test was done under acceptable standards for this humble and unofficial purpose. I don’t.

I can not think of any flaw in the testing procedure… I can. You mention one assistant. How was the shuffling blinded? Was your assistant present during your assessments?

I do conclude that at this point I can still not dismiss the possibility of having an ability to detect the presence of Lactobacillus through extrasensory perception. And I conclude that you can still not dismiss the possibility of having not done a well blinded test. When will you do that?

EHocking

17th November 2008, 06:00 AM

I'm not statisticion, so my comments below are based on these Tables of Chance (http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html). No doubt others will give you a more accurate evaluation.
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..
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) FThanks for the honest reporting. No real need to comment on odds on this trial, or trial 2.

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
..
Test procedure 4
...
1) C
2) C
3) F
4) FFor 6 attempts (5 actually from the tables quoted above) at chance of 1:4, you'd expect to se 0-4 correct choices at odds of 1:100

2/6 is exactly as expected through random chance.
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
...With odds of 1:3, the expected result from 10 trials are, at odds of:
1:100 - 0-7 correct, and
1:10,000 - 0-9 correct.

9/12 is, therefore, probably in the realms of the expected success rate from random chance alone.

You'd probably need better results than any of the above to make any of those protocols workable for the MDC. My opinion is that Procedure 5 wouldn't cut the mustard due to the wetting process and the uncovered samples (at the very least).

Soapy Sam

17th November 2008, 06:09 AM

SoapySam:
I resent any kind of discussion on whether I think I am special or not. I am here because I have made some very unusual observations and being science-minded I simply want to test to find out what the true origin of this information is. I am convinced that there is a reason to test this because of the quality of some of the observations, and not because I'd be prone to one explanation over another.

I absolutely do not consciously try to deceive others. That would be an immoral thing to do and a total waste of time. I am compelled to have this test because of the quality of observations and do not see how I would have deceived myself. Please stop making rude assumptions about my character or personality and just consider that I might just be a truly honest type of person.

There has not been any contradictory evidence so far! If there had been I would accept it!! I am here because I've made interesting observations. I do not believe it is ESP or synesthesia either way, and if a test result reveals that I am convinced of the authenticity of observations that turn out to be incorrect I will have no trouble accepting it. Stop making ridiculous assumptions. I am not trying to be unique.

Honestly, some of you people are just ridiculous. Stop making personal attacks against me and making accusations about my character that just aren't true. I am being very objective and open-minded about this and I hope that most of you do the same.

You are free to resent what you wish. You chose to start this thread and so long as posters obey the user agreement, they are free to respond as they will. I responded by observing on what I felt 30 years ago. What you feel now I can only infer from your posts.

I agree that attempts at deception would be immoral. I do not agree they are a waste of time. Many people make a lot of money deceiving others. I would hate to see this forum being used in such a scam.

I make no assumptions about your character and I certainly am not attacking you. I am responding to your posts in a thread you started on an internet forum. I think you are seriously mistaken in your conclusions. I expect testing to demonstrate this. I predict you will have difficulty accepting that evidence when the time comes- just as I have difficulty accepting your claims as factual.

Old man

17th November 2008, 06:30 AM

Test procedure 4
Procedure as earlier, no covers and with a total of 4 cups. I gently wet the bacterial supplement with one drop of warm tap water thinking that it might activate the bacteria. I have not done this before and wanted to try to see if it might have any effect, and yes it did! We carefully made sure that no moisture was detectable on the cup. The drop was absorbed in the center of the contents without contact with walls or bottom of the cup.

Results: It was VERY easy to detect the bacteria! I felt it stronger than ever before. I presume from the above description that you did not wet the non-supplemented cereal. If so, poor protocol.

Old man

17th November 2008, 06:52 AM

I screwed up the tags in my post (#222) above.
This -
Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling View Post
I was very pleased to find an easier method for identification (to search for the supplement cup rather than first eliminate the wrong ones one by one).This seems strange to me. If I’m looking for grey marbles mixed in with white ones, I have look at them all, anyway. How can you find the supplement cup if you don’t assess all of the cups?

I was happy to increase the sensitivity by adding the drop of water to the bacterial supplement (and it was fun to see the individual bacteria moving about like they do). I was surprised by the tremendous confidence level. And am of course pleased with the high frequency of correct results once I found a procedure, and a method, that worked for me.
But was it a fair method (i.e. not biased)?

Should have read -
Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling View Post
I was very pleased to find an easier method for identification (to search for the supplement cup rather than first eliminate the wrong ones one by one). This seems strange to me. If I’m looking for gray marbles mixed in with white ones, I have to look at them all, anyway. How can you find the supplement cup if you don’t assess all of the cups?

I was happy to increase the sensitivity by adding the drop of water to the bacterial supplement (and it was fun to see the individual bacteria moving about like they do). I was surprised by the tremendous confidence level. And am of course pleased with the high frequency of correct results once I found a procedure, and a method, that worked for me.
But was it a fair method (i.e. not biased)?

alfaniner

17th November 2008, 07:00 AM

You need to set the number of trials and proceed with them once you start the test. You don't get to stop the test just because you fail the first time or two.

Do an unblinded test first, just to make sure your "powers are working." Then proceed with the properly double-blinded test. Do exactly the same number of trials in each, and don't stop until that number is reached.

Beth

17th November 2008, 07:25 AM

VFF: Thanks for posting your results. Yes, I think your experiments are going well and continuing to indicate that you have some unknown sensing of what is in the cups. Your experiments are not yet up to the standards that would allow others to conclude that something odd is indeed occurring. That's okay. It can take a while to work out a protocol that both meets your needs in regard to what you are capable of sensing and is also appropriately blinded to all potential sources of information leakage via normal channels. I think you're doing great!

The water being added making a difference is a good start on figuring out what exactly and how you are sensing the difference. What effect does water have on the bacteria? Do you know? I afraid I don't, but that should provide a clue to what you are sensing.

Here are some probabilities I computed for the results you posted today:

The probability of getting 9 or more correct out of 12 independent trials with a probability of 1/3 on each trial is 0.003856.

If you include the previous 7 trials with 2 successes at the same probability of 1/3 on each trial (not accurate, but that means the probability will be computed as higher than it should be), the probability of 11 or more correct out of 19 independent trials is < 0.024072.

These probabilities were computed in EXCEL using the following formulas:

1-BINOMDIST(8,12, 1/3, 1) and 1-BINOMDIST(10,19, 1/3, 1)

You can compute this for yourself for any number of trials and successes you like using the EXCEL function BINOMDIST.

BINOMDIST is a function that computes the probability of getting X successes out of N trials with a probability P of success on each trial. Because the EXCEL function computes either P(X = a) or P(X<= a), the actual probability you are interested in is computed as the probability of 9 or more successes is computed as 1 minus the probability of 8 or fewer successes.

Good luck with your continuing efforts. Please either post here or PM me with more results when you get a chance to conduct more experiments. I would be very interested to hear how you are doing. If you find yourself bothered by the disparaging personal comments that some people are posting, I recommend the ignore function which allows you to selectively eliminate the posts of people who annoy you.

EHocking

17th November 2008, 08:17 AM

Moochie

17th November 2008, 08:17 AM

<snip>
Moochie:

Well I'm sad to hear that since I am trying to be as honest and sincere as I possibly can. I realize that there's a lot of talk and little evidence at this point so please come back at least after the official test results from the IIG become available. Just hang in there, there is no deception going on and let's see what the test results say!

I will say that you do spin a good yarn, Anita, but yarn is all I see it as, enough yarn to make a nice sweater for the coming northern winter. Nay, enough yarn to outfit all members of the JREF!

The "special gift" that I have that I will exploit for monetary gain is my success in college and career-wise. I have no belief in whether I have ESP or synesthesia or something else, I just know I've made some interesting observations and I'm open to what ever the test results will suggest is the explanation. There is no belief at this point, just the observations.Oh, so you won't be attempting the MDC, then?

I am not a guesser.
You aren't? :jaw-dropp

Please guys, stop the hostilities or I will feel bad about coming to my thread, and might stop coming here at all. I really wanted to discuss test results and test protocols with you people, rather than having my personality attacked! :( :(:duck:I agree. But you should stop pulling my leg, also.

M.

Beth

17th November 2008, 08:51 AM

Thanks for that Beth.
For the probability challenged amongst us, could you put the above in the context of odds normally bandied about for MDC challenges, i.e. 1:1,000?

For the MDC, the 1:1000 odds would be p < 0.001.

The probabilities given above are as follows (these are approximations):

p = 0.0039 is 1:250 while p = 0.024 is 1:40.

Ocelot

17th November 2008, 08:58 AM

Hi Anita,

Glad to see that you're exploring some steps towards tightening up your protocol.

You've experimented with covering the cups with paper, this may have failed. I'm quite concerned about that. You've suggested that this may be because paper blocks some types of low energy radiation. Indeed it does. Light is one of the types of radiation that is severely attenuated by a sheet of paper. Although you've positioned yourself so that you can't see the inside rim of the cup this doesn't completely eliminate the possibility that you're picking up the cereal's influence on ambient light. If the cups are on top of a grill then I assume that they're close to a wall. That would make ambient light a concern.

You've suggested that your difficulties in this run might equally have been because of the larger number of potential targets, that would seem to be supported your feedback with procedure 2.

I also note that this first trial was before you hit upon the idea of wetting the active cereal. With regard to wetting the active cereal it might be best to wet all cereals to ensure that it is the bacillus that you're detecting rather than the moisture. That said, skeptics have a time honoured tradition of testing people who think they can detect water under unusual circumstances so that might equally be a paranormal claim. Wet it if that works for you, if it doesn't then you've got a "water dowsing" protocol, and couple of pillocks who think that invalidates your test. Their opinion doens't matter if this works out for you then you should be able to apply for the JREF on the basis of being able to tell wet lactobacillus from empty cups, cups with dry cereal, or cups with wet cereal, so long as there's no outward way of telling you're good for the million. However that's just my opinion which doesn't matter either the JREF would have the final say.

However back to that paper. I do think that a propperly controlled challenge should involve covers. It'd be strange if paper should have such an effect as you first reported noticing your sensitivity to this bacillus when it was obscured within a friends' stomach and later through the cardboard of a cereal box. Given your other attempts to improve your sensitivity, i.e. reducing to three cups and wetting the cereal it might be worth revisiting this issue and seeing if you can try again with the paper in place when it's just three cups and the target cereal is moist. If not then perhaps the cup can be elevated in a location where ambient light would be less of a concern – i.e not near a wall.

Let's look at the suggestion that more than three cups may have been overwhelming your ability. This would certainly be the case if your ability was predominantly based upon receiving feedback and working out how your assistant might place the cups next time.

Let me demonstrate.

Have a look at these replications of your initial test.

Experiment 1
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|A|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|C|B|A|B|C
Prediction|A|A|B|B|B|A|B|A|B|C|C|A|B|A|B|A|C|C
Hit|0|1|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|1|1|1|0|1|1|0|1
Total Hits|11|
Percentage|0.611111|
Signifcance|0.014434|1 in 69.2826776893141
Trend|0.054528|

Experiment 2
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|A|B|C|A|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|C|A|C|B
Prediction|B|A|B|A|B|C|B|C|C|B|C|A|B|B|A|A|B|B
Hit|1|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|1|0|1|0|1
Total Hits|12|
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.051683|

Experiment 3
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|C|B|A|B|C|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|A|C|A
Prediction|A|B|A|B|C|B|B|C|B|A|B|A|A|A|B|C|C|A
Hit|0|1|1|1|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|1|1
Total Hits|12|
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.053106|

Experiment 4
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|A|C|A|B|C|A|B|C|A|B|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|C
Prediction|B|B|A|B|C|B|C|A|A|B|A|A|B|C|B|B|B|A
Hit|0|0|1|1|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|0
Total Hits|8|
Percentage|0.444444|
Signifcance|0.22326|1 in 4.4790794408513
Trend|0.034614|

Experiment 5
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|C|B|A|C|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|A|C|B
Prediction|A|C|A|A|C|A|B|A|A|A|C|A|A|A|C|C|C|B
Hit|0|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|0|1|0|0|1|1
Total Hits|10|
Percentage|0.555556|
Signifcance|0.043348|1 in 23.0690798442699
Trend|0.044571|

Experiment 6
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|C|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|C
Prediction|C|A|B|A|B|A|A|A|C|A|A|B|B|A|A|C|B|C
Hit|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|0|0|1|0|1|0|1|1|1|1
Total Hits|9|
Percentage|0.5|
Signifcance|0.107602|1 in 9.29347421757414
Trend|0.049787|

Experiment 7
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|C|A|C|B|A|C|A|B|C|A
Prediction|B|C|C|B|C|A|B|B|A|A|C|B|A|C|A|B|A|B
Hit|1|0|1|1|1|1|0|1|0|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|0|0
Total Hits|13|
Percentage|0.722222|
Signifcance|0.000853|1 in 1172.88901435911
Trend|0.055951|

Experiment 8
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|C|A|B|A|C|B|A|B|C|A|B|C|A|B|C|B|A|B
Prediction|C|B|B|C|B|A|A|B|A|B|B|C|B|B|C|A|A|C
Hit|1|0|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|1|0
Total Hits|9|
Percentage|0.5|
Signifcance|0.107602|1 in 9.29347421757414
Trend|0.041726|

Experiment 9
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|B|A|C|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|C|A|B|A|C|A|B|A
Prediction|B|C|C|A|B|A|B|A|B|B|A|A|B|A|B|B|B|A
Hit|1|0|1|1|1|0|1|1|0|1|0|1|1|1|0|0|1|1
Total Hits|12|
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.053106|

Experiment 10
Trial|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18
Target|C|A|B|C|B|A|B|C|B|A|B|C|B|A|C|B|A|B
Prediction|B|A|B|A|B|A|C|A|A|A|B|C|B|A|B|B|A|B
Hit|0|1|1|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|1|1|1|1|0|1|1|1
Total Hits|12|
Percentage|0.666667|
Signifcance|0.003919|1 in 255.148967768236
Trend|0.060218|

Now you may have already noticed these random sequences aren't very random at all. On the face of it they appear to jump about all over the place as random as a random thing and there's not long streches where a value doesn't appear. In fact those are the very factors that make the sequences deceptively structured rather than random at all.

These sequence are extreme examples of common human biases. Joe Soap approaches the roulette tables in his local casino, with the intention of betting on the 2nd Dozen (13 to 24 inclusive) When he sees that on the table to his left the last spin was 22 and on the table to his right none of the numbers from 13 to 24 have come up in the last three spins then of course he places his bet on the table to the right. His bet has just come up on the left hand table so what are the odds of it coming up twice in a row? On the table to the left it's due to come up. In fact his bet is equally likely to come up on either table as the roulette wheel is unaware of the previous spins and makes no attempt to even itself out.

In the sequences above are generated in an attempt to artificially even themselves out. The odds of a repeat should be one in three. In fact in the sequences above there are deliberately no repeats. The predictor knows that repeats are unlikely and so narrows the field of possible guesses from 3 to 2.

Under those circumstances we expect a hit rate of 8 and 5/6 out of 18. The signifcance of getting at least 13 out of 18 drops from around 1 in 1000 to just 1 in 25

This is rule 1 - the application of a rule imposes structure.

But there's another rule. We also have the idea that a value might be "due." If that value hasn't come up in the last three, it's "due" to come up now. The sequences above follow that logic, the predictor follows that logic too. On the fourth trial there's a 50-50 chance that one of the values won't have come up yet.

This is rule 2 it imposes even more structure on our supposedly random sequence. From my trials it appears to raise the expected level of success to around 12 out of 18. Getting 13 or better is distinctly commonplace.

Following these rules is clearly a distinct advantage with 3 options.

Incidently The one thing these simulations don't replicate is any downward bias. They give no advantage at all to the first prediction and the advantage from the second rule doesn't kick in until trial 4. This introduces an upward bias to the trend where in 1000 runs I only got 36 downward trends of greater magnitude to that in your initial test. That make your downward trend significant and in potential need of explanations when before - assuming a constant accuracy rate - no such explanation was necessary. Many such explanations are possible, wondering if you benefitted from warm ups before the test proper to ranging from simply accepting the effects of fatigue. Perhaps your subconcious is triggering fatigue when it knows you're not doing so well and so selction bias means we're more likely to end on a failure.

Back to the advantage of feedback and structured sequences.

With 4 options this advantage is significantly reduced.

In my 3 option scenario the most common result was 12 out 18 such a result been a fair test (with a genuinely random sequence and no feedback) would have had odds of one in 69.

In my 4 option scenario the most common result was 7 out of 18 such a result been a fair test (with a genuinely random sequence and no feedback) would have had odds of one in 7.

Obviously feedback and the two rules being in effect, still give an advantage that means you're expected to beat the odds in the four option scenario but by an amount that is no longer anywhere near as significant.

Obviously my dabblings in excel are a mere caricature of human behaviour, where I've placed hard and fast rules actual human behaviour is influenced by more subtle biases. However the advantage that this gives to the human acting as a random number generator, in being slightly less predictable, may be negated by the fact that the predictor is human too and has access to all the range of subtlety present in the human brain. Your subconscious knows how it might react to a request to eliminate the biases of rule1 and can project that point of view onto another person, especially if you know your assistant quite well.

It's a shame that you don't have the sequence used in your initial test so that we could see if there were some sort of structure that might have been apparent.

It should have been our last chance as there's no really good reason for you to be continuing what is essentially a game of rock – paper – scissors. However the fact that you've given in to the temptation for immediate feedback and somehow found it difficult to obtain a proper randomizer can be construed as circumstantial evidence that your subconscious knows that this is how it's playing its games and is resisting changes to a favourable set-up. As such it would be hardly surprising that you've not presented the sequence to be investigated for any hidden structure.

Given that you've effectively told your assistant to eliminate the bias associated with what I called rule 1 it would be interesting to see if he'd over compensated. Earlier I said that rule 2 kicks in 50% of the time, that's only true with rule 1 in effect. Without rule 1 in effect this changes. 2/3 of the times one number is "due", 1/9 of the time two numbers are "due" so we'd have had opportunity to see if this bias was picking up the slack in providing you with information.

If you're really having difficulty obtaining a die may I suggest drawing lots, making a cardboard spinner or using the computer that you post from to generate a sequence of pseudo random numbers.

http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20dicebag.htm

If your assistant won't have access to the web at the time of the test they can pre-generate a sequence of random numbers and take pains to ensure that you don't see it.

Asking your assistant to eliminate their bias just won't work. Whatever bias is being eliminated will be replaced by another. Its a bit like asking someone not to think of an elephant. The fact is if it's not generated by a proper randomizer thent he sequence is structured.

Any further test with immediate feedback will merely help demonstrate that it's an integral part of your ability. Only by eliminating this feedback can you demonstrate that your ability is based upon the present location of the target rather than an ability to extrapolate from its previous locations. As such you do need to be recording your predictions and your assistant needs to be recording the target locations. I'm sure all of us would welcome this being data being included in your reports.

I appreciate your efforts in shielding the cups of cereal within second cups. It greatly reduces opacity concerns and goes someway towards addressing the possibility that wear and tear starts to indentify the cups. However the rims of the cups will still be visible, removing and replacing the cups by those rims will surely increase wear and tear.

Perhaps the cups could be placed inside a shoebox? Do you think that would work with your ability?

I glad that you've taken some steps towards eliminating some of our concerns but it is a slight issue that after trying with covers you decided to go without and that you may have replaced one target for ambient light, the inside of the cup, with another the wall behind the grill. Also after trying with a larger number of potential targets you've now reduced back to three. It's of far greater concern to me that you've resisted using random numbers, are still getting immediate feedback and aren't publishing the actual sequences of target locations and predictions.

In fact in your last test, the only concern you've effectively eliminated is the one about the opacity of the cups.

Working from the hypothesis that your successes are related to structured sequences and feedback it would perhaps be interesting to see these eliminated one at a time and find out at what point your ability fails. However surely it'd be far more interesting if you could prove that your successes had nothing to do with these factors and simply eliminate feedback until the end, use a proper randomizer and allow the randomness of your sequence to be analysed.

Also please please please, strictly predifine the test conditions and the number of trials then stick to that even if you feel things aren't going well. By all means limit yourself to ten attempts in a session to avoid the fatigue and nausea you experience but specify this in advance. Otherwsie selection bias will invalidate your test.

Even without these other concerns it could look as if all you were doing was tinkering with the protocol each time you failed waiting for a run of luck then quitting one that lucky streak had expired.

Anyway thanks for looking into this for us it is greatly appreciated.

FYI if test procedure 5 had been a fair test, getting at least 9 out of 12 correct with three options to choose from has odds of 1 in 259.

trial|hit|running totals|significance|odds
1|1|1|0.333333|1 in 3
2|1|2|0.111111|1 in 9
3|1|3|0.037037|1 in 27
4|0|3|0.111111|1 in 9
5|1|4|0.045267|1 in 22.0909090909091
6|1|5|0.017833|1 in 56.076923076923
7|1|6|0.006859|1 in 145.8
8|1|7|0.002591|1 in 385.941176470588
9|1|8|0.000965|1 in 1035.94736842105
10|1|9|0.000356|1 in 2811.85714285714
11|0|9|0.001372|1 in 728.999999999999
12|0|9|0.003856|1 in 259.366032210834

You should have stopped at 10, and that should have been prespecified. You should have used a randomizer. You shouldn't have had feedback. You should have had covers on the cups. Then we'd have had something really special. As it is all we've proved is that this didn't happen by chance, something we pretty much already knew.

EHocking

17th November 2008, 09:01 AM

For the MDC, the 1:1000 odds would be p < 0.001.

The probabilities given above are as follows (these are approximations):

p = 0.0039 is 1:250 while p = 0.024 is 1:40.Thanks - I was simply inverting the p figures and getting that - but wanted to check (that's why I revert to consulting the automeasure tables, saves everyone from my arithmetic errors).

Ashles

17th November 2008, 09:43 AM

Ashles:
I enjoy my ability yes, I enjoy the things that I perceive. However that does not make it have to be true ESP or imagination or anything else, I enjoy the observations what ever they are.
We need to firm up the language used here. At the moment what we can say is that you enjoy the experiences or perhaps perceptions.
The word 'observations' is only correct if we know that what you are experiencing is related to real information.
Until proper testing is done we don't know this, no matter how many times you assert this is so.

Of course I allow for error, I welcome it and would not be upset if it shows up in tests. You can interpret my emotions any way you want, all I can do is tell you how I feel. I still think that my emotions are not the subject of scrutiny here. And seriously, if I have this "superpower" it is one that I am used to and do not get really excited about. It's just a normal day in my life. And I've had it for many years now.
I think we have already established why I (and others) find this a little unconvincing.
Still, testing will clarify the issue.

I can not care about having ESP since I could find out that I do not have ESP. I do not want to get accustomed to any explanation one way or the other in case it'd be taken away from me after the test, also I do not want self-deception by believing it to be a "superpower" when it might not be after all.
And that is fair enough - that was what I was wondering about earlier.

I just have the observations and those will never be taken away. If a test adds incorrect observations to my so far 100% correct observations so be it. Nothing changes in my world.
Except that they would be revealed NOT to be 'observations', but something else - perhaps illusion, perhaps a visual processing issue, perhaps hallucination, perhaps imagination... If they are not reflecting reality the one thing they definitely would then NOT be is 'observations'.
I'm going to put your not understanding this down to a language issue.

It's hard to believe until I have presented some form of evidence. I would be very comfortable with negative test results, because I get to keep the ability, that is, the observations, in the exact same way as before, but the label would not be ESP. The label would be perhaps synesthesia, or imagination, or a creative mind, or skillful at reading external signs. Either way I get to keep the ability. Ability = the observations.
No. There would be no 'ability'. You may still have the same perceptions, but if they are not related to real information then are simply illusions, and having such illusions is not an 'ability' and there would not be any 'observations'.
I am pressing this point because I am not sure whether you are clear on the distinction either in terms of English definition or conceptually.

If you have the ability to percieve real information that others cannot then this is a paranormal ability and you are experiancing genuine 'observations' about objects/people.
If testing shows your visualisations are NOT related to real information then you have no 'ability' and there are no 'observations' to relate, only some form of illusion/misperception. That would not be unique or even particularly unusual.

Yes chemical identification tests would be much easier for test-arrangement purposes, and I am working on having those while I am waiting to have the official medical information test. If their results are compelling I can have an official chemical identification test as well. I don't know at this point, looks good so far!
As mentioned before those tests would really be useful and would limit anyone's ability to cast doubt on a positive result.

Please don't refer to my ability as possibly being an "unusual processing error". It leads to very useful scientific hypotheses that I can use in my career and it has lead to very many interesting accurate observations. I don't think of it as an error in any way.
But it may be. Not necessarily a negative or undesirable one, simple possibly part of your visual processing that does not work as it normally might.
I have a degree in Experimaental Psychology in which we studied a lot of perception and it was fascinating in how many ways the system can misinterpret information.

That you do not like the thought of considering the possibility it may be an 'error' is interesting in itself.
By 'error' I mean that some aspect of your processing (visual, memory etc.) may not be working in normal way. E.g. some people perceive family and friends as strangers or imposters. They see everything another person sees, but are perceiving the people in a conceptually different way.

Even if tests would present several incorrect claims of observations, I'd still not think negatively of it. If it is synesthesia, synesthesia is not considered a mental problem in any way, it is an acceptable form of perception that some people have and many more people have it to lesser extent.
Exactly.

It is a form of creative thinking.
Well, not really. Perhaps you could use it as such, but Creative Thinking is a conscious creative process. Synesthesia isn't in itself creative thinking anymore than colourblindness is.
It seems very important to you that whatever it is you are experiencing it in some way is a positive and sets you apart somehow. I'm sure you will disagree but that is my impression.
A very common aspect of such claims is the repeated emphasis that it is not unusual to you and you aren't much bothered about it, but it is inconceivable that whatever you are experiencing might be undesirable, or of no net positve benefit. A strange paradox.

Vivid imagination is among the explanations I will consider if I fail the test. Of course such is not a paranormal ability, it is among the null hypotheses.
Fair enough. We agree on that.

I am fully open to the possibility that I do not have a paranormal ability. But all I have so far to refer to are 100% accurate, very unusual and specific descriptions of things that can not be perceived by ordinary people. I do not take these as any form of conclusion of having or not having ESP or anything else, that is what the tests are for. Of course I will accept an explanation that I do not have a paranormal ability! That is why I am having the tests! I am not biased toward one explanation over the other! For the last time!!
Again we agree, but then you say the strange...
Because in either case I get to keep the ability, I get to keep the fascinating observations! Whether they turn out to be always true or not when tested!
This is where language is important.
If you said in that paragraph "In either case I get to keep the sensations" or "experiences" then we are in full agreement.

If you are uncomfortable with replacing the word 'ability' with either of those words then I would ask you why?

Yes, synesthesia translates one type of information into the others. It is how I can see inside the human body, taste sunshine, etc.
Again you mix in two very differnt types of example. "Tasting sunshine" is a good example of Synesthesia.
"Seeing inside the human body" is absolutely not. That is a paranormal ability.
"Believing I can see inside the human body" is neither Synesthesia or a paranormal ability.

I am just curious since I make interesting observations that are accurate.
Again the tests will hopefully help us to gather evidence as to whether this is the case.

What do my observations add to research? By doing what I described in an earlier post and call "vibrational algebra" I can suggest the new design of molecular structures of medicines for specific purposes.
Have you actually done this? I could invent phrases and claim it would be possible to do anything in the future.

What does "vibrational algebra" actually mean? What does it have to do with algebra? You have already stated you know little to no statistics at the moment, so I am wondering how you believe you could apply the complexities of molecular structure into a mathematical framework and create new medicines from this.
Do you have any evidence at all that you have a new system for creating brand new medicines other than the two words "vibrational algebra"?

But most importantly I will use this to design light structures that have specific and detailed effects on human tissue structure in medicine. It has not been done yet and without this "creatitivy" or "insight" (which ever it may be) this would be a complicated task to start from only using logic.
Again you may as well be saying "I will use magic" if you have no experimental or factual basis for saying such things.
If you have any details beyond this then please tell us - there are some very experienced scientists on these forums. Without any details it's just made up concepts.

I could tell you about the plot I have for a book I am writing:
Different time lines are like an infinite number of parallel 'strings' that are all next to each other but slightly out of synch. If you travel to other 'strings' then you are effectively travelling backwards or forwards in time, with the added benefit that it circumvents the usual 'killing your grandfather' paradox.
I could claim in the future this will allow me or others to travel in time as a result of concepts invented by my vivid imagination. I call it "planar time segmentation".
But without details it's just a throwaway concept in a story.

I don't want to sound glib, but I use this example to illustrate that you seem to have a strange concept of scientific research. Having an imagination can be extremely important in creating new concepts and experiments in science, but they must be married to experimentation, observation and replication.
Vague concepts and pseudo-science are ten-a-penny on the internet.

I can then apply my full scientific professionalism to these ideas and am at no risk of wasting time or resources on any of them.
To test the idea you will absolutely have to "waste time and resources" on them. No-one is going to accept untested ideas or materials.
You can't do science just by imagining it in your head.

I can also "feel" how chemicals respond to temperature, pressure, etc, by feeling the vibrational aspect of a chemical and applying in my mind the vibrational aspect of heat, or pressure, or anything else to it, and predict the outcome.
Again this is extremely testable.
However if I suggested we formulate testing around this claim I assume you would then say it isn't your strongest ability...
And yet ironically you still think these physical observation abilities are strong enough to create new medicines and create new fields of scientific testing!

So they are strong enough for you to use them however you wish to advance science and strong enough for you to use them as a scientist might use a thermometer or barometer... yet not strong enough to be tested as indicative of your ability?

This is another common theme of such claims - the more the claimant provides details of their ability, the more inconsistencies seem to appear.

When I said that the results of an experiment aren't to be taken personally, I mean that in some cases a scientist shouldn't apply their personal emotions on their scientific work. They shouldn't become emotionally angry, or sad, when experiments fail.
Again what do you mean by 'fail'?
It doesn't matter if a scientist becomes angry or emotional as aresult of an experiment, if he is honest in publishing the results and has carried out the experiment correctly then he has added some knowledge to the world.

It is part of professionalism. And in the same way I do not apply any emotions to this ability that I am now having tested. Because if I fail there is no reason to be upset since what I am most interested in is the actual, true results. To me a successful test is one that succeeds in finding out the truth. The test is not about "passing". The test is about "finding out what the ability is".
Again with the language issue.
It is actually about finding whether there is an ability.

Please don't argue since this is how I really feel about the situation. Stop being silly and arguing about how I feel about things. Let me be entitled to my emotions.
But you claim repeatedly you aren't bothered about having the ability or not?
Anyway your emotions are relevant if they are potentially causing you to become strongly disposed to confirmation bias.
Of course you are entitled to your emotions, but it is important to be aware of similar examples that we have seen before - the strength of emotional attachment to a perceived ability may prevent a claimant from accepting negative results.

All of your posts show an extremely strong attachment to your perceived ability to the point you have repeatedly stated that an entirely negative result would still not stop you perceiving this as an 'ability'. (Unless as mentioned earlier there is some confusion over the exact definition of words).

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.
It would seem fairly important if you wish to to actual experiments, especially at the conceptual level you described earlier.

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.
Why specifically a chemistry experiment? :confused:

I am here to get assistance in experimental design. I never intended to do all this on my own.
And this forum is a very useful resource for that.

That's a good point that I shouldn't be given transferrable time with subjects that I decline. Their 10 minutes should not be transferrable toward the others that I do diagnose. I am all for it. I really want a good reliable protocol and this is something that adds to that.
Okay that's great.
Please do not get the impression I wish to be negative about your experiment.
You appear genuine about wishing the test to go ahead and I am genuine in wanting the same and for the protocols to be as tight as possible.

One of the worst outcomes is that the experiment is carried out and you demonstrate positive results, but lack of tight controls in the test protocol allows room for questions about the validity of the result.
It is really in everyone's interest, especially yours, that the protocol allows as little room as possible for demonstrating anything other than your claimed ability.

The importance of this ability being demonstrated to be real cannot be overstated.

I'm hoping that there is plenty of pain that is not detectable. For instance we could have other practice people look at the persons before my test, for 10 (or more) minutes and try to find their pain to reduce this concern.
That's a great idea as a control - someone else with no claimed ability attempting to discern the ailments using simple observation.

I could probably detect slighter ailments such as missing fingers etc but I am suggesting ailments that are easier for me so that there will be fewer passed subjects. Provided that all ailments and people provided for the test are undetectable by ordinary means.
Agreed. It genuinely sounds like you are willing to work with IIG and at this point it does look like the test will go ahead.

Good luck.

shuttlt

17th November 2008, 09:51 AM

Anita,

It doesn't really relate to your current testing, but a story occurred to me that might have some relationship with your more general sense of having validated your powers.

A neighbor of mine a few years ago was into Brain Gym etc... she'd been on a course and was going to start teaching it in schools. She needed someone to practice on, and I was too nice to say no. She got me to touch my nose which each index finger, stand with my arms outstretched, I think drinking water was involved at some point. She would ask me questions and based on the stiffness/resistance of my arms she would know whether I was telling the truth/whether something was positive or negative/blah blah blah. The thing was, I was doing all of it (stiffening/relaxing my arm) because I was too polite/embarrassed to tell her to her face that what she was doing didn't work, and was a bunch of crap.

Maybe Brain Gym does work, on people less cynical and closed minded than me, but that wasn’t the point of the story. You may have powers, you may not, but don’t necessarily trust people to tell you honestly whether you ‘guessed’ right or not. People will lie to you for stupid reasons.

All the best with your testing...

Beth

17th November 2008, 10:19 AM

Thanks - I was simply inverting the p figures and getting that - but wanted to check (that's why I revert to consulting the automeasure tables, saves everyone from my arithmetic errors).

Well, your instinct that it wasn't the proper way to do it was correct. It's not. However, in this situation, it provides a close approximation.
:)

Miss_Kitt

17th November 2008, 01:25 PM

I am now prepared to consider VFF a genuinely self-deceived person. I am seeing enough of a pattern of: Shrugging off negative results ("I am 100% correct" despite in her own testing having failures); self-contradictory statements ("Apparently the paper was blocking..." versus detection inside a sealed, in-the-store cereal box); changing the story to fit the current needs ("when I found the H. pylori in a relative" -- per the original post, she used "vibrational algebra" to conclude that calcium carbonate might be a good treatment for H. pylori); and leaving out pertinent information (not mentioning until deep into the experiment description posts that she DISCARDED any attempt where she didn't get a feeling and had the cups reshuffled for another trial) to consider that she is on some level not trying to get a realistic trial.

What is particularly troubling for me is that she combines this with assertions that she is very scientific and going to get a double degree in scientific fields--yet she will not apply the basic principles of eliminating unconscious bias to these very preliminary tests.

The previously not-mentioned do-overs for "I don't get anything" trials is a big issue. Given that we don't know how many times these 'extra' set-ups occurred, how can we possibly do any kind of statistical analysis? If it's an elaborate game of subconscious "Rock, Paper, Scissors," doesn't the presence of these additional shuffles totally alter the hit occurrance? That is, if she doesn't get a 'read', she requests a new set-up.

The refusal to use a die to randomize is very concerning. The unwillingness to concede that there is not yet evidence of an "ability", only of believed-in perceptions has actually crossed over into irritating for me.

I promise to return to this post later tonight and cite the posts where I have quoted or paraphrased, but I have to get another chapter finished for class now.

Best wishes.

Gord_in_Toronto

17th November 2008, 03:35 PM

Yep. The previous page has a decent summary and the start of several analyses. If VFF can get similar results with a test that has much better controls, it would definitely be worth a second (and third) look.

So. After scrolling through all the posts between yours and this one, I can reasonably gather that nothing of any importance has been accomplished? Thank you. :duck:

I'll check back later. :D

Hokulele

17th November 2008, 07:40 PM

So. After scrolling through all the posts between yours and this one, I can reasonably gather that nothing of any importance has been accomplished? Thank you. :duck:

I'll check back later. :D

Yeah, that last set of tests didn't really exemplify "better controls".

*Sigh*

Back to waiting.

VisionFromFeeling

18th November 2008, 11:04 AM

JWideman:
As has been brought up before, you're seeing stuff and being told what ailment the person has, and assuming a relationship. And again, the lactobacillus is the perfect example. If you were seeing lactobacillus where it was present, you'd never see it where it wasn't, right? But you did in that cereal test. You were sure enough you saw it that you don't believe you were guessing. And you were wrong. So the logical conclusion is that what you saw was not lactobacillus. That you saw the same phenomenon with your friend as with the cereal is what we call coincidence.
I understand and fully embrace the possibility that I could be capable of making an observation, and then after the observation finding out what the ailment is, and assuming that what I observed fits with the ailment. This would especially be possible for observations that are vague, and that leave a lot of room for filling out the details. Obviously I have done this to certain extent, for instance in my observation that "there is something very unusual, bright, organic, and living, inside the cereal box", when I read the box and found out that there is Lactobacillus in the cereal, I made the assumption that what I observed was Lactobacillus in absence of any other more likely explanation. So this is an example of where I do make the connection after finding out what it was. But most of my perceptions are more specific than vague.

I use this to build a growing library of references. For instance, in the chemistry lab there might be a container of a pure compound such as Calcium Carbonate. I make the observation of being under the impression of feeling what that chemical feels like. I can then read the label of the container before, during, or after making my observation to learn the name associated to the feeling. At later dates when I come across the same or a similar feeling I can say that it feels like Calcium Carbonate. This is however a learning method.

When I make claims of having made observations where I identified something, there should be no label. When I claim to be using the ability, I should be using my library of references to give the name of what I feel. The case in which I identified Lactobacillus in the cereal box would be an example of a learning experience. Not of an identification experience.

As an example of an identification experience, when I saw a co-worker and detected reproductive cysts there was no label or external means of detecting this that I know of and it was a possible example of an identification experience.

When I identified Lactobacillus in the friend's stomach it was the case of almost an identification experience. I did not remember my reference of Lactobacillus but I did identify "organic, living, white, bright, friendly, ingested intentionally as opposed to having appeared naturally, bacteria, in the stomach".

Yes I do make incorrect answers during the cereal tests. I realize that it will sound like a bunch of excuses, since that is what they are, but toward what becomes the end of a chemical identification test I am uncomfortable and unable to make observations with the ability yet I push myself to try to reach a certain total number of trials. And sometimes I do not spend enough time building up the perception of the target before reporting an answer. Now that I've found some of my excuses I can stop what causes them in future tests, by stopping the test when I am tired rather than continuing to make observations and then blaming it on fatigue when they are incorrect, and by rather than rushing, not reporting an answer until I have worked on it long enough to be certain. I appreciate finding out what my excuses are for incorrect answers so that I can improve on my technique and eliminate any excuses in upcoming tests as well as find out just how well my ability can do. These initial cereal tests are all about finding out first of all how my ability can be used on a chemical identification test, and secondly how to design the test protocol.

The test protocol is at a very primitive stage right now and is far from acceptable to scientific standards or even to my own standards. The results of the two first cereal tests do not conclude anything, not for or against an ability. They are just a very early beginning.

Actually, even though it does sound like an excuse, when I see Lactobacillus, it has so far always been correct. But when I push myself to answer when I do not see it, it has a 2/3 chance of being incorrect and I make incorrect answers and it concerns cases where I did not feel or see it. This sounds like nonsense I know, but later on on a real test there will be no excuses and I will learn to only make an answer when I actually claim that I saw it. And no excuses will be valid.

The point of all of this is not that I could claim to have an ability, but that I have reasons to want to have a test of scientific standard to find out if there is an ability or not. I have been unable to dismiss a possible ability when I have checked the accuracy of the observations. The accuracy of past observations is not evidence. It simply explains why I am compelled to have a test. Oh well, lots and lots of talk and no evidence, but the tests are on their way so we all have to be patient. I do appreciate the comments though.

Madalch:
Anita- can you see the auras of chemicals through paper?

If I were to send you a letter which contained a piece of cardboard, upon which I had dripped solutions containing simple chemicals such as sodium chloride, potassium bromide, lithium sulphate, etc, would you be able to tell me which drops were which without opening the envelope?
I don't know until I try this. It is not among my experiences since usually papers aren't stained with unusual chemicals in this way. It is something I can try, and if I find out that it is something I am able to do I will let you know and you can send me a sample.

Old man:
VFF, you’re still operating under the assumption that you have a ‘real’ ability. That remains to be tested properly. Are you prepared to accept that your “100% accuracy” may be due to confirmation bias? Everyone believes that his memory is good. No one’s is.

I am very open to finding out that I do not have a paranormal ability. If I make a statistically significant number of incorrect answers that indicate no paranormal ability, then I will gladly accept it. I am just curious because I have made some very interesting accurate observations. I realize that when I check my accuracy I often truly expect to be wrong but just haven't been. I accept the possibility of confirmation bias although it does not appear to be relevant in my case. I have tried to dismiss my observations. I apologize if that doesn't sound credible, so let's just leave it at that and see what test results suggest.

For a test at home whose purpose was to try different test procedures and to assess the ability on Lactobacillus detection I believe the test was done under acceptable standards for this humble and unofficial purpose.

Well these first tests were intended just to try things out and for that humble purpose it was ok, and they accomplished that task well. For an official test it was not ok.

And I conclude that you can still not dismiss the possibility of having not done a well blinded test. When will you do that?

Perhaps I should not have posted the first two cereal tests? I already know that they were not done under proper conditions, I am still working on that. Upcoming tests will be done under more proper procedures.

I presume from the above description that you did not wet the non-supplemented cereal. If so, poor protocol.
Then let's just say that I was working on detecting the one sample of "wet bacterial supplement". I don't see how this would weaken a protocol?

I was very pleased to find an easier method for identification (to search for the supplement cup rather than first eliminate the wrong ones one by one).
This seems strange to me. If I’m looking for gray marbles mixed in with white ones, I have to look at them all, anyway. How can you find the supplement cup if you don’t assess all of the cups?

If you have two cups with a gray marble and one cup with a white marble and you can only look at one cup at a time, and you claim to be able to sense their color. You can either work on detecting the gray marbles one at a time to eliminate those and deduce which one remains and is the white one, and then look at the white one to verify that you think it is the white one. Or, you could work on detecting the white marble, and once you find it, you can verify that you think it is the white one, and do not need to look into the others unless you choose to, and that way it should not matter how many gray ones are around it the work will be almost the same. So it is much easier. This way I am hoping that I can increase the total number of cups because I don't have to exhaust myself by finding all the wrong ones first and can go straight to the right one. A larger total number of cups makes the test statistically more interesting for test purposes.

The way I do this is I sense the entire row of cups searching for a specific vibrational information, and when there is a match it is highlighted. I then look closer at that cup to verify that it is what I searched for, and do this one by one. By searching for the white light rather than the dark, I can detect the one target cup instead of the other ones.

But was it a fair method (i.e. not biased)?
The cereal test protocol so far is absolutely not acceptable as an official test protocol and there are many improvements to be made on it. I don't know what you mean by biased? Please explain, I'm sure it's a good question if only I knew what it is asking about.

EHocking:
Thanks for the honest reporting.
You can rely on me reporting the cereal test results no matter what they are.

You'd probably need better results than any of the above to make any of those protocols workable for the MDC. My opinion is that Procedure 5 wouldn't cut the mustard due to the wetting process and the uncovered samples (at the very least).

Well the results are fine if they are 9 of 10 but we simply need more trials. Yes definitely the procedure as of now is far from acceptable, it will undergo several steps of improvements.

I will continue to wet the bacteria since it seems to activate them and brighten their radiance. If I am unable to detect the light from covered samples it does not conclude no paranormal ability. Many weak radiations are blocked by paper. Hopefully the containers could be arranged so that even without covers, no differences among them could be detected through ordinary means. I will investigate other cover materials and perhaps find one that is acceptable for tests as well as that lets through the information that I claim to need for detection.

Thanks for that Beth.
For the probability challenged amongst us, could you put the above in the context of odds normally bandied about for MDC challenges, i.e. 1:1,000?
I will definitely aim toward the 1 in 1,000,000 results. And we really can't conclude much on just a total of 10 or 12 trials. I am preparing to have a total of at least 50 trials, and if I still get 9 out of 10 correct then that would be a passing score.

Soapy Sam:
I agree that attempts at deception would be immoral. I do not agree they are a waste of time. Many people make a lot of money deceiving others. I would hate to see this forum being used in such a scam.

Only time will reveal that I am not one of such persons. And we are here to find out whether I have a paranormal ability or not. There is no deliberate lie or deception going on.

I make no assumptions about your character and I certainly am not attacking you. I am responding to your posts in a thread you started on an internet forum. I think you are seriously mistaken in your conclusions. I expect testing to demonstrate this. I predict you will have difficulty accepting that evidence when the time comes- just as I have difficulty accepting your claims as factual.
I can not claim to know whether I have a paranormal ability or not. All I can claim is that so far the observations have had good accuracy and that there are no grounds for dismissing the possibility of an ability yet.

alfaniner:
I absolutely love your little blue man.

You need to set the number of trials and proceed with them once you start the test. You don't get to stop the test just because you fail the first time or two.

Do an unblinded test first, just to make sure your "powers are working." Then proceed with the properly double-blinded test. Do exactly the same number of trials in each, and don't stop until that number is reached.

I would prefer to do as many trials as I can, so that this number of trials may be different for different tests depending on how many I can do at that time. When I become tired and realize that I am unable to sense the bacteria I can state this and have a break and continue later on. Once I apply this, the downward trend that was seen in both cereal tests might not appear again.

If a test protocol insists that I have a set total number of trials to do, then I would suggest 10.

Beth:
Thanks for posting your results. Yes, I think your experiments are going well and continuing to indicate that you have some unknown sensing of what is in the cups. Your experiments are not yet up to the standards that would allow others to conclude that something odd is indeed occurring. That's okay. It can take a while to work out a protocol that both meets your needs in regard to what you are capable of sensing and is also appropriately blinded to all potential sources of information leakage via normal channels. I think you're doing great!

I perceive the bacteria as having a bright white light and a characteristic feeling to them, and perceive the plain cereal as having a dark flat light. Statistics will indicate whether this leads to correct answers. The testing procedure must be improved on. I am happy to continue with the cereal tests and so far they have not allowed me to dismiss the reasons to proceed with the tests.

I did experience during the second cereal test some observations that were so absolutely compelling to me to be true that I decided right there and then that if even one of these were to be incorrect then that would give me serious doubt in my ability and I would consider not continuing with a cereal test. Well, whether it was that 1 in 3 chance or some flaw in the protocol or an actual ability, the observations were correct, so all I can conclude is to continue testing.

The water being added making a difference is a good start on figuring out what exactly and how you are sensing the difference. What effect does water have on the bacteria? Do you know? I afraid I don't, but that should provide a clue to what you are sensing.
I would guess that the warm water gives the bacteria a liquid environment that they can move in and the warmth might give them some energy. The Lactobacillus I saw in the stomach was very active, and less so but somewhat active in room-temperature cereal, and is least active in refrigerated yoghurt, so I assumed that giving them some warmth would activate them. In my vision of them they started crawling and moving in the water, and their vibrational information became much more detectable.

Moochie:
I will say that you do spin a good yarn, Anita, but yarn is all I see it as, enough yarn to make a nice sweater for the coming northern winter. Nay, enough yarn to outfit all members of the JREF!

What am I supposed to do at this very point? I have done my part in the test arrangements with the IIG and now it's their turn. I am arranging cereal tests every week and continue to improve on the protocol. I am posting the results here. I describe the ability and my observations and I assure that I am honest. I answer everyone's questions. If you are impatient then don't turn that against me, I am impatient too! And I am working as fast as I can!

Oh, so you won't be attempting the MDC, then?

I have contacted the IIG to test my ability on medical information. I did not begin arranging a test with the JREF because of their requirements on the applicants, for instance I do not have the required media presence. The cereal tests are going quite nicely and if I am successful I will definitely apply for the MDC. I know it sounds unbelievable but I don't favor one testing organization over the other based on how much they would pay if I passed the test. Practical reasons determine which one is more convenient for me. I am not money-oriented in this, I just want a test of scientific standard. Surely JREF will provide that, but, their pre-reqs are harder.

No I am not a guesser. When I claim to sense, feel or see something with the ability, I do so after having been under the impression that I actually sensed something. So I do not guess at random (but I did a few times on the cereal tests to try to get it over with, and that won't be done from now on at all).

I agree. But you should stop pulling my leg, also.
Well, my correspondence with all of you does not contain any deliberate lies, exaggeration, or deception. I am being as honest as I can. Let's just see what the test results say. :duck::duck:

VisionFromFeeling

18th November 2008, 12:53 PM

Ocelot:
You've experimented with covering the cups with paper, this may have failed. I'm quite concerned about that. You've suggested that this may be because paper blocks some types of low energy radiation. Indeed it does. Light is one of the types of radiation that is severely attenuated by a sheet of paper. Although you've positioned yourself so that you can't see the inside rim of the cup this doesn't completely eliminate the possibility that you're picking up the cereal's influence on ambient light. If the cups are on top of a grill then I assume that they're close to a wall. That would make ambient light a concern.

Why would I sense Lactobacillus through its plastic wrapping and cereal box but not through a piece of paper? I will try using different types of covers again and also investigate whether a test could be designed in such a way to allow no covers. I am not trying to design any tricks into my test protocol because I know very well that James Randi would find them all. I am trying to find the flaws myself, and am grateful that the Forum can point them out too.

You've suggested that your difficulties in this run might equally have been because of the larger number of potential targets, that would seem to be supported your feedback with procedure 2.
A total of three cups should be acceptable for a test in case my ability were to become overwhelmed by more than that. However now that I discovered the better method, that is, to find the target rather than to first find the plain cereal ones one by one, I may be able to add to a total of four, and maybe five, or even more, cups without it affecting my confidence. And that would be wonderful. If I learn a method that works in spite of the number of cups, then that would benefit the test.

I also note that this first trial was before you hit upon the idea of wetting the active cereal. With regard to wetting the active cereal it might be best to wet all cereals to ensure that it is the bacillus that you're detecting rather than the moisture. That said, skeptics have a time honoured tradition of testing people who think they can detect water under unusual circumstances so that might equally be a paranormal claim. Wet it if that works for you, if it doesn't then you've got a "water dowsing" protocol, and couple of pillocks who think that invalidates your test. Their opinion doens't matter if this works out for you then you should be able to apply for the JREF on the basis of being able to tell wet lactobacillus from empty cups, cups with dry cereal, or cups with wet cereal, so long as there's no outward way of telling you're good for the million. However that's just my opinion which doesn't matter either the JREF would have the final say.
I can wet all cereals if that is required, but I do prefer the idea that I detect "wet lactobacillus". So far I do not use empty cups on the test for two reasons: one being that the cups should have similar weight and contents to each other so that this could not take part in detection. Another is that the plain cereal in my perception of it has a dark, flat light, and the difference between the bright bacterial light and the dark plain cereal light is greater than the difference between the bright bacterial light and an empty cup.

However back to that paper. I do think that a propperly controlled challenge should involve covers. It'd be strange if paper should have such an effect as you first reported noticing your sensitivity to this bacillus when it was obscured within a friends' stomach and later through the cardboard of a cereal box. Given your other attempts to improve your sensitivity, i.e. reducing to three cups and wetting the cereal it might be worth revisiting this issue and seeing if you can try again with the paper in place when it's just three cups and the target cereal is moist. If not then perhaps the cup can be elevated in a location where ambient light would be less of a concern – i.e not near a wall.

I am also curious about why I sense it in a cereal box and in the stomach but not through a paper post-it cover. It might sound strange but I find that the vibrational information of the things that I detect interacts with the vibrational information of things in its surrounding. Things that have been somewhere a long time become settled and their vibrational informations blend. That is how people claim that they can pick up an object and "feel" where it has been because it somehow "picks up" vibrations from its surroundings. Oh well it is not my claim to be able to sense where things have been. When something is placed into a new container its vibrational information has not settled. Kind of like throwing something into water, it takes a little while for the surface of the water to settle. This sounds like absolute and total woo and pseudoscience but it is part of how I theorize about this.

Thank you for your very in depth analysis of the effects of feedback and on unintentional patterns of randomization. I am glad you said earlier that you enjoy statistical analysis because I'd feel guilty about letting you do all this work otherwise.

I was not aware of reading any kind of patterns in the placement of the cups, but of course one would not be aware. One thing that suggests to me that I might not be using patterns is that at times when for some reason I would start to think that "the cup is to the right", or "the cup won't be to the left", or any other kind of ideas or thoughts that made me think of where it was, thoughts that were not based on the ability, I felt this distracting rather than helpful. Had I been guessing I would have definitely gone by these "thought hunches". They were distracting me and I requested a re-shuffle. A re-shuffle would not necessarily switch the placement in the row of any particular cup but would move all cups even if just to turn them a bit. A re-shuffle allowed me to let go of what ever beliefs I had before so that I could focus on "feeling" and "seeing". In my perception I was not using thoughts or logic to make my conclusions. This is my statement of how it was and is not proof of anything.

Throughout procedure 5 of the second cereal test I did not experience any trend of gradually "getting better" as would indicate the learning of a pattern or catching on to how to outsmart the test somehow. I did notice a decline in the performance toward the end due to fatigue.

From now on I will stop the test when I can not continue. That way I expect the downward trend to not appear toward the end in future tests. Would I simply be "quitting when I'm at the top" then? No, because I am compelled to make as many trials as I can because I want at least 50 before there are plenty enough for some type of statistical conclusion (which of course does not mean that the test was done under proper standards or to make a conclusion on having an ability).

The good thing is that I know when I am tired. Another good thing is that I can state my confidence level in an answer before I make the answer and before I receive the feedback on it. That way my confidence levels can be also recorded. One valuable use of this is that if I claim to be absolutely certain of where it is and it isn't there, then I could start to doubt the ability. I applied this last time but it didn't lead to dismissal.

There were no warm-ups before I had the test. I reported exactly every trial that I had and there were none done before whose results would have been discarded. I will not discard any result of any kind because that would not be helpful toward a workable testing protocol and a statistical understanding of what the ability might be.

The interesting thing is that I noted fatigue before making the incorrect answers at the end and before learning that they were incorrect. In future protocols I will have to stop when I am tired and no excuses of fatigue can be made. When I claim to see something, I will claim to see it without fatigue, and if it is incorrect, I can accept that I was wrong, not tired.

No my subconscious did not trigger fatigue when I wasn't doing well. I had 9 out of 10 and was doing very well, but then I got tired, and only at that did I get them wrong.

We need a much larger total number of trials.

The sequence used in the cereal tests will be recorded by the assistant from now on and will be randomly generated with the use of a die.

It should have been our last chance as there's no really good reason for you to be continuing what is essentially a game of rock – paper – scissors. However the fact that you've given in to the temptation for immediate feedback and somehow found it difficult to obtain a proper randomizer can be construed as circumstantial evidence that your subconscious knows that this is how it's playing its games and is resisting changes to a favourable set-up. As such it would be hardly surprising that you've not presented the sequence to be investigated for any hidden structure.

I will be continuing with the cereal tests. The total number of cups will be increased if possible. If I feel fatigue I will stop. There will be a larger total number of trials. I will not be giving in to the temptation of immediate feedback from now on (as it should be just as much fun to find out the right answers at the end as it is during the test). Yes it was difficult to obtain a proper randomizer but for the next test there will be a die. I was not trying to avoid a randomizer! I wanted one badly but we didn't have one in the house! Don't make assumptions that I'd be avoiding proper testing procedures. I have only started the tests and am very excited to improve the test procedures. I have no resistance to proper conditions. I did not have the sequence, so how could I present it? Next time we will have the sequence!:duck:

Perhaps the cups could be placed inside a shoebox? Do you think that would work with your ability?

A shoebox is a good idea and will be tested later on.
It's of far greater concern to me that you've resisted using random numbers, are still getting immediate feedback and aren't publishing the actual sequences of target locations and predictions.

I have never resisted using a real random generator! We just didn't have one! I couldn't publish the sequence because we didn't record it! Next time I will!

Also please please please, strictly predifine the test conditions and the number of trials then stick to that even if you feel things aren't going well. By all means limit yourself to ten attempts in a session to avoid the fatigue and nausea you experience but specify this in advance. Otherwsie selection bias will invalidate your test.

I prefer to be allowed to stop once I don't feel well, and at that point I make no more answers. That way I can not make any excuses on fatigue after making a failed observation. This way I might do ten trials in a row, or more trials sometimes, but always as many as I can. I will no longer try to make trials when my ability is hindered but am glad that I assessed what happens when I do. I can not say how many trials I can do every time, if I had to specify I'd say ten is a good number.

Even without these other concerns it could look as if all you were doing was tinkering with the protocol each time you failed waiting for a run of luck then quitting one that lucky streak had expired.

I did try different test procedures and I did tinker with them when they did not work. That way I found one I was comfortable with and used it until I could no longer. I did not stop after having failed twice because I had failed twice. I stopped because I could not continue. The excuse of fatigue will not appear again since I will stop when I get tired from now on.

Thank you for the statistical analyses.

Pup

18th November 2008, 02:11 PM

I think we need a food chemist to weigh in here. It's my understanding that yes, lactobacillus does become more active when wetted, and when active, produces lactic acid which produces a characteristic odor most people recognize as the smell of sour cream or sour milk (not spoiled milk). Someone with synesthesia might describe it differently.

It would be difficult to tell one cup from another by odor alone, if the cups are close together and the tester is at a distance. However, if I'm correct, I'd look toward tightening the protocol by eliminating any chance of odor being detected from the cereal.

Also, a common way that people fool themselves into believing that they have paranormal abilities is to convince themselves--after they know they're wrong--that they weren't sure of the answer so the wrong answer wasn't really a good test.

Since you say you can tell when you're absolutely certain and when you're guessing or uncertain or might be wrong, I'd suggest trying some tests where you only give an answer when you're absolutely certain, and never give an answer otherwise, even if it means giving no answer at all, as a test to prove to yourself that you really can predict when you're certain, and when you're certain, you really do get 100% correct.

VisionFromFeeling

18th November 2008, 02:34 PM

Ashles:
I'm going to put your not understanding this down to a language issue.

Correct, it is a matter of how we define words. I will from now on refer to what I perceive with my ability as "perceptions", and "observations" will only refer to perceptions that have each been proven to be an accurate and true depiction of the real world.

No. There would be no 'ability'. You may still have the same perceptions, but if they are not related to real information then are simply illusions, and having such illusions is not an 'ability' and there would not be any 'observations'.
Another language issue. I referred to "ability" as having the perceptions. Thank you for clearing out what our conflict was.

I have a degree in Experimental Psychology in which we studied a lot of perception and it was fascinating in how many ways the system can misinterpret information.

I am very glad to have someone with your insight here.

That you do not like the thought of considering the possibility it may be an 'error' is interesting in itself.

I am open to the conclusion that the perceptions are not accurate observations. But based on past experiences of doing my best to check the accuracy of my perceptions, the accuracy has been compelling and at this point I have not come across any specific thing that would suggest no ability. It does not mean that I am not open to the possibility.

It seems very important to you that whatever it is you are experiencing it in some way is a positive and sets you apart somehow. A very common aspect of such claims is the repeated emphasis that it is not unusual to you and you aren't much bothered about it, but it is inconceivable that whatever you are experiencing might be undesirable, or of no net positve benefit. A strange paradox.

Not at all. My perceptions are interesting to me and are positive in the same way as I appreciate my vision, hearing, and other senses of awareness. It is not unusual to me. I am not trying to be special. I really don't want to argue about how I feel about myself or my perceptions, I have been fully honest when I describe how I feel and how I feel is not the object of discussion here anyway.

This is where language is important.
If you said in that paragraph "In either case I get to keep the sensations" or "experiences" then we are in full agreement.

Exactly. Whether I pass or fail the test, in either case I get to keep the perceptions and experiences, because it is the experiences that I enjoy. Not some premature and unfounded belief that I'd have a paranormal ability, since that is just a label and what ever label it gets I get to keep the very same perception.

If you are uncomfortable with replacing the word 'ability' with either of those words then I would ask you why?

I am not uncomfortable replacing words and have in fact already done so.

What does "vibrational algebra" actually mean? What does it have to do with algebra? You have already stated you know little to no statistics at the moment, so I am wondering how you believe you could apply the complexities of molecular structure into a mathematical framework and create new medicines from this. Do you have any evidence at all that you have a new system for creating brand new medicines other than the two words "vibrational algebra"?

Vibrational algebra is when I combine in my mind the individual vibrational aspects that I perceive of different things. I experience these merging and interacting to yield a resulting vibrational aspect which I can then translate into corresponding real-world objects. It works just like algebra, I can add or subtract vibrational aspects in my mind. I have not applied this in a scientific setting yet but will apply it heavily later on in my career. I even intend to try to build an instrument that calculates with vibrational information.

Again you may as well be saying "I will use magic" if you have no experimental or factual basis for saying such things.

Exactly. I just wanted to describe how I perceive what is happening.

You can't do science just by imagining it in your head.

The imagination in the head is usually the starting point of most scientific work.

However if I suggested we formulate testing around this claim I assume you would then say it isn't your strongest ability...

I only recently begun testing my perceptions. I did not know whether my ability would be strong enough on bacteria detection to perform with high enough frequency of observations to be useful for a test, but now that I am testing it I am more confident.

Again what do you mean by 'fail'?
A failed experiment such as if a flask with the sample is accidentally knocked over and the test is ruined, should not be taken personally by the scientist. And on the other hand when a null hypothesis is verified for instance that I do not have a paranormal ability, then that represents another type of "failed" experiment and is also not to be taken personally or emotionally.

But you claim repeatedly you aren't bothered about having the ability or not? Anyway your emotions are relevant if they are potentially causing you to become strongly disposed to confirmation bias.

I would not be bothered to find out that I do not have a paranormal ability. To this date I have not been able to dismiss the possibility of having a paranormal ability. I am working on designing a cereal test that does not allow confirmation bias. I would absolutely accept negative results. There just haven't been any yet.

All of your posts show an extremely strong attachment to your perceived ability to the point you have repeatedly stated that an entirely negative result would still not stop you perceiving this as an 'ability'. (Unless as mentioned earlier there is some confusion over the exact definition of words).

Yes language problems. My perceptions remain even if I fail the test, and I would continue to have the perceptions. That is what I meant. Whether it receives a label of ESP or synesthesia or some other unknown and non-paranormal explanation I am happy either way because I get to keep the perceptions. I am happy about keeping my perceptions for the same reason that a person who goes to have their eyesight tested is happy to know that even after the test they get to go home with their eyesight not taken away from them. I get to keep it just like it is today. Nothing will be added to the perceptions, and nothing removed. It is the label I am looking for.

Why specifically a chemistry experiment?
Because most of my statistical skills and experiences are in the field of chemistry.

One of the worst outcomes is that the experiment is carried out and you demonstrate positive results, but lack of tight controls in the test protocol allows room for questions about the validity of the result.

I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact I am prepared to critique my tests after I have had them, especially if I receive a passing score. If I pass the IIG test I will have to look very carefully at how it was conducted and will try to find any sources of error. This is not consistent to most claimants who would take the money and run but it is honestly how I feel about this. In fact I have stated to the IIG that a condition for the test protocol must be outlined that if during or after the test some unexpected source of error was identified then we can cancel the test. If you assume that I really want a reliable test result then this should make sense. It is like if you go to a doctor to find out whether you have a certain disease, even though you hope you are well you want to be sure that the diagnose is reliable. You wouldn't want to go home being diagnosed as well and having to worry whether maybe after all they missed it and gave you the wrong diagnose. You'd go back to have another more reliable test.

VisionFromFeeling

18th November 2008, 03:17 PM

shuttIt:
It doesn't really relate to your current testing, but a story occurred to me that might have some relationship with your more general sense of having validated your powers.

I can't say that I have validated my powers. But I can say that I have failed to dismiss the possibility of having powers. I have done my best to check the accuracy of my perceptions and failed to find a single incorrect result. I have done two draft-quality cereal tests and they give the conclusion that I have failed to dismiss the possibility of having the ability.

I was actually at great risk several times, at a 2 in 3 risk if guessing, to encounter a situation in the cereal test where I would have admitted that there is no power at all. I made some observations that I was so confident in that I decided there and then that if they are incorrect then I have no ability at all. Turns out they were correct, but, for what ever reason whether due to the 1 in 3 chance of guessing, or some unintentional error such as subtly distinguishable cups or a real ability, but at least I have failed to dismiss the hypothesis, but have not proven the hypothesis either.

You may have powers, you may not, but don't necessarily trust people to tell you honestly whether you 'guessed' right or not. People will lie to you for stupid reasons.

Yes this is a concern with the IIG protocol that what if people aren't telling the truth for some reason? Although they will be stating their health problems before the test. A cereal test doesn't have this kind of issues.

Miss Kitt:
I am now prepared to consider VFF a genuinely self-deceived person. I am seeing enough of a pattern of: Shrugging off negative results ("I am 100% correct" despite in her own testing having failures); self-contradictory statements ("Apparently the paper was blocking..." versus detection inside a sealed, in-the-store cereal box); changing the story to fit the current needs ("when I found the H. pylori in a relative" -- per the original post, she used "vibrational algebra" to conclude that calcium carbonate might be a good treatment for H. pylori); and leaving out pertinent information (not mentioning until deep into the experiment description posts that she DISCARDED any attempt where she didn't get a feeling and had the cups reshuffled for another trial) to consider that she is on some level not trying to get a realistic trial.

It sounds like a silly excuse but during the cereal tests I was pushing myself to answer even when I did not perceive the bacteria. This will not be done on later tests. I am also baffled by how a paper post-it could block the light whereas a plastic package and cereal box didn't. In the second session of cereal tests I tried many different variations of procedures and discarded procedures that did not work with me, yet I did post all of these results for you as well and I do not discard any answer that I make whether it is in my favor or not. Once I found procedure 5 I continued with it until I could continue no longer.

The re-shuffle was mentioned under the "comments" section of the post that posted the results of that cereal test. That information was definitely not left out, although it might have been in the wrong section and I apologize for that. There was no intention of hiding the re-shuffle.

I requested a re-shuffle when for any reason I had a thought of where the target should be, and this could account for having unintentionally read some sort of pattern in the assistant's randomizing, such as "it was to the right previously so it can't be to the right again". I demanded a re-shuffle so that I could eliminate any such assumptions. In this way I was trying to ensure that what my answers are, are answers based on what I believe I perceive, so that the test is testing for my perceptions rather than my thoughts since thoughts are not a paranormal ability.

The previously not-mentioned do-overs for "I don't get anything" trials is a big issue. Given that we don't know how many times these 'extra' set-ups occurred, how can we possibly do any kind of statistical analysis? If it's an elaborate game of subconscious "Rock, Paper, Scissors," doesn't the presence of these additional shuffles totally alter the hit occurrance? That is, if she doesn't get a 'read', she requests a new set-up.

I was concerned that the re-shuffles could interfere with the statistics but was not sure and I'm glad to get some comments on it. If re-shuffles are not to be allowed, then they will not be done. I am really trying to design a good protocol, but I do apologize for the crude methods up to date. If we ever arrive at an official JREF test then it will be done to acceptable standards that we can all be happy with.

The refusal to use a die to randomize is very concerning. The unwillingness to concede that there is not yet evidence of an "ability", only of believed-in perceptions has actually crossed over into irritating for me.

What is concerning to me is that you assume that there is a refusal to use a die. I looked all over the house, I had assumed that we had a die and so I did not buy one, but to my surprise we didn't have one so we couldn't use one! What has crossed over into irritation for me is that you say that there is an unwillingness to concede that there is not yet evidence of an ability, when I have stated over and over again that these test results can not conclude an actual ability. Thanks though.

Gord in Toronto:
So. After scrolling through all the posts between yours and this one, I can reasonably gather that nothing of any importance has been accomplished? Thank you.
That's right. Nothing of importance in terms of real evidence for or against. I am testing different cereal test procedures and publishing their results, so there is some progress of moving toward an acceptable test protocol. And so far I have not been able to dismiss the possibility of a real ability.

VisionFromFeeling

18th November 2008, 03:28 PM

Pup:
lactobacillus does become more active when wetted, and when active, produces lactic acid which produces a characteristic odor most people recognize as the smell of sour cream or sour milk (not spoiled milk).
Too bad. Hopefully my sense of smell isn't quite that good because that would complicate things.

Since you say you can tell when you're absolutely certain and when you're guessing or uncertain or might be wrong, I'd suggest trying some tests where you only give an answer when you're absolutely certain, and never give an answer otherwise, even if it means giving no answer at all, as a test to prove to yourself that you really can predict when you're certain, and when you're certain, you really do get 100% correct.
Exactly that will be applied in upcoming tests.

Ashles

18th November 2008, 03:38 PM

Ashles:
Correct, it is a matter of how we define words. I will from now on refer to what I perceive with my ability as "perceptions", and "observations" will only refer to perceptions that have each been proven to be an accurate and true depiction of the real world.
Okay that's great. We are in agreement here.

Another language issue. I referred to "ability" as having the perceptions. Thank you for clearing out what our conflict was.
Again we have cleared up a possible misunderstanding.

I am open to the conclusion that the perceptions are not accurate observations. But based on past experiences of doing my best to check the accuracy of my perceptions, the accuracy has been compelling and at this point I have not come across any specific thing that would suggest no ability. It does not mean that I am not open to the possibility.
Okay we'll see what the IIG test shows.

Not at all. My perceptions are interesting to me and are positive in the same way as I appreciate my vision, hearing, and other senses of awareness. It is not unusual to me. I am not trying to be special. I really don't want to argue about how I feel about myself or my perceptions, I have been fully honest when I describe how I feel and how I feel is not the object of discussion here anyway.
We still disagree on this point but it's not of immediate issue. We won't make any further headway here until the IIG test is done and we see the outcome.

Exactly. Whether I pass or fail the test, in either case I get to keep the perceptions and experiences, because it is the experiences that I enjoy. Not some premature and unfounded belief that I'd have a paranormal ability, since that is just a label and what ever label it gets I get to keep the very same perception.
Again we have a little language issue here. Paranormal is not "just a label" - it has a very real and distinct meaning. And I would have thought that by now on this thread you should know that.
A perception that yields real information that is unknown to science (which you currently claim) IS Paranormal.
A perception which does not yield real information is NOT Paranormal.
It isn't just a label it has real meaning.

It really is a very consistent behaviour you are displaying which seeks to minimise the difference between a positive test result and a negtive test result.
The difference makes all the difference in the world to what you are experiencing.
If you still enjoy the ability knowing it is not yielding real information then that is great (although it probably would be worth knowing what is the actual cause).
But it is simply incorrect to imply that there is no real difference other than a simple and meaningless label.

I am not uncomfortable replacing words and have in fact already done so.
You have (although for full clarity we need to be sure that Paranormal is not seen as merely a label, but a real meaningful distinction).

Vibrational algebra is when I combine in my mind the individual vibrational aspects that I perceive of different things. I experience these merging and interacting to yield a resulting vibrational aspect which I can then translate into corresponding real-world objects. It works just like algebra, I can add or subtract vibrational aspects in my mind. I have not applied this in a scientific setting yet but will apply it heavily later on in my career. I even intend to try to build an instrument that calculates with vibrational information.
That really does not add any information to the discussion.

What would add information is any detail of how you would build an instrument to calculate this. Such an instrument would have to work in quantifiable information tha existed outside your perceptions.
How would such a device work?(I assume it isn't simply a calculator that you feed numbers that you have perceived into)

Exactly. I just wanted to describe how I perceive what is happening.
Are you saying you cannot in any way quantify your perceptions? How could you then create a machine to calculte them?

The imagination in the head is usually the starting point of most scientific work.
I specifically explained that.
I then said "You can't do science just by imagining it in your head" as in that cannot be the entire process.
The start point may be imagination but then you need to do actual experiments to confirm or disprove your hypothesis. Again I feel that was quite clear.
You may have the most vivid imagination in the world - that means nothing scientifically without real world experiments to back up your theories.

I only recently begun testing my perceptions. I did not know whether my ability would be strong enough on bacteria detection to perform with high enough frequency of observations to be useful for a test, but now that I am testing it I am more confident.
That really didn't answer my question (unless it answered it in exactly the way I predicted).

A failed experiment such as if a flask with the sample is accidentally knocked over and the test is ruined, should not be taken personally by the scientist.
Nobody has been discussing a voided experiment at any point. I don't understand the relevance of such an example. The scientist would run the experiment again.

And on the other hand when a null hypothesis is verified for instance that I do not have a paranormal ability, then that represents another type of "failed" experiment and is also not to be taken personally or emotionally.
That is not a "failed" experiment. It is an entirely successful experiment. An experiment is solely designed to find out as accurately as possible how reality operates. In no way would such an experiment be considered a failure.
It would only be correct to say a claimant had failed to acheive the level of results they had claimed they could.

I would not be bothered to find out that I do not have a paranormal ability. To this date I have not been able to dismiss the possibility of having a paranormal ability. I am working on designing a cereal test that does not allow confirmation bias. I would absolutely accept negative results. There just haven't been any yet.
Er I don't understand that comment. You have had negative results - they are detailed on this thread. You then changed the protocol and had positive results again.
This does not mean your ability isn't real, but you can't say you have not had negative results.

Yes language problems. My perceptions remain even if I fail the test, and I would continue to have the perceptions. That is what I meant. Whether it receives a label of ESP or synesthesia or some other unknown and non-paranormal explanation I am happy either way because I get to keep the perceptions. I am happy about keeping my perceptions for the same reason that a person who goes to have their eyesight tested is happy to know that even after the test they get to go home with their eyesight not taken away from them.
This reinforces an earlier point about your dislike of perceiving this perception as in any way negative. The perceptions are not "your eyesight" they are an abnormality of your perception.
A more relevant analogy would be someone who goes to have their eyesight tested and is found to have colourblindness and enjoys that colourblindness. If that is how you feel then that analogy would be relevant.

I get to keep it just like it is today. Nothing will be added to the perceptions, and nothing removed. It is the label I am looking for. And suddenly it seems like you are again not understanding the difference.
It is not the "label" that IIG are testing for, it is the actual posession of an abilty or the lack of that ability.

Because most of my statistical skills and experiences are in the field of chemistry.
I thought you said you didn't have statistical skills. :confused:

I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact I am prepared to critique my tests after I have had them, especially if I receive a passing score. If I pass the IIG test I will have to look very carefully at how it was conducted and will try to find any sources of error. This is not consistent to most claimants who would take the money and run but it is honestly how I feel about this.
We have never reached that point with other claimants so you cannot say what they might do. Other claimants I am sure would claim exactly the same desire to stringently examine the protocol as you claim.
It is entirely hypothetical at this stage.

In fact I have stated to the IIG that a condition for the test protocol must be outlined that if during or after the test some unexpected source of error was identified then we can cancel the test.
They would do that anyway. It would be weird if they didn't.

If you assume that I really want a reliable test result then this should make sense. It is like if you go to a doctor to find out whether you have a certain disease, even though you hope you are well you want to be sure that the diagnose is reliable. You wouldn't want to go home being diagnosed as well and having to worry whether maybe after all they missed it and gave you the wrong diagnose. You'd go back to have another more reliable test.
Yes that is a good way of putting it.

May I finish with a blunt question which hopefully will clarify some confusion I have which is again probably a language issue.

If the test were to yield negative results (i.e. results within the expected range of chance/guessing) would you accept that there was a possibility that your sensations were not based on real information and existed solely within your viusal processing system/imagination?
A yes or no answer would help with clarity.
If the answer is yes then we have no further disagreement.